The last best hope against populism is to expose it to government
反对民粹主义的最后希望就是让它暴露在政府面前

In the first-rate Stendhal novel that we call Emmanuel Macron’s life, the protagonist grows bolder and bolder as he rises through France. He marries who he likes, thanks. He joins Rothschild even as a banking crash turns public opinion against financiers. He sets up a party, gives it his own initials and wins the biggest directly elected office in Europe after jilting his mentor.
在这部被称为埃马纽埃尔-马克龙一生的一流司汤达小说中，主人公在法国的崛起之路越走越大胆。他娶了自己喜欢的人，谢谢。他加入了罗斯柴尔德集团，即使银行业的崩溃让公众舆论开始反对金融家。他成立了一个政党，用自己名字的首字母命名，并在抛弃导师后赢得了欧洲最大的直选职位。

His latest decision — to give the hard right an early shot at power — will be filed alongside those headstrong acts. It is no such thing. It is a work of cool logic.
他的最新决定--让强硬右翼尽早掌权--将与那些刚愎自用的行为一起归档。事实并非如此。这是一个冷静的逻辑。

The last best hope against populism in Europe is to expose it to government. The pressure of office might force anti-establishment parties to moderate, as Giorgia Meloni has done somewhat in Italy. Or it might reveal their incompetence and turpitude, as happened to Boris Johnson in Britain. Sometimes, of course, it will do neither: power will neither tame nor shame. (See Viktor Orbán.) But even then, these parties should at least become subject to the pendulum of politics. Time spent in government is time spent alienating voters with tangible decisions.
在欧洲，反对民粹主义的最后最大希望就是让它进入政府。政府的压力可能会迫使反建制政党有所收敛，乔治亚-梅洛尼（Giorgia Meloni）在意大利就是这样做的。或者像英国的鲍里斯-约翰逊（Boris Johnson）那样，揭露他们的无能和卑劣。当然，有时也会两败俱伤：权力既不会驯服，也不会羞辱。(参见维克托-欧尔班。）但即便如此，这些政党至少也应受到政治钟摆的影响。在政府中度过的时间就是用实际决策疏远选民的时间。

Right now, in much of Europe, populists have a goldilocks level of success: enough to foul the atmosphere, to spread the idea that simple answers to big problems exist if governments would but enact them, but not enough to have to prove this in office. The establishment has a record, and all records are flawed. Its enemies get to travel lighter. The contest between the two sides is, in Pentagon argot, asymmetric.
目前，在欧洲大部分地区，民粹主义者取得了金鸡独立式的成功：足以渲染气氛，散布只要政府颁布就能解决大问题的简单答案的观点，但还不足以在执政期间证明这一点。建制派有记录，而所有记录都是有缺陷的。它的敌人可以轻装上阵。用五角大楼的术语来说，双方的竞争是不对称的。

Note how many of the hard right’s relative underperformers in the European parliament elections are incumbents at home (Orbán’s Fidesz) or proppers-up of governments (the Sweden Democrats). This is the gravitational force that drags mainstream politicians down. Government brings round-the-clock attention, not just the curated broadcast rounds at which Nigel Farage excels. Above all, it brings the burden of making decisions that cost voters money.
请注意，在欧洲议会选举中表现相对不佳的硬右派中，有多少是国内的现任者（欧尔班的菲德斯党）或政府的支持者（瑞典民主党）。这就是拖累主流政治家的引力。政府带来的是全天候的关注，而不仅仅是奈杰尔-法拉奇（Nigel Farage）所擅长的精心策划的广播节目。最重要的是，它带来了让选民付出代价的决策负担。

I could cite tax rises here, to fund lavish promises. Or higher interest rates from overborrowing. But few things would harm the populist cause more than having to manage immigration. Their plausible-sounding alternative to foreign labour in low-wage sectors — pay domestic workers more — would be tested against the public’s price-sensitivity. Even if voters don’t balk at higher social care or retail costs, the trade-off would become apparent at last. Never having to be tested, populist ideas have a spurious credibility. Only a spell in government would change that.
在这里，我可以举出加税的例子，为奢侈的承诺提供资金。或者因过度借贷而提高利率。但是，对民粹主义事业伤害最大的莫过于管理移民。对于低工资行业的外来劳动力，他们的替代方案--给国内工人更多工资--听起来似乎很有道理，但这将经受公众对价格敏感性的考验。即使选民不会因为社会福利或零售成本的提高而反对，但权衡利弊的结果最终还是会显现出来。民粹主义的想法从未经过检验，因此具有虚假的可信度。只有在政府中任职才能改变这种状况。

What can be said against all this? “Donald Trump”, perhaps. High office didn’t temper the 45th US president, did show voters his worst, and still he is favourite to be the 47th. All true. But Europe, for now, is different. Most of its democracies aren’t quite as divided or tribal as the US, where, eventually, the question of what day of the week it is will generate a 50-50 polling result. Gross misgovernment would still discredit a leader in most of the continent. Consider the irrelevance of Johnson in the UK election, even as a loudmouth on the sidelines.
对这一切还能说什么呢？也许是 "唐纳德-特朗普"。高官厚禄并没有让这位美国第 45 任总统收敛，他确实向选民展示了自己最糟糕的一面，而且他仍然是第 47 任总统的热门人选。这些都是事实。但就目前而言，欧洲是不同的。欧洲大多数民主国家不像美国那样分裂或部落化，在美国，今天是星期几的问题最终会导致五五分成的民调结果。在非洲大陆的大多数国家，严重的执政失误仍会使领导人名誉扫地。考虑到约翰逊在英国大选中的无足轻重，即使他只是一个旁观者。

A better argument is that, once in office, populists might pervert the system to remain there, or do something so harmful as to outweigh the benefit of rendering them unelectable thereafter. (Such as leaving the world’s biggest single market.) Hence the cordon sanitaire of the German mainstream against the hard right.
一个更好的论据是，民粹主义者一旦上台，可能会为了继续留任而篡改制度，或者做出一些危害性极大的事情，以至于得不偿失，使他们此后无法当选。(比如离开世界上最大的单一市场。

It is an argument to be reckoned with. In an ideal world, getting close to power would be enough for populists to lose voters. Macron wants France to contemplate a Rassemblement National prime minister this summer, and demur. But he wouldn’t have taken the decision to hold an election if he saw nothing constructive at all in an RN win. At some point, voters have to live with the consequences of their stated desires.
这是一个值得考虑的论点。在一个理想的世界里，民粹主义者只要接近执政，就足以失去选民。马克龙希望法国在今年夏天考虑国民联盟的总理人选，但他不同意。但如果他认为国民联盟的胜利毫无建设性可言，他就不会决定举行选举。在某些时候，选民必须承担他们所表达的愿望的后果。

A notion dear to the west is that progress is made, and the truth arrived at, through argument. (Socrates has a lot to answer for.) This underestimates the role of practical demonstration. The west didn’t experience a human lifetime of moderate politics after 1945 because it was talked into it. What counted was the folk memory, now almost extinct, of what happened when nations last voted for parties that defined themselves against the system.
西方人的一个重要观念是，进步和真理都是通过论证取得的（苏格拉底有很多道理）。(这就低估了实际论证的作用。1945 年后，西方没有经历过人类一生的温和政治，因为它是被说服的。重要的是民间记忆（现在几乎已经绝迹），即各国最后一次投票支持反对体制的政党时发生了什么。

There might be no safe way of giving voters a controlled dose. But the status quo, in which populists are on television, on stage, but not on the hook for much, isn’t tenable. Macron’s election will be framed as another outrageous gamble from an almost novelistic homme du destin. It might in fact be the most prudent thing he could have done.
也许没有一种安全的方式能给选民提供有控制的剂量。但民粹主义者在电视上、在舞台上大放异彩，却不承担太多责任的现状是站不住脚的。马克龙的当选将被描绘成一个近乎新奇的 "命运之子"（homme du destin）的又一次离谱赌博。事实上，这可能是他所能做的最谨慎的事情。

janan.ganesh@ft.com