民粹主義要的是懲罰

I’ve been trying to understand why people vote populist so, among other things, I recently began following the Trump-supporting Breitbart News on Twitter. I had expected to encounter triumphant joy. After all, Breitbart’s man has a unique chance to remake America. But instead, Breitbart’s dominant tone is the sneer. Many of the tweets mock pundits and celebrities who say anything leftie. For instance, when actor Chris Evans rants about Trump, Breitbart tweets a gleeful loudly crying face emoji. Another big category of tweets gloats about immigrants accused of crimes. Above a story about a “six-time deportee” Mexican in Texas arrested for drunk-driving, Breitbart breaks into song: “ Wall, wall, wall your south, gently by the Rio ”.

我近來在試圖理解爲何人們會把票投給民粹主義者，爲此，我嘗試了若干辦法，包括最近開始在Twitter上關注支持特朗普的Breitbart News。我原本預期會目睹一種勝利的喜悅。畢竟，Breitbart支持的那個人擁有了重塑美國的獨一無二的機遇。然而事實並非如此，Breitbart的整體基調是各種冷嘲熱諷。該網站發的許多推文都在嘲笑發表任何左翼言論的專家和名人。比如，當演員克里斯?埃文斯(Chris Evans)慷慨激昂地表達他對特朗普的不滿時，Breitbart在Twitter上發了一個幸災樂禍的“大哭”emoji表情符號。還有一大類推文對被控犯罪的移民幸災樂禍。在轉發有關德克薩斯一名“曾被六次驅逐出境”的墨西哥人因醉駕被捕的報道時，Breitbart唱起了歌：“牆，牆，在南方豎起牆，溫柔地沿着格蘭德河旁。”

Much less energy is spent plugging Trump’s plans. In fact, Breitbart’s main current policy drive is to convince Republicans to keep Obamacare’s health coverage for poorer Americans.

Breitbart的Twitter賬號放在宣傳特朗普各項計劃上的精力就少得多了。事實上，Breitbart當前在政策問題上的主要目標是，說服共和黨人不讓美國窮人享受奧巴馬醫改(Obamacare)的醫保覆蓋。

At first I was baffled. If your guy runs the US, who cares about actors or small-time Mexican lawbreakers? But I have gradually realised that populism isn’t so much about finding solutions. It promises something different, and possibly more appealing: punishment.

起初我大惑不解。你們支持的那個人都已經執掌美國了，誰還關心那些演員或犯了法的墨西哥小人物？不過，我逐漸認識到民粹主義在乎的不是找到解決方案。它承諾的是某種不同的、也許更吸引人的東西：懲罰。

“Penal populism” has its roots in the early 1990s, explain criminologist John Pratt and legal scholar Michelle Miao. Back then, English-speaking countries got “tough on crime” by locking up more people. Liberals often retorted that this wouldn’t reduce crime. However, they misunderstood the populist impulse. Populists didn’t expect to solve crime; punishment itself was the point. Making somebody else suffer is satisfying, explains Princeton anthropologist Didier Fassin. Since the 1990s, voters’ anxiety has shifted from crime to the “mass movement of peoples”, write Pratt and Miao. In fact, this movement has become conflated with crime: Trump equates Mexicans with rapists, and refugees with terrorists. Naturally, these people require punishment.

根據犯罪學家約翰?普拉特(John Pratt)和法學學者苗苗(Michelle Miao)的解釋，“刑罰民粹主義(penal populism)”要回溯至上世紀90年代初。當時，英語國家通過把更多人關進牢裏“嚴懲犯罪”。當時自由派人士時常反駁稱，這麼做不會減少犯罪。然而，他們誤解了這種民粹主義衝動。民粹主義者並不指望解決犯罪，懲罰本身才是關鍵所在。普林斯頓(Princeton)人類學家迪迪埃?法桑(Didier Fassin)指出，讓他人痛苦能帶來滿足感。普拉特和苗苗寫道，自上世紀90年代以來，選民焦慮的對象已從犯罪轉向“大規模人員遷徙”。事實上，這種人員遷徙已經和犯罪合而爲一：特朗普就把墨西哥人等同於強姦犯，難民等同於恐怖分子。自然，這些人必須受到懲罰。

But “liberal elites” do too. There’s a straight line from harsher prison sentences to the Trumpist “Lock her up!” chant about Hillary Clinton.

不過，“自由派精英”也必須受到懲罰。從更嚴厲的量刑到特朗普支持者“把她（希拉里?克林頓(Hillary Clinton)）關進牢裏！”的口號之間，是存在直接聯繫的。

All populist movements now offer some version of “Lock her up!”. Pim Siegers, a village councillor for the far-left Dutch Socialist Party, told me that when he tried to convince people that the populist Geert Wilders wouldn’t solve their problems, they often replied: “We know. But ‘they’ — the elite — don’t like him.” Voting populist is often simply a way to punish elites. One campaign poster during last year’s Brexit referendum urged, beneath a picture of the grinning politicians David Cameron and George Osborne: “Wipe the smile off their faces. Vote Leave.” No matter that voting Leave might make you worse off; at least it would hurt the elite too. Similarly, many poor Americans wanted to abolish Obamacare chiefly to punish Barack Obama.

如今，所有民粹主義運動都在某種程度上跟“把她關進牢裏！”的口號類似。極左的荷蘭社會黨(Dutch Socialist Party)的一名村議員皮姆?西格斯(Pim Siegers)曾告訴我，當他試圖說服人們民粹主義者海爾特?維爾德斯(Geert Wilders)不會解決他們的問題時，他們往往回答說：“我們知道。但‘他們’——那些精英——不喜歡他。”投票給民粹主義者往往只是懲罰精英人士的一種方式。去年英國退歐公投期間，有一張宣傳海報在咧嘴笑着的戴維?卡梅倫(David Cameron)和喬治?奧斯本(George Osborne)照片下面醒目地寫道：“讓他們笑不出來。投票給退歐。”投票給退歐會不會讓你的生活變慘是無關緊要的，至少這麼做也會讓精英人士痛苦。與此類似，許多貧窮的美國人之所以想廢除“奧巴馬醫改”(Obamacare)，主要是爲了懲罰巴拉克?奧巴馬(Barack Obama)。

Liberals still often delude themselves that today’s political battle is about which side has better solutions. When Trump proposes killing off the National Endowment for the Arts, liberals counter that the NEA costs taxpayers a pittance (less, for instance, than Trump’s weekend trips to his Mar-a-Lago resort). But smart policymaking isn’t the point. Trashing the NEA punishes liberals.

自由派人士仍然時常誤以爲，今天的政治鬥爭拼的是哪一方有更好的解決方案。當特朗普提議撤銷國家藝術基金會（National Endowment for the Arts，簡稱NEA）時，自由派人士反駁說，NEA花費的納稅人的錢少之又少——舉例來說，還沒有特朗普週末赴海湖莊園(Mar-a-Lago)度假村的開銷大。然而，明智的決策並不是關鍵所在。關鍵在於撤銷NEA將會懲罰自由派人士。

Populist leaders act out revenge fantasies for people who feel slighted. Hence that quintessential populist persona (which Trump incarnates): the troll. Trump being Trump, he sometimes turns the dial up to 11 and goes from punishment to sadism, as in his odes to waterboarding.

民粹主義領導人將那些感覺受到輕視的人們的復仇幻想變成現實。因此就出現了那種典型的民粹主義角色（特朗普就是代表）：噴子。特朗普這個人就是這樣，他有時候會走極端，逾越懲罰的邊界，變爲施虐狂——正如他對水刑的讚美所示。

The joy of punishment goes back to the Old Testament, but Randy Newman captured it beautifully in his 1988 satirical song “I Want You To Hurt Like I Do” (“One thing we all have in common/ And it’s something everyone can understand/ All over the world sing along… ”). Newman wrote the song as a counter to “We Are the World”, the liberal-solutions anthem.

懲罰的快樂可回溯至《舊約全書》(Old Testament)。不過，在其1988年的諷刺歌曲《我希望你像我一樣痛》(I Want You To Hurt Like I Do)中，蘭迪?紐曼(Randy Newman)對這種快樂做了完美的描述：“有一樣東西我們所有人都有/這樣東西每個人都能理解/全世界都一起唱和……(I Want You To Hurt Like I Do” (“One thing we all have in common/ And it’s something everyone can understand/ All over the world sing along…)”紐曼創作這首歌，是爲了反對《天下一家》(We Are the World)——歌頌自由派解決方案的一首歌。

American conservatives understand the joy of punishment. They promise to punish people who make “bad choices”. If you steal or have an abortion, conservatives want to lock you up; and if you can’t afford healthcare, they won’t let you have it.

美國保守主義者理解懲罰的快樂。他們發誓要懲罰做出“錯誤選擇”的人。如果你偷盜或墮胎，保守主義者想把你關進牢裏。如果你買不起醫療保險，他們不會讓你享有醫療保障。

Today’s PC college students also offer punishment. When a rightwing speaker comes to campus, like Charles Murray visiting Middlebury College this month, they try to silence or attack him. It’s satisfying.

如今，講究政治正確的大學生也會施加懲罰。當右翼人士來到學校發表演講，就像查爾斯?默裏(Charles Murray)在3月訪問明德學院(Middlebury College)時那樣，大學生試圖讓演講發表不成或攻擊來賓。這麼做帶來滿足感。

Leftist political parties used to try to hurt people too. The Bolsheviks put aristocrats up against the wall, and, for decades afterwards, the left promised to soak the rich. However, Tony Blair and Bill Clinton ended that in the 1990s. Nowadays liberal parties don’t do much hating. They might promise to keep out some immigrants or lock up criminals, but they do so regretfully. Mostly, they offer small, uninspiring solutions to people’s problems. But few believe liberal solutions any more.

左翼政黨過去也試圖讓人痛苦。布爾什維克曾把貴族逼入絕境，而在之後的數十年裏，左翼人士一直髮誓劫富濟貧。不過，託尼?布萊爾(Tony Blair)和比爾?克林頓(Bill Clinton)在上世紀90年代結束了這種狀況。如今，自由派政黨沒有太多的憎恨情緒。他們也許會發誓要把部分移民擋在國門外、或把犯罪分子關進牢裏，但他們是帶着遺憾的情緒這麼做的。通常，他們會爲人們的問題提供小的、沒意思的解決方案。然而，相信自由派解決方案的人沒有幾個了。

By contrast, populist promises of punishment are credible. True, Trump cannot punish everyone he wants to: judges have blocked his “Muslim ban”, and Mexico won’t pay for the wall. Still, he is deporting poor Hispanic mothers and humiliating journalists. Anyway, his presidency itself is a daily punishment for liberals. Who needs solutions when you can make people hurt like you do?

相反，民粹主義的懲罰承諾則是可信的。沒錯，特朗普無法懲罰他想懲罰的每個人：法官已封殺了他的“穆斯林禁令”，墨西哥也不會爲修牆付賬。然而，他仍然在將貧窮的拉丁裔母親驅逐出境，仍然在侮辱記者。不管怎麼說，他當總統本身每一天都是對自由派的懲罰。如果你能讓別人像你一樣痛，誰還需要解決問題的方案？

Happily for American liberals, they have now found their own version of populist rage. They have finally identified someone they want to punish: Trump.

對美國自由派人士來說，開心的是他們現在找到了自身版本的民粹主義憤怒。他們最終發現了他們想要懲罰的人——特朗普。