What Do Trump and Marx Have in Common?
HAMBURG, Germany — We have a word in German, “Wutbürger,” which means “angry citizen” — though like many German compound words, its meaning can never quite be captured in a pithy English translation. And yet nothing in either language quite frames this current political moment.
It is a relatively new expression, with a derogatory connotation. A Wutbürger rages against a new train station and tilts against wind turbines. Wutbürgers came out in protest after the Berlin government decided to bail out Greece and to accept roughly one million refugees and migrants into Germany.
Wutbürgers lie at both ends of the political spectrum; they flock to the right-wing Alternative für Deutschland (A.F.D.) and the socialist Linke (Left) Party. The left wing has long had a place in German politics, and the Linke has deep roots in the former East Germany’s ruling party. And we’ve had a fringe right wing since the postwar period began. But the populist anger of the A.F.D. is something new: Anti-establishment, anti-European Union and anti-globalization, the A.F.D. didn’t exist four years ago. Today, 18 percent of Germans would consider voting for it.
愤怒的公民存在于政坛光谱的各极，他们纷纷加入右翼的另类选择党（Alternative für Deutschland，简称AFD）以及社会主义的左翼党(Linke Party)。左翼在德国政治中一直占据一定的地位，左翼党与前东德的执政党颇有渊源。自战后时期以来，我们一直有一个处于边缘地位的右翼。但是，另类选择党的平民主义愤怒是新鲜事物：反权威、反欧盟、反全球化。该党8年前才出现，但如今，18%的德国人会考虑投票支持它。
The same thing is happening elsewhere in Europe: Many British Wutbürgers voted for Brexit. French Wutbürgers will vote for Marine Le Pen’s National Front. Perhaps the most powerful Wutbürger of them all is Donald J. Trump.
同样的事情正在欧洲其他地方发生：很多愤怒的英国公民投票支持退欧。愤怒的法国公民会投票支持马琳·勒庞(Marine Le Pen)的国民阵线党(National Front)。也许最有影响力的愤怒公民是唐纳德·J·特朗普(Donald J. Trump)。
Which raises the question: How was anger hijacked?
In its pure form, anger is a wonderful force of change. Just imagine a world without anger. In Germany, without the anger of the labor movement, we would still have a class-based voting system that privileged the wealthy, and workers would still toil 16 hours a day without pension rights. Britain and France would still be ruled by absolute monarchs. The Iron Curtain would still divide Europe, the United States would still be a British colony and its slaves could only dream of casting a vote this Nov. 8.
Karl Marx was a Wutbürger. So were Montesquieu, William Wilberforce, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the tens of thousands of Eastern German protesters who brought down the Berlin Wall in 1989.
卡尔·马克思(Karl Marx)是愤怒的公民。孟德斯鸠(Montesquieu)、威廉·威尔伯福斯(William Wilberforce)、牧师小马丁·路德·金博士(Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.)，以及1989年推倒柏林墙的数以万计的东德抗议者，他们都是愤怒的公民。
Now: Compare these spirits to the current parties claiming to stand for necessary change. Mr. Trump vs. Dr. King. Sadly, the leaders of today’s Wutbürger movements never grasped the difference between anger driven by righteousness and anger driven by hate.
Anger works like gasoline. If you use it intelligently and in a controlled manner, you can move the world. That’s called progress. Or you just spill it about and ignite it, creating spectacular explosions. That’s called arson.
Unfortunately, a lack of maturity and prudence today exists among not just the new populist class, but parts of the political establishment. The governing class needs to understand that just because people are embittered and paranoid doesn’t mean they don’t have a case. A growing number of voters are going into meltdown because they believe that politicians — and journalists — don’t see what they see.
Sure, the injustices they see are, in historical perspective, less stark and obvious than in the days of Marx or King. The injustices of today are smaller, but they are more complex. And this is what makes them all the more terrifying.
If John Steinbeck could travel the West today as he traveled America three generations ago, leaving the highways to visit forgotten towns, documenting people’s struggles as he did in “The Grapes of Wrath,’’ he would find much the same to write about. Globalization and its masters have capitalized on enormous pay gaps between West and East, at a huge profit for them, and huge cost to others.
如果约翰·斯坦贝克(John Steinbeck)现在能像70多年前周游美国那样去美国西部旅行，离开高速公路，探访遭人遗忘的小镇，像写《愤怒的葡萄》(The Grapes of Wrath)那样记录人们的挣扎，他会发现有很多相同的东西可写。全球化及其主导者利用东西方之间的巨大薪酬差距，为自己攫取巨额利益，让他人付出巨大代价。
The upper class has gained much more from the internationalization of trade and finances than the working class has, often in obscene ways. Bankers get bonuses despite making idiotic decisions that trigger staggering losses. Giant enterprises like Facebook or Apple pay minimal taxes, while blue-collar workers have to labor harder — even taking a second or third job — to maintain their standard of living. And this is as true in Germany, France or Austria as it is in Ohio or Florida.
In Germany, some 60 percent of A.F.D. supporters say globalization has “mainly negative” effects. We live in a world, the liberal British historian Timothy Garton Ash noted lately, “which would have Marx rubbing his hands with Schadenfreude.”
在德国，约60%的另类选择党支持者称，全球化“主要带来了负面”影响。不久前，英国自由主义史学家蒂莫西·加顿·阿什(Timothy Garton Ash )指出，如果马克思看到我们现在生活的世界，“他会幸灾乐祸地直搓手”。
The grievances of white, often less-educated voters on both sides of the Atlantic are often dismissed as xenophobic, simplistic hillbillyism. But doing so comes at a cost. Europe’s traditional force of social change, its social democrats, appear to just not get it. When Hillary Clinton calls half of Mr. Trump’s voters a “basket of deplorables,” she sounds as aloof as Marie Antoinette, telling French subjects who had no bread to “eat cake.” In Germany, a deputy Social Democrat leader, Ralf Stegner, displays a similar arrogance when he calls A.F.D. supporters “racists” and “skunks.” Media reports often convey the same degree of contempt.
大西洋两岸受教育程度较低的白人投票者的抱怨，常常被斥为仇外的、过于简单化的乡巴佬主义。但是，这么做是有代价的。欧洲的传统社会改革力量，也就是它的社会民主人士，似乎不明白这一点。希拉里·克林顿(Hillary Clinton)称特朗普的一半支持者是“遭人唾弃之辈”，听起来和让吃不上面包的法国民众去“吃蛋糕”的玛丽·安托瓦内特(Marie Antoinette)一样高高在上。德国的社会民主党(Social Democrat)副党魁拉尔夫·施戴格纳(Ralf Stegner)表现出类似的傲慢，称另类选择党的支持者是“种族主义者”和“臭鼬”。媒体报道往往传达出同等程度的轻蔑。
In Germany a recent poll showed that only 14 percent of the citizens trusted the politicians. This is an alarming figure, in a country where faith in a progressive, democratic government has been a cornerstone of our postwar peace. But this presumes that legitimate anger will be acknowledged as such. If this faith is rattled, democracy loses its basic promise.
Amid their mutual finger-pointing, neither populist nor established parties acknowledge that both are squandering people’s anger, either by turning this anger into counterproductive hatred or by denouncing and dismissing it. Mrs. Clinton has the chance to change, by leading a political establishment that examines and processes anger instead of merely producing and dismissing it. If she does, let’s hope Europe once again looks to America as a model for democracy.