2020.05.09玛格丽特-麦克米伦谈作为历史转折点的covid-19

shiyi18

By Invitation | The world after covid-19
Margaret MacMillan on covid-19 as a turning point in history
The pandemic exposes our weaknesses and strengths. How the story unfolds will depend on leaders

May 9th 2020



In the winter of 1788-89, the desperate government of Louis XVI asked the French people to send in lists of their grievances. It was a fatal mistake. The cahiers de doléances served to articulate the public’s unspoken discontent and, equally important, its hopes for a better world. A crucial psychological barrier had fallen: it became possible to imagine a very different France. And the times—the moral and actual bankruptcy of the Ancien Régime, widespread crop failures and hopeless leadership—gave shape to the public’s aspirations. The fuse was lit for revolution.

France in 1789. Russia in 1917. The Europe of the 1930s. The pandemic of 2020. They are all junctures where the river of history changes direction. The covid-19 crisis may be a pivotal rather than a revolutionary moment but it, too, is challenging the old order. Like France’s cahiers, the coronavirus forces questions about what sort of future we want, what the proper role of government is and what makes a healthy society. We face a choice: to build better ways of dealing domestically and internationally with this challenge (and prepare for inevitable future ones) or let our world become meaner and more selfish, divided and suspicious.


Long before covid-19, popular thinkers like Thomas Piketty, the late Tony Judt and Paul Krugman were warning about deep social inequalities and the shortcomings of globalisation. There were sporadic protests like Occupy Wall Street or France’s gilets jaunes. Most of us (such is human nature) carried on living. We worried from time to time about climate change, that our children couldn’t afford houses and that there seemed to be more obscenely rich people along with more homeless ones. Covid-19 has turned a spotlight on the dark sides of our world. We have become aware of the fragility of international supply lines, the disadvantages of offshore sources for critical goods and the limits of international bodies. The chaotic responses and blame games of certain governments have exacerbated divisions in and among societies, perhaps permanently. America has withdrawn from moral and material leadership of the world. It and China have grown more hostile to one another, not less. Rogue states such as Russia gleefully make more trouble and the un is increasingly marginalised.

When you name things—grievances, say, as the French did—you give them form and make it harder to ignore them. We are doing that now with the flaws in our world and spelling out our hopes for something better. As the French looked at Britain and America as models, we can see that South Korea, Denmark and New Zealand have controlled the pandemic more effectively than other countries, in part because their peoples have faith in the authorities and each other. Without trust—that the water is clean, medicines are safe, or thugs won’t get away with it—societies are vulnerable. Covid-19 has caused fewer deaths proportionately in Germany than elsewhere because of the country’s well-funded health system and its competent state and federal governments. As history shows, those societies that survive and adapt best to catastrophes are already strong. Britain rose to the challenge of the Nazis because it was united; France was not and did not.


Much also depended then, and depends now, on leaders. As weaknesses are exposed, do leaders fix or exploit them? While Franklin Roosevelt was promising Americans a better tomorrow in the 1930s, Adolf Hitler was destroying the Weimar Republic and intoxicating Germans with promises of revenge for the Treaty of Versailles. As we know, that ended in a world war.

For every Jacinda Ardern or Angela Merkel, the leaders of New Zealand and Germany who are talking to their citizens about the difficult road ahead, there is an illiberal, populist demagogue playing to baser fears and fantasies. In Brazil President Jair Bolsonaro dismisses covid-19 as “the sniffles”; in India the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party blames it on the Muslims. President Donald Trump claimed he had “total” authority, demonstrating something about his instincts if not his knowledge of the American constitution.

Wise leaders in the past have been able to steer away from danger. In 1830 Britain was coping with unrest in Ireland, violent strikes at home and demands for more power from the growing commercial and industrial middle classes. The enlightened aristocrats of the new Whig government believed that they had a choice between revolution and reform, even if the latter was at the expense of their own power and privilege. In 1832 their Great Reform Act widened the franchise for Parliament. The Whigs did not remove all grievances, but they muted them. A century later another child of privilege, Roosevelt, brought in the New Deal which helped to save American society and capitalism.

The present crisis could be the opportunity for strategies to produce essential public goods and ensure that citizens have safe, decent and fulfilled lives. People coming out of a calamity are open to sweeping changes. Governments will find it hard to resist demands for improved social programmes now that they are spending as though John Maynard Keynes were in the room. Will the British again accept an underfunded National Health Service? And countries could invest in key organisations like the World Health Organisation and give it greater power to protect the world from disease. Perhaps, just perhaps, bodies such as the g7 and g20 could become forums for unity and not dissent.

Future historians, if there are any who can still research and speak freely, will analyse the choices that individual countries and the world made. Let us hope the story shows the better angels of our nature, in Abraham Lincoln’s words: enlightened leaders and publics creating together sane and inclusive policies, and strengthening our vital institutions at home and abroad. The alternative story will not have a happy ending. ■

Margaret MacMillan is a historian at the University of Toronto.



应邀参加｜"covid-19 "之后的世界
玛格丽特-麦克米伦谈作为历史转折点的covid-19
这场大流行病暴露了我们的弱点和优势。故事如何展开将取决于领导人。

2020年5月9日



在1788-89年的冬天，绝望的路易十六政府要求法国人民寄来他们的怨恨清单。这是一个致命的错误。怨愤书的作用是表达公众无言的不满，同样重要的是表达他们对一个更美好世界的希望。一个关键的心理障碍已经消失了：人们有可能想象一个非常不同的法国。而时代--旧制度在道德和现实上的破产、大面积的农作物歉收和无望的领导层--使公众的愿望得以形成。革命的导火线被点燃了。

1789年的法国。1917年的俄罗斯。1930年代的欧洲。2020年的大流行病。它们都是历史河流改变方向的关口。19号病毒危机可能是一个关键的时刻，而不是一个革命性的时刻，但它也在挑战旧秩序。就像法国的cahiers一样，冠状病毒迫使人们思考我们想要什么样的未来，政府的适当角色是什么，以及什么是健康的社会。我们面临着一个选择：是建立更好的方式在国内和国际上应对这一挑战（并为未来不可避免的挑战做好准备），还是让我们的世界变得更加卑鄙和自私，分裂和怀疑。


早在covid-19之前，像托马斯-皮凯蒂、已故的托尼-朱特和保罗-克鲁格曼这样的流行思想家就在警告深刻的社会不平等和全球化的缺点。有零星的抗议活动，如 "占领华尔街 "或法国的 "青年党"。我们中的大多数人（这就是人类的本性）继续生活。我们不时地担心气候变化，担心我们的孩子买不起房子，担心似乎有更多的暴发户和更多的无家可归的人。Covid-19让我们看到了我们世界的黑暗面。我们已经意识到国际供应线的脆弱性，关键货物的海外来源的劣势和国际机构的局限性。某些政府的混乱反应和指责游戏加剧了社会内部和社会之间的分歧，也许是永久性的。美国已经退出了对世界的道德和物质领导。它和中国之间的敌意越来越多，而不是越来越少。像俄罗斯这样的流氓国家乐此不疲地制造更多的麻烦，联合国越来越被边缘化。

当你为事物命名时--比如说，像法国人那样--你就赋予了它们形式，并使其更难被忽视。我们现在正在这样做，处理我们世界的缺陷，并阐明我们对更好事物的希望。正如法国人将英国和美国作为榜样，我们可以看到，韩国、丹麦和新西兰比其他国家更有效地控制了大流行病，部分原因是他们的人民对当局和彼此有信心。如果没有信任--水是干净的，药品是安全的，或者暴徒不会逍遥法外--社会就很脆弱。科维德-19在德国造成的死亡比例比其他地方要少，因为该国有资金充足的卫生系统和有能力的州政府和联邦政府。正如历史所表明的那样，那些能在灾难中生存和适应的社会已经很强大。英国之所以能够应对纳粹的挑战，是因为它是团结的；法国不是，也没有。


这在很大程度上也取决于当时的领导人，现在也是如此。随着弱点的暴露，领导人是修复还是利用这些弱点？20世纪30年代，当富兰克林-罗斯福向美国人承诺一个更美好的明天时，阿道夫-希特勒正在摧毁魏玛共和国，并以对《凡尔赛条约》的报复承诺来迷惑德国人。正如我们所知，这以一场世界大战而告终。

新西兰和德国的领导人Jacinda Ardern或Angela Merkel都在与他们的公民谈论未来的艰难道路，而每一个人都有一个不自由的、民粹主义的煽动者，在玩弄更基本的恐惧和幻想。在巴西，总统Jair Bolsonaro将covid-19斥之为 "鼻炎"；在印度，执政的印度人民党将其归咎于穆斯林。唐纳德-特朗普总统声称他拥有 "全部 "权力，如果不是对美国宪法的了解，也显示了他的一些本能。

过去明智的领导人一直能够引导人们远离危险。1830年，英国正在应对爱尔兰的动荡，国内的暴力罢工，以及不断增长的工商业中产阶级对更多权力的要求。新辉格党政府的开明贵族们认为，他们可以在革命和改革之间做出选择，即使后者是以牺牲他们自己的权力和特权为代价。1832年，他们的《大改革法案》扩大了议会的选举权。辉格党并没有消除所有的不满，但他们消减了这些不满。一个世纪后，另一个特权的孩子，罗斯福，带来了新政，这有助于拯救美国社会和资本主义。

目前的危机可能是战略的机会，以生产基本的公共产品，并确保公民有安全、体面和充实的生活。走出灾难的人们对全面的变化持开放态度。政府会发现很难抵制对改善社会项目的要求，因为他们现在的开支就像约翰-梅纳德-凯恩斯在房间里一样。英国人会再次接受一个资金不足的国家卫生服务吗？各国可以对世界卫生组织这样的关键组织进行投资，并赋予其更大的权力，以保护世界免受疾病的影响。也许，只是也许，像七国集团和二十国集团这样的机构可以成为团结而非异议的论坛。

未来的历史学家，如果有任何仍能进行研究和自由发言的人，将分析各个国家和世界做出的选择。让我们希望这个故事展现出我们本性中更好的天使，用林肯的话说：开明的领导人和公众共同创造出理智和包容的政策，并加强我们在国内和国外的重要机构。另一个故事将不会有一个快乐的结局。■

Margaret MacMillan是多伦多大学的历史学家。