谷歌翻译：
我七次当选加拿大议会议员，其中三次担任总理。 我没想到唐纳德·特朗普会当选美国总统。 但与大多数观察家不同的是，我确实认为这至少是可能的。 为什么？
因为我感觉到政治格局已经发生了变化，特朗普先生肯定也感觉到了。
根本问题是：在过去的几十年里，由于全球化，十亿人（主要是亚洲新兴市场的人）摆脱了贫困。 这当然是一件好事。 然而，在许多西方国家，同期劳动人民的收入却停滞不前甚至下降。
简而言之，许多美国人投票支持唐纳德·特朗普，因为全球经济并不适合他们。 我们可以假装这是一种错误的看法。 我们可以继续努力让人们相信他们误解了自己的生活。 或者我们可以尝试理解他们在说什么并提供一些解决方案。
我更喜欢后一种方法。
让我从这个开始：
正如英国记者大卫·古德哈特所描述的那样，在我们当代的世界中，有一些人可以生活在“任何地方”，也有一些人生活在“某个地方”。
想象一下您在一家国际银行、计算机公司或咨询公司工作。 您可以在纽约、伦敦或新加坡醒来并享受宾至如归的感觉。 您的工作不会受到进口竞争或技术错位的威胁。 你们公开支持所有国际贸易协定和高水平移民。 您是可以在任何地方生活的人之一。 这样的人有很多。 但还有很多与他们完全不同的人。
假设您是工厂工人、小企业主或零售业人员。 您的工作因外包、廉价进口产品和技术变革而受到干扰。 您的孩子在当地学校就读，年迈的父母住在附近。 您的社交生活与当地教堂、运动队或社区团体有关。
如果你的公司情况不妙，或者政客的政策选择被证明是错误的，你就不能把你的生活转移到其他地方。 不管你喜欢与否，你取决于你所在国家或州政府的经济政策。 当它没有为你实现时，你就会不高兴。 当它完全忽视你时，你就会生气。
Anywheres 很容易消除这些担忧。 但“无处不在”对全球解决方案和跨国政治机构的信心更多地是建立在幻想而非事实之上。
事实是，法律法规以及货币和财政稳定等的关键功能是由国家而不是全球机构提供的。
这个国家尽管有种种缺陷，但却是一个具体的现实。 “全球社区”只不过是一个概念。 然而，正是那些对全球化抱有信念的“无处不在”——而不是“某处”——主导了几乎每个发达国家的政治。
也就是说，到现在为止。
这种巨大的变化不仅限于美国。 同样的动态——“任何地方”的精英与“某个地方”的民粹主义者——正在整个西方世界上演。
正如我试图表明的那样，这些民粹主义者并不是主流媒体所描绘的无知和误导的“可悲者”。 他们是我们的家人、朋友和邻居。 顾名思义，民粹主义者代表的是普通民众的利益。 而且，在民主制度中，人民应该是我们的客户。
那么，我们怎样才能最好地为他们服务呢？ 我提出了一种我称之为“民粹主义保守主义”的方法。 我们必须立足于久经考验的真正的保守价值观，谈论那些与“某处”及其家人有关的问题——那些普通人，而不是精英。 这些问题包括市场经济、贸易、全球化和移民。
在解决这些问题时，保守派应该继续支持自由市场、支持贸易、支持全球化和支持移民。 在任何这些领域走完全相反的方向都是错误的。
但亲市场并不意味着所有监管都应该废除，或者政府永远不应该干预以保护工人。 支持贸易并不意味着每一项贸易协定都是好的。 支持全球化不应意味着放弃对我们国家和当地社区的忠诚或责任。 支持移民绝不意味着制裁非法移民、消除我们的边界或忽视我们公民的利益。
我称之为“民粹主义保守主义”，但这实际上只是保守主义。
保守主义就是要看到世界的本来面目。 它本质上也是民粹主义的，因为它是为真实的人而不是理论服务。
我是斯蒂芬·哈珀，普拉格大学《此时此地：颠覆时代的政治与领导力》一书的作者。
原文：
I was elected to the Parliament of Canada seven times—three times as Prime Minister. I did not expect Donald Trump to be elected President of the United States. But unlike most observers, I did think it was at least possible. Why?
Because I sensed, as Mr. Trump surely did, that the political landscape had shifted.
The underlying issue is this: Over the last few decades, thanks to globalization, a billion people—mostly in the emerging markets of Asia—have lifted themselves out of poverty. This, of course, is a good thing. Yet, in many Western countries, the incomes of working people have stagnated or even declined over the same period.
In short, many Americans voted for Donald Trump because the global economy has not been working for them. We can pretend that this is a false perception. We can keep trying to convince people that they misunderstand their own lives. Or we can try to understand what they are saying and offer some solutions.
I prefer the latter approach.
Let me begin with this:
In our contemporary world, there are, as British journalist David Goodhart describes it, those who can live “Anywhere,” and those who live “Somewhere.”
Imagine you work for an international bank, computer company, or consulting firm. You can wake up in New York, London, or Singapore and feel at home. Your work is not threatened by import competition or technological dislocation. You vocally support all international trade agreements and high levels of immigration. You are one of those who can live Anywhere. There are a lot of those people. But there are a lot more completely _unlike_ them.
Let’s say you’re a factory worker, a small-businessperson, or in retail sales. Your work has been disrupted by outsourcing, cheap imports and technological change. Your children attend the local schools and your aging parents live nearby. Your social life is connected to a local church, sports team, or community group.
If things go badly at your company, or if policy choices by politicians turn out to be wrong, you can’t just shift your life to somewhere else. Like it or not, you depend on the economic policies of your national or state government. When it doesn’t come through for you, you’re not happy. And when it ignores you entirely, you get angry.
It’s easy for Anywheres to dismiss these concerns. But the Anywheres’ faith in global solutions and multi-national political bodies is founded more on fantasy than fact.
The fact is, the critical functions of laws and regulations and monetary and fiscal stability, among other things, are provided by nations, not global institutions.
The nation, with all its flaws, is a concrete reality. The “global community” is little more than a concept. Yet it is the Anywheres, with their faith in globalization—not the Somewheres—who have dominated the politics of almost every advanced country.
That is, until now.
This sea-change is not limited to the United States. The same dynamics—“Anywhere” elites versus “Somewhere” populists—is playing out all across the Western world.
These populists, as I’ve tried to show, are not the ignorant and misguided “deplorables” depicted in mainstream media. They are our family, friends, and neighbors. The populists represent, by definition, the interests of ordinary people. And, in a democratic system, the people are supposed to be our customers.
So, how then can we best serve them? I propose an approach I call “populist conservatism.” Grounding ourselves in tried and true conservative values, we must speak to the issues that concern the Somewheres and their families—those of ordinary people, not elites. Those issues include market economics, trade, globalization, and immigration.
In addressing these issues, conservatives should remain pro-free market, pro-trade, pro-globalization and pro-immigration. Going in a completely opposite direction in any of these areas is a mistake.
But being pro-market does not mean that all regulations should be dismantled or that governments should never intervene to protect workers. Being pro-trade does not imply that every trade agreement is a good one. Being pro-globalization should not entail abdicating loyalty or responsibility to our country and our local communities. And being pro-immigration should never mean sanctioning illegal immigration, erasing our borders, or ignoring the interests of our citizens.
I call this “populist conservatism,” but it’s really just conservatism.
Conservatism is about seeing the world as it is. It’s also inherently populist because it is about serving real people rather than theories.
I’m Stephen Harper, author of _Right Here, Right Now: Politics and Leadership in the Age of Disruption_, for Prager University.
