Nationalism is a slippery concept, which is why politicians find it so easy to manipulate. At its best, it unites the country around common values to accomplish things that people could never manage alone. This “civic nationalism” is conciliatory and forward-looking—the nationalism of the Peace Corps, say, or Canada’s inclusive patriotism or German support for the home team as hosts of the 2006 World Cup. Civic nationalism appeals to universal values, such as freedom and equality. It contrasts with “ethnic nationalism”, which is zero-sum, aggressive and nostalgic and which draws on race or history to set the nation apart. In its darkest hour in the first half of the 20th century ethnic nationalism led to war.
AFTER the sans culottes rose up against Louis XVI in 1789 they drew up a declaration of the universal rights of man and of the citizen. Napoleon’s Grande Armée marched not just for the glory of France but for liberty, equality and fraternity. By contrast, the nationalism born with the unification of Germany decades later harked back to Blut und Boden—blood and soil—a romantic and exclusive belief in race and tradition as the wellspring of national belonging. The German legions were fighting for their Volk and against the world.
（中略）
It is troubling, then, how many countries are shifting from the universal, civic nationalism towards the blood-and-soil, ethnic sort. As positive patriotism warps into negative nationalism, solidarity is mutating into distrust of minorities, who are present in growing numbers (see chart 1). A benign love of one’s country—the spirit that impels Americans to salute the Stars and Stripes, Nigerians to cheer the Super Eagles and Britons to buy Duchess of Cambridge teacups—is being replaced by an urge to look on the world with mistrust.
この記事の締めはグローバル化を支持する若者たちに期待を込めたものでした。
But youngsters seem to find these changes less frightening. Although just 37% of French people believe that “globalisation is a force for good”, 77% of 18- to 24-year-olds do. The new nationalists are riding high on promises to close borders and restore societies to a past homogeneity. But if the next generation holds out, the future may once more be cosmopolitan.
ただBut if the next generation holds out, the future may once more be cosmopolitan.なのかは疑問です。今若い人たちはグローバル化で成功を収めるチャンスがありますが、その後、年を取り自分にはチャンスがないことを悟った人たちが相変わらずcosmopolitanであるとは思えないからです。
Economistの表紙には太鼓や笛を持ったトランプとプーチン、UKIPのファラージが描かれていますがArchibald Willardという画家によるThe Spirit of '76 (previously known as Yankee Doodle)という作品が元になっているようです。
(Wikipedia) Willard's most famous work is The Spirit of '76 (previously known as Yankee Doodle), which was exhibited and widely seen at the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1876. The original is displayed in Abbot Hall, Marblehead, Massachusetts. Several later variations painted by Willard have been exhibited around the country (including in the United States Department of State). Of note, he used his father, Samuel Willard, as the model for the middle character of the painting.[6] Willard developed the painting from a sketch, which included three men dancing and singing. He also made several other works of art, including The Blue Girl, Pluck, and others not as recognized.
（オックスフォード） Yankee Doodle a popular 18th-century marching song which has become almost a national song in the US. It was first sung by British soldiers to make fun of Americans during the American Revolution, but then became popular with George Washington's soldiers. 'Yankee' probably comes from 'Janke', the Dutch for 'Johnny' and a common name in early New York. 'Doodle' is an old-fashioned English word meaning a stupid person. The song begins:
Yankee Doodle came to town, Riding on a pony; He stuck a feather in his cap And called it macaroni.
Far away in Japan, a decade later, Junko Tabei was wrestling with similar problems of mountains and male expectations. She wanted to be a climber: if possible, conquering the highest mountains in every country in the world. A school trip up Mount Asahi, to a strange volcanic region of bleak rocks and hot springs, had made her determined to do nothing else. But women in Japan, much like Mrs Hunter Gordon in leafy Camberley, were expected to spend their lives looking after houses and children. Mrs Tabei rejected that. Why should the men who ruled the world smother women’s dreams in domesticity? Doubtless because they wanted to keep them at their beck and call—and not standing on some distant peak with an ice-pick raised triumphant in the air.
In 2012, Tabei told the Japan Times she was proud of how her ascent was viewed. "Back in 1970s Japan, it was still widely considered that men were the ones to work outside and women would stay at home. "Even women who had jobs - they were asked just to serve tea. So it was unthinkable for them to be promoted in their workplaces."
（オックスフォード） cross your fingers to hope that your plans will be successful (sometimes putting one finger across another as a sign of hoping for good luck) I'm crossing my fingers that my proposal will be accepted. Keep your fingers crossed!
In one sense Mrs Clinton is revolutionary. She would be America’s first female president in the 240 years since independence. This is not a clinching reason to vote for her. But it would be a genuine achievement. In every other sense, however, Mrs Clinton is a self-confessed incrementalist. She believes in the power of small changes compounded over time to bring about larger ones. An inability to sound as if she is offering an overnight transformation is one of the things that makes her a bad campaigner. Presidential nominees are now expected to inspire. Mrs Clinton would have been better-suited to the first half-century of presidential campaigns, when the candidates did not even give public speeches.
However, a prosaic style combined with gradualism and hard work could make for a more successful presidency than her critics allow. In foreign policy, where the president’s power is greatest, Mrs Clinton would look out from the Resolute desk at a world that has inherited some of the risks of the cold war but not its stability. China’s rise and Russia’s decline call for both flexibility and toughness. International institutions, such as the UN, are weak; terrorism is transnational.
Mrs Clinton is a self-confessed incrementalist. She believes in the power of small changes compounded over time to bring about larger ones. An inability to sound as if she is offering an overnight transformation is one of the things that makes her a bad campaigner. （クリントン女史はコツコツタイプを自認している。小さな変化が長い間積み重なり大きな変化を引き起こすことを信じているのだ。一夜で変革を起こせるように思わせることができないことが苦戦している原因の一つとなっている）
ワシントン政治の機能不全からpolitical revivalを求めたくなる気持ちを理解しつつも、だからといってトランプ支持に回るのはnarcissistic belief that compromise in politics is a dirty word and a foolhardy confidence that, after a spell of chaos and demolition, you can magically unite the nation and fix what is wrongと退けています。
The harder question is how Mrs Clinton would govern at home. It is surely no coincidence that voters whose political consciousness dawned in the years between the attempted impeachment of Bill Clinton and the tawdriness of Mr Trump have such a low opinion of their political system. Over the past two decades political deadlock and mud-slinging have become normalised. Recent sessions of Congress have shut the government down, flirted with a sovereign default and enacted little substantive legislation. Even those conservatives inclined to mistake inaction for limited government are fed up.
The best that can be said of Mr Trump is that his candidacy is a symptom of the popular desire for a political revival. Every outrage and every broken taboo is taken as evidence that he would break the system in order that, overseen by a properly conservative Supreme Court, those who come after him might put something better in its place.
This presidential election matters more than most because of the sheer recklessness of that scheme. It draws upon the belief that the complexity of Washington is smoke and mirrors designed to bamboozle the ordinary citizen; and that the more you know, the less you can be trusted. To hope that any good can come from Mr Trump’s wrecking job reflects a narcissistic belief that compromise in politics is a dirty word and a foolhardy confidence that, after a spell of chaos and demolition, you can magically unite the nation and fix what is wrong.
The other side of Warren Buffett Don’t Buff it up An investing hero is not a model for how to reform America’s economy Aug 13th 2016 | From the print edition If the intensity of Mr Buffett’s interventions has risen over time, so has the seriousness with which they are taken. This partly reflects his financial clout. Berkshire Hathaway, his investment vehicle, is worth $363 billion and is the world’s sixth-most-valuable firm. He is at least 20 times richer than Mr Trump. It also reflects Mr Buffett’s popularity: 40,000 people attended Berkshire’s annual meeting in April, compared to 5,000 two decades ago. Since the death of Steve Jobs, the boss of Apple, Mr Buffett has become the lone hero of big business in America. He stands for the promise of a nostalgic, fairer kind of capitalism.
But Mr Buffett is not as saintly as he makes out. He has to act in his own interests, and he does so legally, but if all companies followed his example America would be worse off. An example is his oft-expressed sympathy for workers. In 2013 Berkshire partnered with 3G, a Brazilian buy-out firm renowned for swinging the axe at acquired firms. Since 3G engineered the merger of Kraft and Heinz (Berkshire owns 27% of the combined firm) last year, staff numbers have dropped by a tenth.
Last year a hedge-funder, Daniel Loeb, attacked what he called a disconnect between Mr Buffett’s words and his actions. “He thinks we should all pay more taxes but he loves avoiding them,” he said. Mr Loeb was right: Berkshire’s tax payments have shrunk relative to its profits. Last year the actual cash it paid to the taxman was equivalent to 13% of its pre-tax profits—this is probably the fairest measure of its burden—making it one of the lightest taxpayers among big firms (see chart).
Such inconsistencies are inevitable in a long and vigorous business life. But there is another problem with Mr Buffett: his fondness for oligopolies. After being disappointed by returns from textiles in the 1960s and 1970s, and then by shoe manufacturing and airlines, he concluded his firm should invest in “franchises” that are protected from competition, not in mere “businesses”. In the 1980s and 1990s he bet on dominant global brands such as Gillette and Coca-Cola (as well as Omaha’s biggest furniture store, with two-thirds of the market). Today Berkshire spans micro-monopolies such as a caravan firm and a prison-guard uniform maker, and large businesses with oligopolistic positions such as utilities, railways and consumer goods.
（中略）
But he is far from a model for how capitalism should be transformed. He is a careful, largely ethical accumulator of capital invested in traditional businesses, preferably with oligopolistic qualities, whereas what America needs right now is more risk-taking, lower prices, higher investment and much more competition. You won’t find much at all about these ideas in Mr Buffett’s shareholder letters.
この批判はEconomistの信条である自由経済に反するものだからでしょう。what America needs right now is more risk-taking, lower prices, higher investment and much more competitionと締めのところで書いています。
Artificial intelligence March of the machines What history tells us about the future of artificial intelligence—and how society should respond Jun 25th 2016 | From the print edition EXPERTS warn that “the substitution of machinery for human labour” may “render the population redundant”. They worry that “the discovery of this mighty power” has come “before we knew how to employ it rightly”. Such fears are expressed today by those who worry that advances in artificial intelligence (AI) could destroy millions of jobs and pose a “Terminator”-style threat to humanity. But these are in fact the words of commentators discussing mechanisation and steam power two centuries ago. Back then the controversy over the dangers posed by machines was known as the “machinery question”. Now a very similar debate is under way.
『ザ・セカンド・マシン・エイジ』 前著『機械との競争』で衝撃を与えたマサチューセッツ工科大学のコンビによる、膨大な調査・研究に基づいたテクノロジーと未来を描いた全米ベストセラー （原題The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies)
What will that mean? This special report will examine the rise of this new technology, explore its potential impact on jobs, education and policy, and consider its ethical and regulatory implications. Along the way it will consider the lessons that can be learned from the original response to the machinery question. AI excites fear and enthusiasm in equal measure, and raises a lot of questions. Yet it is worth remembering that many of those questions have been asked, and answered, before.
以下の文章で語っている部分がチャプターにあたります。簡潔にまとめる書き方は参考にできますね。
This special report will examine the rise of this new technology, （新技術の台頭の検討） explore its potential impact on jobs, （職業への将来的な影響） education and policy, （教育や政策） and consider its ethical and regulatory implications.（倫理や規制面での問題）
Even outside the AI community, there is a broad consensus that technological progress, and artificial intelligence in particular, will require big changes in the way education is delivered, just as the Industrial Revolution did in the 19th century. As factory jobs overtook agricultural ones, literacy and numeracy became much more important. Employers realised that more educated workers were more productive, but were reluctant to train them themselves because they might defect to another employer. That prompted the introduction of universal state education on a factory model, with schools supplying workers with the right qualifications to work in factories. Industrialisation thus transformed both the need for education and offered a model for providing it. The rise of artificial intelligence could well do the same again, making it necessary to transform educational practices and, with adaptive learning, offering a way of doing so. AI界隈の外でさえ、幅広く同意されていることがある。技術の進化、特に人工知能に関しては教育方法で大きな変革が迫られるだろう。19世紀に産業革命で起こったことと同様のことだ。工場での仕事が農作業より一般的になると、読み書き能力や計算能力がはるかに重要になってきた。雇用主は教育を受けた労働者の方が生産性が高いことを把握したが自ら教育することに乗り気ではなかった。そうすれば他の雇用主に遅れを取ってしまう可能性があるからだ。このため工場をモデルにした公教育が導入されることになった。学校が適切な資格を持った労働者を供給して工場で労働できるようにするのである。産業化によって教育ニーズが変化し、ニーズを満たすモデルを提供することになった。人工知能の台頭は再び同様のことをもたらす可能性が高い。教育のあり方を変革し、適応学習で実施手段を提供しなくてはいけなくなるのだ。
“The old system will have to be very seriously revised,” says Joel Mokyr of Northwestern University. Since 1945, he points out, educational systems have encouraged specialisation, so students learn more and more about less and less. But as knowledge becomes obsolete more quickly, the most important thing will be learning to relearn, rather than learning how to do one thing very well. Mr Mokyr thinks that education currently treats people too much like clay—“shape it, then bake it, and that’s the way it stays”—rather than like putty, which can be reshaped. In future, as more tasks become susceptible to automation, the tasks where human skills are most valuable will constantly shift. “You need to keep learning your entire life—that’s been obvious for a long time,” says Mr Ng. “What you learn in college isn’t enough to keep you going for the next 40 years.” 「古いシステムの変革は真剣に取り組む必要がでてくるでしょう」とNorthwestern 大学のJel Mokyrは語る。1945年以来、教育システムは専門化を促してきたので、学生は多くのことを学んでいくが分野はどんどん絞られていく。しかし知識が簡単に廃れるようになってくると一番重要になってくるのが学び直せるようになることで、ひとつのことに精通することではない。Mokyr氏の考えでは現在の教育は人々を粘土のように扱っている。「こねて、窯に入れれば、形が保たれるようになります」。パテのように作り直すことがないのです。将来多くの作業が自動化されるようになるので、人間のスキルが最も価値のある作業は常に変わっていくことでしょう。「生涯学び続ける必要があります。長期的に明白なものとなっています。」Ng氏は語る。「大学で学んだことだけで今後40年間やっていくには不十分なのです」。
