【文/不雅察者网专栏作家 比利亚娜·万科夫斯卡萝莉 telegram，翻译/ 薛凯桓】

盛名的弗朗西斯·福山（Francis Fukuyama）在最近一篇著作中，简要叙述了2024年这个“选举年”。事实上，统计数据涌现，本年大多数国度王人举行了某种阵势的选举。我浏览了一下这篇著作，望望有莫得提到我的国度北马其顿（毕竟我是总统候选东谈主），但并莫得。

与大多数其他分析家一样，福山关怀的焦点是好意思国的“哈姆雷特式选举”。公民们会弃取唐纳德·特朗普如故将成为首位女总统的副总统卡马拉·哈里斯？这似乎是好意思国和国际社会争论的焦点问题，似乎世界的交运取决于谁入主白宫。在全球危急四伏、全东谈主类有可能迎来孤寂结局的手艺，这种厚谊尤为热烈。关联词，尽管这一事件备受关怀，但并非统统东谈主王人以为它将决定统统东谈主的交运。

上海复旦大学的张维为诠释建议了一个道理的不雅点。他以为这出好意思国大戏（大要不错称为好意思国悲催，因为这两个东谈主在政事上是惟一的弃取）反馈了好意思国体制的流弊，其本性是仙葩化、南北极化、侮辱性和全民标签化。他还指出，这种情况在中国事不行能发生的——不是因为中国事一党制国度，而是因为党内高层开荒的遴荐经由止境严格，岂论谁开荒国度，王人能确保他们是在为公众利益做事方面久经磨练的东谈主。

来自德黑兰的穆罕默德·马兰迪（Mohammad Marandi）诠释也发表了道理的驳斥，他提到《纽约时报》的一篇分析著作以为伊朗插足甚而平直插手好意思国选举。他说，伊朗东谈主毫不会营救这两个“疯子”中的任何一个，因为他们王人一样营救种族死灭。

诺姆·乔姆斯基（Noam Chomsky）曾对好意思国两大政党有过一个盛名的描写：好意思国公民不得不在百事可乐和好意思味可乐之间作念出弃取，这委果令东谈主选藏。杰弗里·萨克斯（Jeffrey Sachs）最近在剑桥大学的一次演讲中，也抒发了一样的不雅点，甚而过犹不足。

他示意，天然他传统上倾向于民主党，但他再也无法宽恕他们了，因为他们对乌克兰和巴勒斯坦问题——这一要挟全球和平与安全的两大危急负有平直连累。然则，大多数东谈主——即使是在学术界——出于隧谈的灰心，会弃取他们以为较轻的荼毒，而哈里斯似乎在受过莳植的东谈主当中占了上风。

我哀怜他们，也默契他们，但令我恼火的是，他们甚而还在好意思化较轻的荼毒（推行上，这仍然是荼毒——他们对此心知肚明）。我有一位在加利福尼亚州从事和平问题商议的共事，我在他的社交媒体个东谈主主页上对此发表了驳斥，扫尾却被取消了好友关系。赫然，我震撼了他的神经，因为我的驳斥（天然我要为此谈歉，尽管这个国度在巴尔干半岛给咱们带来了好多糟糕）得到了他的一些粉丝的营救。岂论何如，与好意思国社会昔日的发展比较，这只是一个小插曲。

在这里咱们不发愤出这样的论断：岂论（选举）扫尾何如，王人将导致（好意思国的）正当性危急，并给仍是南北极分化的好意思国社会带来里面漂泊。我记起小布什获取第二任期时，尽管他履行了灾难性的战略，但咱们中的许多东谈主安危我方，以为这是朝着兑现那些不行捏续的战略迈出的一步，也许亦然朝着帝国雕零迈出的一步。

巴西民调机构AtlasIntel发布的11月初七大扭捏州民调数据AtlasIntel

但这样的经由——就像确立不同的世界圭表一样——是漫长的，咱们始终无法准确意象这个经由何时或何如兑现，以及会产生什么样的扫尾……这些扫尾将不行幸免地以齐心圆的样貌向外涟漪，从国度舞台延迟到全球舞台。

熟悉好意思国政事的东谈主（在此我要再次提到杰弗里·萨克斯，他几十年来一直与政事精英们保捏着密切掂量，受到他们的尊敬）王人知谈，尽管有这样多奇特风景，但好意思国总统并不是简直的职权中心。国度是由其他东谈主处分的，而公众关怀的是总统个东谈主和其性格特征。这种“民族安寰宇度”（一个西方学术成见，与“民主国度”相对立，通常被用于标签化或恶名化与西法民主不同的国度体制）大要说军工-媒体-学术复合体，恰是好意思国缺少简直民主的根柢原因。

尽管好意思国事这个世界上最肥沃的国度，其对于社会凝合力以及在寰球福利等关键问题上的社会条约王人处于絮叨景况，但政府机构却能确保自身的糊口和延续。仔细分析不难发现，拜登政府在许多方面只是延续了特朗普第一任期的战略。一样，淌若特朗普面前告捷，也很难指望他会带来任何紧要的、积极的变化，尤其是在社交战略方面。

善良的小姨子在线

尽管民主党领悟到了体制的裂痕和变革的必要性，但他们如故想尽一切办法来保管这个功能失调的体制，甚而不遗余力地对其进行军事化，乃至到了自我烧毁的集体歇斯底里的地步。就在大选前几天，他们还派出了一支刚烈的军事特遣队去“保卫”以色列，仿佛接触是他们的挡箭牌，就像试图抨击他们的竞争敌手一样（通常被拿出来说事）。我领悟一些才高意广的民主党营救者，他们对拜登和哈里斯的最新举动感到懊悔，甚而在问我方：这些东谈主到底还想不想赢？

关联词，好意思国诠释弗拉基米尔·戈尔茨坦（Vladimir Goldstein）等更贤惠的分析家，则不太关怀对选举的意象和对赌，而是更注释商议刻下悔怨背后的深层原因，即为什么选举自身仍是将近被视为一种安全要挟？

戈尔斯坦谈出了特朗普吸引好意思国社会底层人人的奥妙。在特朗普多半未经念念考的言论中（通常来自一个一鳞半瓜的头脑），每个东谈主王人能听到我方想要的东西。最要紧的是，他所传递的信息能引起平凡选民的共识，其中包括针对侨民的国度安全呼声、孑然主见、以好意思国自身为中心等议题，以及通货推广、住房稀缺、资助番邦接触和国度的预算奢靡等问题。

戈尔斯坦收拢了平凡好意思国东谈主的中枢窘境：为什么咱们要在国外接触，而不是在国内再造重生？关联词，高薪聘用的、时时是伪大众的分析师们却坚捏以为，好意思国有连累进行外洋干扰，而不应优先计划国内事项。

图片着手：新华社

耐久以来，任何对此建议质疑的东谈主，王人会被贴上法西斯主见者、狂热分子或是“无知大众”等标签。这种受精英主见驱使、被领悟形态蒙蔽的目地主见伪民主精英，对特朗普或雷同东谈主物所体现的（民粹）反弹负有平直连累。凡是还有一点学问，就还有东谈主会倾听震怒者、被罢休者、失望者和底层穷东谈主的声息，再行计划好意思国社交和国内战略的优先事项——以免为时已晚。

好意思国的轨制就像一条迂腐的大蛇，在猎物气息的吸引下吞食着我方的尾巴，对自我烧毁的扫尾熟视无睹。这种对职权和兑现的祈望压倒了感性判断，使系统堕入自我烧毁的轮回。有些东谈主以为这会导致好意思国的自我烧毁；有些东谈主则以为这是一个连接断的存一火轮回，但岂论何如，扫尾王人不会太好。此次选举不会使好意思国成为一个更宜居、更体面的公民居住地，也不会出生一个更贤惠的全球政事参与者。相背，它只会成为好意思国悲催下一阶段的前奏。

帝国不会雅雀无声地腐朽，它们会试图回击、抵抗，并试图掌权到终末，扫尾时时会留住衣衫不整——领有庞杂影响力的好意思国也不例外。它的里面差异和南北极分化无庸赘述，但其全球影响力意味着其斗争不行幸免地会影响到其国界之外的地区。跟着其他地区和大国的崛起，咱们目击了全球力量的重组变化，问题不仅在于好意思国的发展轨迹，还在于世界其他地区将何如继承这些震荡，并重塑自身以作念出恢复。

因此，岂论咱们是否甘心，咱们王人不单是是旁不雅者，而是深深地卷入了帝国雕零的动态发展之中。历史告诉咱们，帝国很少会安谧地插手暮夜。

英文原文：

In a recent article， (in)famous Francis Fukuyama briefly discusses 2024 as the "year of elections." Indeed， statistics show that this year， most countries have held some kind of election. I browsed through the article to see if there was any mention of my country Macedonia (after all I was a presidential candidate); in vain. Like most other analysts， Fukuyama focuses on the “Hamletian choice” in the U.S.

Will the citizens choose Donald Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris， who would become the first female president? This appears to be the pivotal question in both American and international debates， as if the world’s fate hinges on the individual who enters the White House. This sentiment is particularly intensified in a time of global crisis， which threatens to bring about a tragic end for all humankind. However， while the event is of high interest， not everyone considers it to be decisive.

The rest of the world (the global majority) has already decided not to tie its fate to the chaos and political fervor in the U.S. Professor Zhang Weiwei from Fudan University in Shanghai offered an interesting perspective. He sees this American drama (or American tragedy， with these two figures posing as the only political options) as a reflection of the system’s weaknesses， characterized by spectacle， polarization， insults， and the labeling of entire populations.

He rightly points out that such a scenario would be impossible in China—not because it's a one-party state， but because the selection process for high party leadership is so rigorous that， whoever heads the country， it’s assured that they are someone proven in serving the public good.

Professor Mohammad Marandi from Tehran also offered an interesting comment， referring to a New York Times analysis that suggested Iran was rooting for or even meddling in American elections. He remarks that Iranians would never favor either of these “maniacal figures，” as both equally support genocide.

It’s hard to envy American citizens for having to choose between Pepsi and Coca-Cola， as Noam Chomsky once famously described the two major parties. In a recent talk at Cambridge， Jeffrey Sachs echoed the same sentiment， even taking it a step further. He stated that although he’s traditionally leaned toward the Democrats， he can no longer forgive them， as they are directly responsible for the two major crises threatening global peace and security: Ukraine and Palestine.

But most people—even within academia—out of sheer desperation， choose what they perceive as the lesser evil， and it seems Kamala has the edge among the educated.

I sympathize with them， I understand them， but what irritates me is the need to beautify even the lesser evil (which， in essence， remains evil—and they know it well). I commented on this on a California peace studies colleague’s social media profile—and ended up getting unfriended.

Apparently， I hit a nerve， as my comments (apologizing， of course， for interfering in another country's elections， though that country has caused us plenty of grief here in the Balkans) began receiving support from some of his followers. Anyway， this is a minor episode compared to what lies ahead for American society.

It’s not hard to conclude that whatever the outcome， it will lead to a legitimacy crisis and internal instability in an already polarized society. I recall when George W. Bush won his second term， despite the disastrous policies he pursued. Many of us consoled ourselves， thinking that this was a step toward ending those unsustainable policies and perhaps a step closer to the fall of the Empire.

But such processes—just like the building of a different world order—are lengthy， and we can never predict with certainty when or how they will conclude. And with what consequences... which will inevitably ripple outward in concentric circles， from the national to the global stage.

Those familiar with American politics (and here I’ll again mention Jeffrey Sachs， a man who has spent decades closely connected with， or respected by， the political elite) know that， despite all the spectacle， the U.S. president is not the true center of power.

The country is managed by others while the public focuses on personalities and character traits. This “national security state” or the military-industrial-media-academic complex is the very reason for the lack of genuine democracy. Although social cohesion is in disarray， along with the social contract on key issues of public welfare in one of the world’s wealthiest nations， the apparatus that governs ensures its own survival and continuity.

A closer analysis would easily reveal how， in numerous ways， the Biden administration has simply extended Trump’s policies from his first term. Likewise， it’s hard to expect that if Trump wins now， he would bring any significant (positive) changes， especially in foreign policy.

Although aware of the fractures in the system and the necessity for change， the Democrats have done everything possible to sustain this dysfunctional system， even to the point of a self-destructive collective hysteria with their relentless militarization.

Just days before the election， they’re sending a strong military contingent to “defend” Israel， as if war were their trump card， just as attempted attacks on their rival candidate were. I know respected Democrat supporters who are disheartened by Biden and Harris’s latest moves and are even asking themselves: do these people even want to win?

However， wiser analysts， such as American professor Vladimir Goldstein， focus less on predictions and bets and more on examining the deeper reasons behind the current climate—namely， why the election itself is perceived almost as a security threat. Goldstein speaks to the secret of Trump’s appeal to the lower social classes in American society.

Amid the flood of unfiltered statements from Trump (often from a fragmented mind)， each person hears what they want. Above all， his messages that resonate with the average voter include calls for national security against migrants， an isolationist， self-centered agenda， and issues like inflation， housing scarcity， and budget drain for funding foreign wars and countries.

Goldstein captures the core dilemma of the average American: why do we fight wars abroad instead of securing prosperity here at home? Yet well-paid， often pseudo-expert analysts insist that the U.S. has a duty to intervene overseas， dismissing domestic priorities.

Anyone who questions this has long been labeled a fascist， a fanatic， or simply part of the “ignorant masses.” This liberal， quasi-democratic elite—driven by elitism and blinded by ideology—is directly responsible for the backlash embodied by Trump or similar figures.

The American system is ensnared， resembling the ancient Ouroboros， a serpent that， lured by the scent of its prey， consumes its own tail， oblivious to the self-destructive consequences. This lust for power and control overrides rational judgment， trapping the system in a self-defeating cycle. Some see this as leading to self-destruction; others view it as an endless cycle of life and death. Either way， the outcome is grim.

Tomorrow’s election won’t turn the U.S. into a more livable， decent place for its citizens， nor will it produce a more sensible global player. Instead， it will serve merely as a prelude to the next phase of the American tragedy.

Empires do not fade quietly; they thrash， resist， and attempt to hold on to power until the end， often leaving devastation in their wake. The United States， with its vast influence， is no exception. Its internal fractures and polarizations are evident， yet its global reach means that its struggles inevitably affect regions far beyond its borders.

As we witness shifts in global power， with other regions and powers rising， the question becomes not only about the trajectory of the U.S. but about how the rest of the world will weather these tremors and reshape itself in response.

Thus， we are not just spectators but are deeply involved， whether we like it or not， in the unfolding dynamics of a declining empire. And as history has shown us， empires rarely go quietly into the night.

本文系不雅察者网独家稿件，著作内容熟识作家个东谈主不雅点，不代表平台不雅点，未经授权，不得转载，不然将根究法律连累。关怀不雅察者网微信guanchacn萝莉 telegram，逐日阅读意旨著作。