哈里斯民調反超，Trump還有希望嗎？

如果9月10日的辯論，川普翻不了盤，他八成就沒有機會了。

拜登退選，哈里斯接手，不是Trump的勝利，卻給了他一種虛假的勝利感，更增添了

幾分傲慢和輕狂，而且繼續糾結於和拜登爭高下，談各種國際國內政策策略，以一種

已經勝選的口吻談烏克蘭戰爭，選擇副手和輕視全新的競爭對手——年輕世代的哈里

斯！只能是漏洞百出，授人以柄！

Trump似乎完全沒有意識到，在美國的年輕選民心中，他和拜登一樣，被視作同一世

代的過氣政客，他們不管你回鍋什麼政策，甚至什麼理由都不要，僅僅因為哈里斯是

更年輕更有活力的美國人，就會選擇她呢？！

當然，現在還為時尚早，局勢也不是壞到完全沒有扭轉的可能。那就要看，哈里斯有

沒有軟肋，而且她是不是象Trump一樣，被並非最後的勝利沖昏頭腦。哈里斯的軟肋，

不是她的過去，不是她的能力（質疑這個完全沒有意義），而是她奉行“分好蛋糕”

而非“做大蛋糕”、關注“結果平等”而非“過程平等”的“大鍋飯”政策，過於用

鮮花討好選民，將可能把美國引向“通往奴役之路”——讓美國“拉美化”！

Trump應當抓住的是哈里斯的軟肋，用委內瑞拉馬杜羅做反而教材，而以阿根廷米萊

總統“喚醒雄獅”為己任，將競選辯論的焦點轉移到經濟政策和美國的未來發展上，

激發美國年輕世代和“鐵鏽帶”選民的辨識能力和創造熱情！

正如麥克阿瑟在日本投降儀式上的演講所說：“倘若我們要拯救肉體，就必然從精神

層面入手！”美國的偉大，植根於"We the People"精神權能及其生命自組織力與外

連接平衡力得到全球首屈一指的充分發揮！這也是Trump第一個任期內，初露端倪

的“川普經濟學”（Trumpnomics）的精神實質！

當代美國人，也應當有一個莎士比亞式的“王子之問”：To be or not to be的問題。

就象英國搖滾樂隊The Beatles歌曲《Live and Let Die》那樣，具有面對生存與毀滅

時的彷徨、抉擇，勇敢地選擇Live and let live——即一種處理人際、群際、國際、

乃至星際關係（包括人與自然、人與社會、人與自己身心靈三大關係）的思維方式和

價值取向，那麼，也就是把Live and Let Die與To be or not to be，放在Live and

 let live的語境，中來理解人們在彷徨與抉擇、生存與毀滅的情感基調和選擇結果！

並由此引出一個警示世人的糟糕後果——即：如果不能“Live and let live”（互利

互惠，自己活也讓別人活，生生不息），那麼，就可能會導致“Evil and let evil”

（自己邪惡，也讓別人邪惡，互坑互害）！

將Live and let live上升到哲學認知，就是所有個體、共同體、Trust組織，尤其是

群體身份的代表人物（尤其是作為世界第一強國的領導人），都要改變過去主客體二

元對立的觀念，即不以主體（Subject）自居，而把他者（她、它、祂）作為客體物質

對象（Object）來支配操縱（哪怕動機再好也不行），也就是在認知上將主客體二元

轉變為主體間性即交互主體（Intersubjective）上，並且用共生（Symbiosos）亦即

Live and let live 加能規範。

這樣，2024年美國總統候選人，就繼溫思羅普“山巔之城”精神之後，站在了一個當

代哲學新範式的高度——對於人類生活方式創新與再選擇：凡事交互主體共生

（Everything Intersubjective Symbiosism）！

當然，這對現行思維——即造成“全球性問題”的思維方式，是一種極富挑戰性的智

慧要求！

Archer Hong Qian

Vancouver, August 15, 2024

Harris Surpasses in Polls, Does Trump Still Have a Chance?

If Trump cannot turn the tide in the September 10 debate, he likely

 has little chance left.

Biden's withdrawal and Harris taking over is not a victory for 

Trump, but it has given him a false sense of victory, further 

adding to his arrogance and recklessness. He continues to focus 

on competing with Biden, discussing various international and 

domestic policies and strategies, speaking about the Ukraine war 

with a tone of already having won, choosing a running mate, and 

underestimating his new opponent—the younger generation's Harris!

This can only lead to many vulnerabilities and provide others with

 ample opportunities to attack him.

Trump seems completely unaware that in the eyes of young American 

voters, he and Biden are seen as outdated politicians of the same 

generation. They don’t care about his recycled policies or any 

other justifications; simply because Harris is younger and more 

vibrant, they will choose her.

Of course, it's still too early, and the situation hasn't 

deteriorated to the point of being irreversible. It depends on 

whether Harris has any weaknesses and whether she, like Trump, 

gets carried away by a victory that isn't final. Harris's weakness

is not her past or her abilities (questioning this is meaningless),

but rather her policy of "dividing the cake" rather than "making 

the cake bigger," her focus on "equality of outcome" rather than 

"equality of process," and her "one-pot meal" policy that overly 

panders to voters with flowers, potentially leading America down 

the "road to serfdom"—turning the U.S. into "Latin America"!

Trump should seize on Harris's weaknesses, using Venezuela’s Maduro 

as a cautionary example, and take on the mission of Argentina's 

President Milei to "awaken the lion." He should shift the focus 

of the campaign debate to economic policies and the future 

development of America, inspiring the discernment and creative 

enthusiasm of young American voters and those in the "Rust Belt."

As MacArthur said in his speech at the Japanese surrender 

ceremony: "If we are to save the flesh, we must begin with the 

spirit!" The greatness of America is rooted in the spirit and 

power of "We the People," as well as its unparalleled global 

leadership in the balance of self-organizational life force and 

external connections. This is also the spiritual essence of 

"Trumpnomics," which began to emerge during Trump's first term.

Modern Americans should also face a Shakespearean "Prince's 

question": To be or not to be. Just like the British rock band 

The Beatles' song "Live and Let Die," which reflects the hesitation 

and choices when faced with survival and destruction, we must 

bravely choose "Live and let live"—a way of thinking and value 

orientation that deals with interpersonal, intergroup, 

international, and even interstellar relationships (including the 

relationships between humans and nature, humans and society, and 

within oneself in terms of body, mind, and spirit). This means 

placing "Live and Let Die" and "To be or not to be" within the 

context of "Live and let live" to understand the emotional tone 

and outcomes of people's hesitation, choices, survival, and 

destruction. From this, a warning emerges: if we cannot "Live and 

let live" (mutual benefit, living and letting others live, 

thriving together), then it may lead to "Evil and let evil"

 (being evil oneself and allowing others to be evil, harming 

each other).

Elevating "Live and let live" to a philosophical recognition means 

that all individuals, communities, Trust organizations, especially 

representatives of group identities (especially leaders of the 

world's most powerful nation), must change the old dualistic view 

of subject and object—no longer regarding oneself as the subject 

(Subject) and treating others (he, she, it, or they) as material 

objects (Object) to be controlled or manipulated (no matter how 

good the intention). In cognition, the dualism of subject and 

object must be transformed into intersubjectivity (Intersubjective)

, and governed by symbiosis (Symbiosis), i.e., Live and let live.

Thus, in 2024, U.S. presidential candidates, following the spirit 

of Winthrop's "City upon a Hill," would be standing on the height 

of a new contemporary philosophical paradigm—innovating and 

re-choosing human ways of life: Everything Intersubjective 

Symbiosism!

Of course, this is an intellectually challenging requirement for 

current thinking—the very thinking that has caused "global 

problems."

Archer Hong Qian

Vancouver, August 15, 2024