news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

【text/observer network columnist yan mo】

we are told that the debate between trump and harris is important, but is it really important? whether or not you have a vote, everyone knows that the debate is just a show. two months before the election, most voters have already decided on their voting intentions. the debate is just a sideshow and has little impact on the election results. unless someone suffers a waterloo on the debate podium, then this show can create miracles and affect reality.

however, this debate, which is said to be the most important in the history of american elections, did not produce any miracles. it was just a news story. even the pro-democratic media who cheered harris's performance on the spot could not deny this fact. the reality is that this election is still in a stalemate. the excitement of the democratic party is only that after this battle, it is confirmed that they will not suffer a crushing defeat.

what we outsiders should be concerned about is the development trend of the "american empire" presented through political debates. the so-called trend is the overall direction that cannot be changed no matter who is elected, because the direction of the united states has a profound impact on the whole world.

in this debate, everyone is watching harris rather than trump, because so far, the former is still a blank sheet of paper for american voters to scribble on at will - called a "tabula rasa" in the west - and the outside world does not know, or even doubts, whether she has real substance.

in addition, harris is classified as a "technocrat" by republicans, and americans have never believed that technocrats have "leadership." in addition, harris is not a candidate selected through the primary election, which is a bad point for the american culture that believes in universal suffrage and survival of the fittest. ordinary voters will doubt whether the leader who jumped out of the secret room can stand the test of the general election.

perhaps more importantly, it was not the opponent who initially badmouthed harris, but the democratic party itself. ever since biden took office, the ruling party has been worried about the performance of the vice president, and the media has been full of negative news about harris. until she was nominated as a presidential candidate, the outside world still believed that harris was a straw bag, a puppet, and a political leader who completely relied on party resources rather than personal charm (or ability) to represent the entire party in the election.

do the characteristics described above look a bit like hou youyi? yes, i think harris is the american version of hou youyi. of course, harris is much higher than hou. after all, she is a prosecutor. even if she is not talented, she still has basic eloquence. moreover, her campaign team is very good at covering up her shortcomings and making good use of the advantage of "hazy beauty". unlike hou youyi, who is so awkward in speaking in front of the media that he needs two "nannies" to help him speak.

in other words, the first focus of observation about the trend is: can a "blank slate" defeat a "veteran"?

this is a major test for imperial politics. for other countries, if harris wins, american politics will be even more difficult to predict, because the president's personal qualifications and decision-making personality are secondary. in the future, it doesn't matter who will be elected, and every major policy after the victory may come from the result of the struggle between the various people behind the president.

although this is already the case, it will be more obvious in the future. to use a more academic term, it is "decentralization".

the second trend observation focus is closely related to the first: can the united states still maintain normal elections?

if a blank slate can win the election by relying on a debate with some minor gains, it means that voters who are dissatisfied with the election results will become more radicalized and acquiesce to the radical losers to seize power by any means necessary. this will ensure that future us elections will never be peaceful. in fact, on the day this election is announced, another even bigger political tsunami will occur.

it is fair to say that harris made some gains in this debate, because voters' expectations of her were low to begin with, and this was the main reason why harris performed "beyond expectations", not because she was better at speaking than trump. in contrast, trump's performance was worse than expected, mainly because his supporters had high expectations of him, expecting him to knock out his opponent through a debate, just like last time, but this did not happen.

furthermore, the reporter who asked the question made a serious mistake, that is, he corrected the debater's statement on the spot. no matter how sufficient the reporter's reasons were, he could have supplemented and criticized it afterwards. correcting the protagonist on the spot only showed that the competition was unfair, and it paved the way for trump to deliberately commit fouls in the next two months to win.

it should be noted that the core motivation of trump supporters comes from "unfairness", regardless of whether this feeling is reasonable or not. in fact, feelings are not rational. even if supporters cannot gain more support for trump, they can solidify his support and use the means of rationalizing fouls to fight against unfairness.

recently in taiwan, the ko wen-je incident has been raging for weeks, with a large number of his supporters being forced to take to the streets out of a sense of injustice, and this feeling is well-founded. populism is not as easy to ignite as imagined, it must be fueled by opponents, and in a society where divisions and confrontations are becoming increasingly serious, there is always no shortage of fuel from opponents.

third, after the debate, whether it is polls or current affairs, the democratic camp will be immersed in a "good news moment", and the pro-democratic media will become more enthusiastic. although both sides will cooperate to control the temperature to prevent supporters from relaxing because they think they have won a sure victory, their complacency is difficult to conceal and is sometimes strategic, which in turn will allow the trump camp to take an unconventional approach in order to break through.

the period from trump being shot to this debate was a period of slackness among the republicans and active strengthening among the democrats; but from this debate to the voting, there are signs of a reversal of the situation, and it is now the republicans' turn to fight a do-or-die battle. given trump's character of never admitting defeat, it will not be surprising what happens next.

if the us election cannot maintain normal operation, the collapse of the empire will accelerate, and the whole world must prepare for a major earthquake with continuous aftershocks. in other words, harris is not a "harmless blank sheet of paper", and some people should have a vague feeling that there are many unknowns hidden behind the blank.

the third trend observation focus: how big a chain reaction will the immigration issue cause in the west?

i only picked out two highlights of the entire debate. one was trump's closing argument, which criticized harris for talking big but not doing anything, highlighting the biden administration's empty talk and incompetence. in fact, although harris showed unexpected strength in the debate arena, the content of her speech was indeed empty and lacked a "fatal blow" (as described by the new york times). although trump's closing argument was excellent, it still failed to make up for the points lost during the debate.

the second is "immigrants eat (cats) and dogs."

trump's focus on immigration shows that it is a social issue that american voters attach great importance to. many observers believe that trump's accusation of immigrants eating dogs is a big loss of points, but it must be said that this is only the view of the elites, and american country bumpkins may not think it is just a rumor.

overestimating the quality of voters has always been a chronic disease of the elites. looking at the election phenomena in recent years, poll data cannot fully reflect the hidden unrest factors in society. would trump not know that accusing immigrants of eating dogs would inevitably lead to public ridicule? of course he is not so stupid. he may emphasize this statement from his election intuition, or he may have concluded through sandbox simulation that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.

it is hard for orientals to imagine how much the american people love dogs. accusing immigrants of eating dogs is no less serious than "abortion and infanticide." this shows how deep the anxiety and fear hidden in the immigration issue is in the hearts of americans. this is not new, but it seems to never go away.

the reporter who asked the question corrected trump on this statement, and thought he was smart enough to add a "fact check", while harris just laughed and did not vigorously fight back against the "fake news". however, anyone with a discerning eye can see that the reporter knows that this statement is of great importance, and harris's camp is obviously unwilling to pursue the issue of "immigrants eating dogs" because it is not difficult to create a picture that seems to be eating dogs, not to mention that similar statements have long been circulated on social media.

simply put, the trump campaign team must have seen that this is an issue that the opponent is unwilling to touch, so if they want to win by fouling, expanding this rumor will score points, at least to make up for the disadvantage on the issue of abortion, and the target is the rural voters in swing states. of course, like other shocking remarks made by trump, "immigrants eat dogs" also has a counter-effect, but we can never rule out the possibility that the party with a worrying election situation will jump to the wall.

it is important to emphasize that the united states and europe have recently seen a re-emergence of conservatism and nationalism, starting from history and thought to re-justify traditional values ​​in order to counter the liberalism that has swept across the west and spread across the world over the past 30 years. this phenomenon cannot but be considered a complication of the immigration issue.

in short, the decline of national strength and the unfair distribution of wealth have caused people to be eager to find someone to blame, and throwing the problem to people who are not our own is the most intuitive and effective way. trump's first term has resonated with europe, and biden's white left pluralism has not solved this problem. at present, the rise of the european far right is irreversible, and trump knows that he has no shortage of listeners throughout the western world.

so, is the accusation of "immigrants eating dogs" effective? of course it is effective. i even think this is the biggest highlight of trump's "political views" this year, regardless of whether it is true or fake news. this is not a difficulty that the harris camp can overcome by strategically appealing to "future sense" or tactically "disdaining trump". i have repeatedly emphasized that in terms of voter psychology, fear overwhelms everything.

the outward manifestation of anti-immigration is protectionism. according to empirical experience, even biden's type of white left line is inward-looking. when harris boasted about the importance of allies, it was a pity that trump failed to effectively expose the hypocrisy of the democratic party - "to be honest, aren't you following my path? we are just robbing our allies in different ways. the difference is that i am not taking advantage of war arbitrage."

in other words, people who want to immigrate to western countries must know that one should not enter a dangerous country or live in a chaotic country. the number of friendly western faces is decreasing. this will be a phenomenon of the times and the most real and regrettable sense of the future.

china least worried about election results

if there is any country in the world that is least worried about the election results, it is china (excluding taiwan, china), because no matter who comes to power, they will be strongly anti-china, and the difference is really not big. this is a necessary stage on the road to rise, and it is also the focus of this debate between two economic laymen on economic issues.

the two wars in europe and the middle east have their own pros and cons. trump's mistake was that he did not emphasize this point and completely denied the biden administration's "aiding the enemy". on the other hand, he advocated a ceasefire, which was to prevent china from benefiting, so that he did not get the points where he should have.

from trump's perspective, the focus should not be on putin, and this is harris's cleverness, making trump fall into the trap of "putin sitting in kiev". the same is true for the middle east battlefield. the focus is not whether harris hates netanyahu or the fate of israel, but that the united states' reputation has declined and china has taken over its reputation for peace.

however, this may indicate that in trump's eyes, the china issue is limited to the economic level, not the global strategic level. in the basic concept of "rebuilding america", the two are actually contradictory. the failure of the biden administration is the delusion of having both. of course, such speculation requires more solid evidence. after all, trump himself does not know what he will think in the future. in the future, we will have to draw evidence from his behavior.

as mentioned above, if harris is elected, china should pay attention to the unpredictability and instability of us policies. in this regard, harris will not be better than trump in handling it. to be honest, i think trump is still a relatively easy-to-predict leader, because he is not a blank slate, his behavior tracks are far more than harris, and there are many more clues needed for prediction.

secondly, western protectionism is an unavoidable reality. china is going the other way and increasing its openness. this is a correct strategy. the recent china-africa cooperation forum has received widespread praise, and even some observers in taiwan gave it a thumbs up. what the west has lost, africa will make up for, and achieve mutual benefit and win-win results. globalization is still a road that can only turn around if the mountains don't turn. the importance of the united states and europe to china should indeed be reduced.

finally, harris wants to press on with her victory and invite trump to debate again. i hope trump will accept the challenge, but next time he should refuse to answer reporters' questions and instead let both sides set their own questions, express themselves freely, and question each other. this will make the show more interesting.

this article is an exclusive article of guancha.com. the content of the article is purely the author's personal opinion and does not represent the platform's opinion. it cannot be reproduced without authorization, otherwise legal liability will be pursued. follow guancha.com wechat guanchacn to read interesting articles every day.