華盛頓的“不響”智慧，換來偉大的美利堅

——Can President Trump restrain his impulse to govern through X （Twitter）？

By Archer Hong Qian

朋友轉來復旦華民先生對美國制度設置上立法、行政、司法、美聯儲四權分立結構及其功能交互的分析，我且照錄如下：

【美國設計了一個高度分權、各種權力相互制衡的政治制度。除了立法、司法與行政分權與制衡之外，事實上貨幣也是獨立的，那就是美國存在着其他國家沒有的、獨立的央行（美聯儲）。這樣的制度設計似乎天衣無縫，立法權在國會，裁決權在法院，行政權在總統（政府），貨幣權在美聯儲。總統與國會議員周期選舉，任何人無法專權，包括總統與國會議員在內的任何人犯錯也可在周期性的選舉中加以糾錯。從經濟層面上說，政府的財政政策錯了，可以通過美聯儲獨立的貨幣政策來加以糾正或者彌補，美聯儲的貨幣政策錯了則可以通過政府的財政政策來加以糾錯或者彌補，若能做到兩者協調，那麼，經濟就會更加健康的運作。然而，在今天的美國，我們可以看到的事實是，這樣的制度設計其實並不完美，它還是未能擋住獨裁者的專權。根源在於分權制度下的各種權力在本質上是不對稱的，簡單地講，總統的行政權是“真權力”，其他權力都是“偽權力”。總統和國會議員都是民選的，但是一經選舉產生，總統就真的獲得了獨立的權力，然而國會議員卻沒有獲得真權力，因為所有的國會決議並不是由單個議員說了算的，它還是有個需要多數通過的集體決議來表達自己的意願，所以，相對於總統的個人擁有的“真權力”而言，國會以及國會議員所擁有的權力並不為“真”。至於高級法官以及美聯儲主席等，都不是經由選舉產生的，而是由掌握真權力的總統提名，然後經由參議院通過任命的。所以高級法官與美聯儲主席等職所有擁有的權力屬於低階的弱權力，也可以歸類為以上所說的“偽權力”。再從權力行使的過程來看，也存在明顯的不對稱，行政權力是通過長官命令的方式運作的，而國會的權力是通過集體議事的方式運作的，於是就會產生決策時滯，從而難以阻止、甚至糾正行政（總統）的錯誤決策與作為。經此對比，我們可以看到，當民眾失去理智而把一個狂人送上總統寶座的時候，美國分權制衡的政治制度事實上是不可能對其瘋狂的濫用權力的作為加以制約的。所以，如何限制或者有效制約“真權力”是未來制度改革所需要解決的基本問題。否則，這個世界遲早是要被政治狂人掀翻的。】

這個分析很有道理，超越了一般貼標籤、打棍子的不滿發泄。

不過，對美國四權分立性質的分類概念，我冒昧地以為，以其用“真偽權力”與事實不合的概念，不如用“直接間接權力”“主動被動權力”甚至“硬軟權力”的更合適。

其實，美國還有與立法、行政、司法、美聯儲四權並立的權力。還三種權力這就是：媒體、文官制和公民擁槍！

如果說立法、行政、美聯儲是主動權力、直接權力，那麼，司法、媒體、文官制度、公民擁槍就是被動權力和間接權力，但不管是主動、被動、直接、間接，都是真權力，只不過行使權力的方式方法和條件（包括時間差、空間差）不同而已！

作為山巔之城的美國，無疑是人類250年來，以“We the People”為憲政基礎，用權力分立、權力制衡的方法，將社會生活中公權力濫用（胡亂作為或特權謀私）鎖定在最小範圍，同時又最大限度地防止權力掣肘（無所作為和內卷躺平）的燈塔國家。

但是，儘管如此，美國的制度設置依然不可能不受到傳統文化、時代思潮、科技人文和個人身心靈健康與否狀態（尤其是擔任國家公職者）的影響。

當前，美國內外對川普總統上任百日施政狀況的熱烈批評，正好說了這種影響的嚴重程度。也從中可以發現，美國文化中缺了某種關鍵要素，這就是擔任公職人員，特別是總統的個人言行習慣和作為總統的言行方式，往往混淆不清，導致“大事不定”（在“大事不定問英國”意義上）！

這種大事不定，並非都是壞事，也有非常好的案例，比如：

華盛頓的“不響”放手讓“聯邦黨人”干；

傑斐遜的靈活外交贏得西部大片國土；

林肯重述“民有、民治、民享”國基勝不驕傲與南方和解；

老羅斯福反托拉斯進步主義運動；

里根重塑“山巔之城”結束世界性“經濟滯脹”⋯⋯

那麼，當下川普總統上任一百日，確實也是影響空前，但爭議性也空前巨大，我雖然說“讓子彈飛一會兒”，但早在川普上任12天，即2月5日我在大阪（北美2月4日）寫的《MAGA2.0：從保護主義到全球共生戰略——如何開啟讓美國再次偉大的黃金時代？》中，對川普“X（推特）治國”施政方式表示強烈批評，並提出五點忠告。參看 http://symbiosism.com.cn/9429.html

半個多月過去了，川普總統依然是每天狂發X（推文），特別是烏克蘭戰爭“促和失利”，竟又與烏克蘭總統——這個沒有英雄的時代公認的反侵略英雄的“口水戰”（當然澤連斯基也沒有沉住氣，比如川普說他在烏克蘭只有4%的支持率明顯與57%的支持率事實不符的謊言，根本沒有必要懟！）後，第二次上任以來自信滿滿春風得意的川普總統，心理上不可能不受到重重的挫敗感，他從海湖莊園返白宮空軍一號上對媒體發布的言論，已然明顯又在與東大關繫上，讓自己陷入被動，這種被動，雖然如果趕緊修復，再壞也壞不到哪裡去，卻可能嚴重到讓他隨意改變“20個核心承諾”構成的MAGA戰略，從而讓他組建的年輕政府團隊，陷入“無所適從”也“無能為力”的尷尬境地，更讓他自己不知如何收場。

《經濟學人》主編Zanny Minton Beddoes2月20日發文呼籲“為一場艱苦的鬥爭做好準備吧”！

Beddoes指出：“總統有權為官僚機構設定新的目標。川普絕不是橢圓形辦公室里第一個有極端主義野心的人。他距離推翻美國的憲法秩序還很遠。但川普實現目標的方式——有時甚至帶有肆意的殘忍——是危險和錯誤的。而川普這個人，會考慮任何極端。為一場艱苦的鬥爭做好準備吧。”（The president is entitled to set new goals for the bureaucracy. Mr Trump is hardly the first man in the Oval Office with maximalist ambitions. And he is still far from overturning America’s constitutional order. But the way Mr Trump is going about his goals—at times with wanton cruelty—is dangerous and wrong. And Mr Trump, being who he is, will contemplate any extreme. Get ready for a titanic struggle.）

我並不認為川普這一個月的“X(推特)施政”一無是處，與盟友的關係不至於破裂到不可收拾，但對政治家來說“言多必敗”是鐵律，現代文明特別是大模型AI條件下的美國治理，過度依賴社交媒體而且是不無情緒化的治國施政作風，無異於毛澤東的“語錄治國”“最高指示治國”及後繼者的“小組治國”“委員會治國”“文件（意見）治國”“指示治國”“摺子治國”無異，最終會讓政策執行混亂、戰略迷失、信任崩盤。

“X（推特）治國”背後，是美國版的“言必己出，行必己令”虛妄，若再不懸崖勒馬，結果必然陷入“按下的葫蘆浮起瓢”“顧此失彼”，讓燈塔之國變成“一地雞毛”背後是要美國版的“言必己出，行必己令”，若再不懸崖勒馬，結果必然陷入“按下的葫蘆浮起瓢”“顧此失彼”“進退失據”，讓燈塔之國變成“一地雞毛”，真真是“一手好好牌給打爛了”！

英國前首相鮑里斯·強森當地時間2月19日，一邊質疑批評川普的一些最新說法具有非嚴肅性，一邊敦促歐洲領導人不要把這位美國總統對烏克蘭人的指責太當真。認為那些言論並非為了準確記錄歷史，而是為了“叫醒”歐洲人採取行動。

我的意見是，川普既然組建了有一支生機勃勃的施政團隊，何不學大陸軍總司令華盛頓的“不響”智慧？

2025年2月21日於Vancouver

ChatGPT評論：

這個問題可以從美國權力架構的動態平衡、川普的“X（推特）治國”策略、以及孞態網所強調的“時空意間的信息感應”三方面來分析。

1. 美國權力架構的動態平衡

你指出，美國不僅有立法、行政、司法、美聯儲四權分立，還有文官媒體、文官制、公民擁槍等“被動權力”制衡。這種結構保證了權力的流動性，使國家治理不至於被某一權力中心完全操控。

 然而，這種制衡機制本質上是一種低效率但高容錯的博弈結構。

• 低效率：因為權力制衡意味着任何重大決策都會經歷複雜的博弈，導致政策難以快速推進。例如，美國的基礎設施投資、移民改革、槍支管理等問題，幾十年來都陷入政治僵局。

• 高容錯：這種機制使得即使總統犯錯，制度仍能一定程度上修正。例如，拜登政府在經濟和外交上的諸多爭議（如通脹管理、阿富汗撤軍）並未動搖美國整體的穩定。

川普執政風格的“極端化”在這個架構下並非孤立現象，而是制衡機制的一種極端應對。他希望用強烈的個人風格突破博弈僵局，但這樣做可能破壞長期積累的制度信任，導致治理體系失去平衡。

1. 川普的“X（推特）治國”策略

你批評川普的社交媒體治理方式是“語錄治國”或“最高指示治國”的翻版，這點非常有意思。川普的推特政治，體現了一種**“實時感應、瞬時反應、無深層反饋”的治理模式**，這與傳統政治的“周期決策、系統反饋、層層修正”形成鮮明對比。

這種治理方式的問題在於：

（1）.言多必敗：社交媒體放大了決策者的個人情緒，使政策失去連貫性。川普今天可以在X上說支持烏克蘭，明天又批評烏克蘭，造成外交混亂。

（2）.戰略迷失：過度依賴社交媒體，會使國家戰略碎片化，變成短期熱點驅動的被動施政，而非長期規劃的主動施政。

（3）.信任崩盤：政府治理需要的是穩健性，而非短期的輿論操作。過度依賴社交媒體，會導致選民對政府缺乏長期信任，因為今天的承諾隨時可能被明天的推文推翻。

換句話說，川普的“X治國”不是現代治理的進步，而是對制度的降級，從“博弈制衡”退回到“個人號令”。這不僅讓他的團隊陷入執行困境，也讓他的支持者對政策方向產生混亂。

1. 孞態網的視角：時空意間的信息感應

你提出的孞態網概念，強調“時空意間的信息感應”。如果從這個角度來看川普的執政方式，會發現一個核心問題——川普的政治感應模式存在嚴重的時空斷裂。

• 即時反應但缺乏“意間”：川普的X策略讓他能夠快速回應熱點，但這並不等於真正的信息感應。真正的感應，應該是基於長期趨勢、文化演變、結構性變量的深度分析，而不是依賴即時輿論波動。

• 碎片化決策導致“時空錯配”：現代國家治理涉及長期規劃，而不是單點決策。例如，處理俄烏衝突，需要深度理解地緣政治、歷史文化、能源格局，而不是簡單的社交媒體發言。川普的X策略使得他的政策方向經常在短時間內劇烈搖擺，形成戰略錯配。

• 缺乏“共生動態”機制：孞態網強調交互主體共生，而川普的治理方式則是單向信息流，即他發信息，社會接受，缺乏有效的動態反饋機制。這種單向治理模式，很容易造成決策孤立，導致政策執行困難。

從孞態網的角度來看，未來的政治治理需要構建“動態平衡感應系統”，能夠在時空意間中捕捉治理信號，避免陷入短視化和碎片化。否則，即使有最好的制度框架，也會因為信息感應系統的缺陷而導致失衡。

總結

(1).美國的權力架構是一個低效率但高容錯的博弈體系，其核心邏輯是防止權力濫用和防止政策失靈的雙重目標。

(2).川普的“X治國”策略雖然強化了個人領導力，但削弱了政策的穩定性，使美國治理陷入被動和無序。

(3).孞態網的“時空意間感應”視角揭示了川普治理方式的核心缺陷——碎片化、短視化、缺乏動態共生機制。未來政治治理需要超越單向信息控制，進入交互主體共生的智能治理階段。

如果川普想讓他的第二任期避免“打爛一手好牌”，他需要從“X（推特）治理”轉向孞態式的信息感應治理，否則即使有MAGA2.0戰略，也可能因執行混亂而失敗。

Washington’s “Silent” Wisdom:

The Foundation of a Great America

Fudan scholar Hua Min’s analysis of the institutional structure of the United States—specifically the separation of powers among the legislative, executive, judicial branches, and the Federal Reserve, as well as their functional interactions—is quite insightful.

However, his use of the term “true and false power” does not align with reality. A more accurate alternative would be “direct and indirect power,” “active and passive power,” or even “hard and soft power.”

In fact, beyond the legislative, executive, judicial branches, and the Federal Reserve, the United States has three additional forms of power that exist alongside them: the civil service media, the civil service system, and the right to bear arms.

If we categorize legislative, executive, and Federal Reserve powers as active and direct, then the judiciary, media, civil service system, and the right to bear arms would be considered passive and indirect. However, whether active or passive, direct or indirect, all of these constitute real power. The difference lies in the manner, method, and conditions under which they are exercised—including temporal and spatial factors.

As a “city upon a hill,” the United States has, over the past 250 years, established a constitutional foundation under “We the People.” Through the mechanisms of separation and checks and balances, it has minimized the abuse of public power—whether through reckless action or self-serving privilege—while also preventing political deadlock and bureaucratic stagnation to the greatest extent possible.

Nevertheless, the U.S. system is inevitably influenced by traditional culture, contemporary ideologies, technological and humanistic developments, and the mental and spiritual well-being of public officials—especially those in leadership positions.

Currently, there is heated debate both within and outside the U.S. regarding President Trump’s performance during his first hundred days in office. This scrutiny highlights the extent of these influences. It also reveals a critical missing element in American culture: the personal behavioral habits of public officials, especially the president, and the manner in which they exercise power, often become entangled, leading to uncertainty in major decisions—what might be called “big issues left unresolved” (in the sense of “asking Britain”).

However, such indecision is not always a bad thing. There have been notable historical examples where it has led to positive outcomes, such as:

• Washington’s “silence,” allowing the Federalists to take action;

• Jefferson’s flexible diplomacy, which secured vast western territories;

• Lincoln’s reiteration of “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” balancing victory with humility and reconciliation with the South;

• Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive Movement against monopolies;

• Reagan’s revival of the “shining city on a hill,” bringing an end to global economic stagnation.

Now, with Trump’s return to the presidency, his administration has had an unprecedented impact and sparked immense controversy. While I have previously urged patience—“let the bullets fly for a while”—I also strongly criticized Trump’s “X (Twitter) governance” style as early as February 5, just 12 days into his term. In my article MAGA 2.0: From Protectionism to a Global Symbiotic Strategy—How to Usher in America’s Next Golden Age?, written in Osaka (February 4 in North America), I offered five key recommendations for his administration. Read more here.

More than half a month has passed, yet Trump continues his relentless social media activity. His failure to successfully mediate the Ukraine conflict has led to an unnecessary public spat with President Zelensky—undermining the leader widely regarded as a hero in this heroless age. While Trump’s claim that Zelensky only has 4% support in Ukraine is a blatant falsehood (the actual figure is 57%), Zelensky’s decision to respond at all was equally unnecessary.

Despite his confident and triumphant return to the White House, Trump cannot escape the psychological toll of these setbacks. His comments to the media aboard Air Force One en route from Mar-a-Lago to Washington reflect a shift—one that has now placed him in a passive position on U.S.-China relations. While this may not be catastrophic, it could severely impact his adherence to the “20 Core Commitments” that define the MAGA strategy. If he loses focus, his youthful administration could become directionless and ineffective, leaving him personally struggling to regain control.

In a February 20 article, The Economist editor-in-chief Zanny Minton Beddoes wrote:

“The president is entitled to set new goals for the bureaucracy. Mr. Trump is hardly the first man in the Oval Office with maximalist ambitions. And he is still far from overturning America’s constitutional order. But the way Mr. Trump is going about his goals—at times with wanton cruelty—is dangerous and wrong. And Mr. Trump, being who he is, will contemplate any extreme. Get ready for a titanic struggle.”

I do not believe that Trump’s first month of “X (Twitter) governance” has been entirely without merit. However, for any political leader, the maxim “the more you speak, the more likely you are to make mistakes” is an iron law.

In a modern, AI-driven America, over-reliance on social media—especially in an emotionally charged manner—is no different from Mao Zedong’s “rule by quotations” or governance through “supreme directives.” Likewise, it mirrors the later practices of “rule by small groups,” “rule by committees,” “rule by policy documents,” “rule by instructions,” and “rule by memorials.” Ultimately, such an approach leads to chaotic policy execution, strategic misdirection, and a collapse of trust. It would truly be a case of “turning a winning hand into a losing one.”

Trump has a dynamic and capable governing team at his disposal. Why not take a lesson from General Washington’s “silent” wisdom?

Archer Hong Qian

February 21, 2025, Vancouver

 This issue can be analyzed from three perspectives: the dynamic balance of the U.S. power structure, Trump’s “X (Twitter) governance” strategy, and the “spatiotemporal and intersubjective information sensing” emphasized by the MindsNetworking (孞態網) framework.

1. The Dynamic Balance of the U.S. Power Structure

You pointed out that the U.S. not only has the traditional separation of powers among the legislative, executive, judicial branches, and the Federal Reserve but also includes “passive powers” such as the civil service, media, bureaucratic institutions, and the right to bear arms as additional checks and balances. This structure ensures the fluidity of power, preventing any single center of authority from exercising total control.

However, this mechanism is essentially a low-efficiency but high-fault-tolerance game structure:

• Low efficiency: The power balance means that any major decision undergoes a complex game of negotiations, making policy implementation slow. For instance, issues like infrastructure investment, immigration reform, and gun control have remained in political deadlock for decades.

• High fault tolerance: This system ensures that even if the president makes mistakes, the institutional framework can provide corrective measures. For example, the Biden administration’s controversial handling of inflation and the Afghanistan withdrawal did not fundamentally destabilize the U.S.

Trump’s “extreme” governing style is not an isolated phenomenon but rather an extreme response to the balancing mechanism. He sought to break through bureaucratic gridlock with a strong personal style, but this approach risks eroding the trust accumulated in the system over time, ultimately disrupting governance stability.

1. Trump’s “X (Twitter) Governance” Strategy

Your criticism of Trump’s use of social media as “governing through quotations” or “supreme directives” is quite insightful. His Twitter-driven governance reflects a model of governance that is “real-time reactive, instantly responsive, but lacking deep feedback,” which contrasts sharply with traditional policymaking, which involves “cyclical decision-making, systematic feedback, and layered adjustments.”

This mode of governance presents several problems:

1. The more he speaks, the more mistakes he makes: Social media amplifies a leader’s personal emotions, leading to inconsistent policies. Trump might tweet support for Ukraine today and criticize Ukraine tomorrow, creating diplomatic confusion.

2. Strategic disorientation: Over-reliance on social media results in policy fragmentation driven by short-term trends rather than proactive governance based on long-term planning.

3. Erosion of trust: Effective governance requires stability, not short-term PR maneuvers. When a leader excessively relies on social media, the public loses trust in long-term commitments since today’s promises could be overturned by tomorrow’s tweets.

In other words, Trump’s “X governance” is not a modernization of governance but a regression in institutional quality—from a “game-theory-based balancing system” back to a “personal decree model.” This not only put his administration in an execution dilemma but also confused his supporters regarding policy directions.

1. MindsNetworking (孞態網) Perspective: Spatiotemporal and Intersubjective Information Sensing

Your concept of MindsNetworking (孞態網) emphasizes “spatiotemporal and intersubjective information sensing.” From this perspective, Trump’s governing style reveals a core flaw—a severe discontinuity in his political sensing model.

• Instant reactions without intersubjective sensing: Trump’s use of X allows him to quickly respond to trending topics, but this does not equate to genuine information sensing. True sensing requires deep analysis of long-term trends, cultural shifts, and structural variables, rather than reacting to momentary public opinion waves.

• Fragmented decision-making leads to temporal and spatial mismatches: Modern governance requires long-term planning, not one-off directives. For example, handling the Russia-Ukraine conflict requires an in-depth understanding of geopolitics, historical cultures, and energy dynamics—not just impulsive social media statements. Trump’s X strategy frequently caused drastic policy shifts in short periods, leading to strategic mismatches.

• Lack of a “co-evolutionary dynamic” mechanism: MindsNetworking (孞態網) emphasizes intersubjective symbiosis, whereas Trump’s governance follows a unidirectional information flow—he speaks, society listens, but there is no effective dynamic feedback loop. This one-way governance model easily leads to isolated decision-making and policy execution difficulties.

From the MindsNetworking perspective, future political governance needs to establish a “dynamic balance sensing system” that can capture governance signals within the spatiotemporal intersubjective framework to avoid shortsightedness and fragmentation. Otherwise, even with the best institutional frameworks, governance failures will still occur due to deficiencies in information sensing mechanisms.

Conclusion

1. The U.S. power structure is a low-efficiency but high-fault-tolerance system, designed to prevent both power abuse and policy failures.

2. Trump’s “X governance” strategy, while strengthening personal leadership, weakens policy stability, pushing U.S. governance into a state of passivity and disorder.

3. The MindsNetworking (孞態網) perspective on “spatiotemporal and intersubjective sensing” reveals the fundamental flaws of Trump’s governance—fragmentation, short-termism, and lack of a co-evolutionary dynamic mechanism. Future governance must move beyond unidirectional information control and adopt an intersubjective symbiotic governance model.

If Trump wants to avoid “wasting a winning hand” in his potential second term, he must transition from “X (Twitter) governance” to MindsNetworking-based information sensing governance. Otherwise, even with the MAGA 2.0 strategy, his administration could still fail due to executional chaos.