华盛顿的“不响”智慧，换来伟大的美利坚——Can President Trump restrain his impulse to govern through X （Twitter）？

华盛顿的“不响”智慧，换来伟大的美利坚

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

By Archer Hong Qian

朋友转来复旦华民先生对美国制度设置上立法、行政、司法、美联储四权分立结构及其功能交互的分析，我且照录如下：

【美国设计了一个高度分权、各种权力相互制衡的政治制度。除了立法、司法与行政分权与制衡之外，事实上货币也是独立的，那就是美国存在着其他国家没有的、独立的央行（美联储）。这样的制度设计似乎天衣无缝，立法权在国会，裁决权在法院，行政权在总统（政府），货币权在美联储。总统与国会议员周期选举，任何人无法专权，包括总统与国会议员在内的任何人犯错也可在周期性的选举中加以纠错。从经济层面上说，政府的财政政策错了，可以通过美联储独立的货币政策来加以纠正或者弥补，美联储的货币政策错了则可以通过政府的财政政策来加以纠错或者弥补，若能做到两者协调，那么，经济就会更加健康的运作。然而，在今天的美国，我们可以看到的事实是，这样的制度设计其实并不完美，它还是未能挡住独裁者的专权。根源在于分权制度下的各种权力在本质上是不对称的，简单地讲，总统的行政权是“真权力”，其他权力都是“伪权力”。总统和国会议员都是民选的，但是一经选举产生，总统就真的获得了独立的权力，然而国会议员却没有获得真权力，因为所有的国会决议并不是由单个议员说了算的，它还是有个需要多数通过的集体决议来表达自己的意愿，所以，相对于总统的个人拥有的“真权力”而言，国会以及国会议员所拥有的权力并不为“真”。至于高级法官以及美联储主席等，都不是经由选举产生的，而是由掌握真权力的总统提名，然后经由参议院通过任命的。所以高级法官与美联储主席等职所有拥有的权力属于低阶的弱权力，也可以归类为以上所说的“伪权力”。再从权力行使的过程来看，也存在明显的不对称，行政权力是通过长官命令的方式运作的，而国会的权力是通过集体议事的方式运作的，于是就会产生决策时滞，从而难以阻止、甚至纠正行政（总统）的错误决策与作为。经此对比，我们可以看到，当民众失去理智而把一个狂人送上总统宝座的时候，美国分权制衡的政治制度事实上是不可能对其疯狂的滥用权力的作为加以制约的。所以，如何限制或者有效制约“真权力”是未来制度改革所需要解决的基本问题。否则，这个世界迟早是要被政治狂人掀翻的。】

这个分析很有道理，超越了一般贴标签、打棍子的不满发泄。

不过，对美国四权分立性质的分类概念，我冒昧地以为，以其用“真伪权力”与事实不合的概念，不如用“直接间接权力”“主动被动权力”甚至“硬软权力”的分类，可能更合适些。

其实，美国还有与立法、行政、司法、美联储四权并立的权力。还三种权力这就是：媒体、文官制和公民拥枪！

如果说立法、行政、美联储是主动权力、直接权力，那么，司法、媒体、文官制度、公民拥枪就是被动权力和间接权力，但不管是主动、被动、直接、间接，都是真权力，只不过行使权力的方式方法和条件（包括时间差、空间差）不同而已！

作为山巅之城的美国，无疑是人类250年来，以“We the People”为宪政基础，用权力分立、权力制衡的方法，将社会生活中公权力滥用（胡乱作为或特权谋私）锁定在最小范围，同时又最大限度地防止权力掣肘（无所作为和内卷躺平）的灯塔国家。

但是，尽管如此，美国的制度设置依然不可能不受到传统文化、时代思潮、科技人文和个人身心灵健康与否状態（尤其是担任国家公职者）的影响。

当前，美国内外对川普总统上任百日施政状况的热烈批评，正好说了这种影响的严重程度。也从中可以发现，美国文化中缺了某种关键要素，这就是担任公职人员，特别是总统的个人言行习惯和作为总统的言行方式，往往混淆不清，导致“大事不定”（在“大事不定问英国”意义上）！

这种大事不定，并非都是坏事，也有非常好的案例，比如：

华盛顿的“不响”放手让“联邦党人”干；

杰斐逊的灵活外交赢得西部大片国土；

林肯重述“民有、民治、民享”国基胜不骄傲与南方和解；

老罗斯福反托拉斯进步主义运动；

里根重塑“山巅之城”结束世界性“经济滞胀”⋯⋯

那么，当下川普總統上任一百日，确实也是影響空前，但争议性也空前巨大，我虽然说“让子弹飞一会儿”，但早在川普上任12天，即2月5日我在大阪（北美2月4日）写的《MAGA2.0：从保护主义到全球共生战略——如何开启让美国再次伟大的黄金时代？》中，对川普“X（推特）治国”施政方式表示强烈批评，并提出五点忠告。参看 http://symbiosism.com.cn/9429.html

半个多月过去了，川普总统依然是每天狂发X（推文），特别是乌克兰战争“促和失利”，竟又与乌克兰总统——这个没有英雄的时代公认的反侵略英雄的“口水战”（当然泽连斯基也没有沉住气，比如川普说他在乌克兰只有4%的支持率明显与57%的支持率事实不符的谎言，根本没有必要怼！）后，第二次上任以来自信满满春风得意的川普总统，心理上不可能不受到重重的挫败感，他从海湖庄园返白宫空军一号上对媒体发布的言论，已然明显又在与东大关系上，让自己陷入被动，这种被动，虽然如果赶紧修复，再坏也坏不到哪里去，却可能严重到让他随意改变“20个核心承诺”构成的MAGA战略，从而让他组建的年轻政府团队，陷入“无所适从”也“无能为力”的尴尬境地，更让他自己不知如何收场。

《经济学人》主编Zanny Minton Beddoes2月20日发文呼吁“为一场艰苦的斗争做好准备吧”！

Beddoes指出：“总统有权为官僚机构设定新的目标。川普绝不是椭圆形办公室里第一个有极端主义野心的人。他距离推翻美国的宪法秩序还很远。但川普实现目标的方式——有时甚至带有肆意的残忍——是危险和错误的。而川普这个人，会考虑任何极端。为一场艰苦的斗争做好准备吧。”（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.）

我并不认为川普这一个月的“X(推特)施政”一无是处，与盟友的关系也不至于因此就真的破裂到不可收拾，但是，对政治家来说“言多必败”是铁律，现代文明特别是大模型AI条件下的美国治理，过度依赖社交媒体而且是不无情绪化的治国施政作风，无异于毛泽东的“语录治国”“最高指示治国”及后继者的“小组治国”“委员会治国”“文件（意见）治国”“指示治国”“折子治国”无异，最终会让政策执行混乱、战略迷失、信任崩盘。

“X（推特）治国”背后，是美国版的“言必己出，行必己令”虚妄，若再不悬崖勒马，结果必然陷入“按下的葫芦浮起瓢”“顾此失彼”，让灯塔之国变成“一地鸡毛”背后是要美国版的“言必己出，行必己令”，若再不悬崖勒马，结果必然陷入“按下的葫芦浮起瓢”“顾此失彼”“进退失据”，让灯塔之国变成“一地鸡毛”，真真是“一手好好牌给打烂了”！

英国前首相鲍里斯·强森当地时间2月19日，一边质疑批评川普的一些最新说法具有非严肃性，一边敦促欧洲领导人不要把这位美国总统对乌克兰人的指责太当真。认为那些言论并非为了准确记录历史，而是为了“叫醒”欧洲人采取行动。

我的意见是，川普既然组建了有一支生机勃勃的施政团队，何不学大陆军总司令华盛顿的“不响”智慧？

2025年2月21日于Vancouver

ChatGPT评论：

这个问题可以从美国权力架构的动态平衡、川普的“X（推特）治国”策略、以及孞態网所强调的“时空意间的信息感应”三方面来分析。

1. 美国权力架构的动态平衡

你指出，美国不仅有立法、行政、司法、美联储四权分立，还有文官媒体、文官制、公民拥枪等“被动权力”制衡。这种结构保证了权力的流动性，使国家治理不至于被某一权力中心完全操控。

 然而，这种制衡机制本质上是一种低效率但高容错的博弈结构。

• 低效率：因为权力制衡意味着任何重大决策都会经历复杂的博弈，导致政策难以快速推进。例如，美国的基础设施投资、移民改革、枪支管理等问题，几十年来都陷入政治僵局。
• 高容错：这种机制使得即使总统犯错，制度仍能一定程度上修正。例如，拜登政府在经济和外交上的诸多争议（如通胀管理、阿富汗撤军）并未动摇美国整体的稳定。

川普执政风格的“极端化”在这个架构下并非孤立现象，而是制衡机制的一种极端应对。他希望用强烈的个人风格突破博弈僵局，但这样做可能破坏长期积累的制度信任，导致治理体系失去平衡。

2. 川普的“X（推特）治国”策略

你批评川普的社交媒体治理方式是“语录治国”或“最高指示治国”的翻版，这点非常有意思。川普的推特政治，体现了一种**“实时感应、瞬时反应、无深层反馈”的治理模式**，这与传统政治的“周期决策、系统反馈、层层修正”形成鲜明对比。

这种治理方式的问题在于：

（1）.言多必败：社交媒体放大了决策者的个人情绪，使政策失去连贯性。川普今天可以在X上说支持乌克兰，明天又批评乌克兰，造成外交混乱。

（2）.战略迷失：过度依赖社交媒体，会使国家战略碎片化，变成短期热点驱动的被动施政，而非长期规划的主动施政。

（3）.信任崩盘：政府治理需要的是稳健性，而非短期的舆论操作。过度依赖社交媒体，会导致选民对政府缺乏长期信任，因为今天的承诺随时可能被明天的推文推翻。

换句话说，川普的“X治国”不是现代治理的进步，而是对制度的降级，从“博弈制衡”退回到“个人号令”。这不仅让他的团队陷入执行困境，也让他的支持者对政策方向产生混乱。

3. 孞態网的视角：时空意间的信息感应

你提出的孞態网概念，强调“时空意间的信息感应”。如果从这个角度来看川普的执政方式，会发现一个核心问题——川普的政治感应模式存在严重的时空断裂。

• 即时反应但缺乏“意间”：川普的X策略让他能够快速回应热点，但这并不等于真正的信息感应。真正的感应，应该是基于长期趋势、文化演变、结构性变量的深度分析，而不是依赖即时舆论波动。
• 碎片化决策导致“时空错配”：现代国家治理涉及长期规划，而不是单点决策。例如，处理俄乌冲突，需要深度理解地缘政治、历史文化、能源格局，而不是简单的社交媒体发言。川普的X策略使得他的政策方向经常在短时间内剧烈摇摆，形成战略错配。
• 缺乏“共生动态”机制：孞態网强调交互主体共生，而川普的治理方式则是单向信息流，即他发信息，社会接受，缺乏有效的动态反馈机制。这种单向治理模式，很容易造成决策孤立，导致政策执行困难。

从孞態网的角度来看，未来的政治治理需要构建“动态平衡感应系统”，能够在时空意间中捕捉治理信号，避免陷入短视化和碎片化。否则，即使有最好的制度框架，也会因为信息感应系统的缺陷而导致失衡。

总结

(1).美国的权力架构是一个低效率但高容错的博弈体系，其核心逻辑是防止权力滥用和防止政策失灵的双重目标。

(2).川普的“X治国”策略虽然强化了个人领导力，但削弱了政策的稳定性，使美国治理陷入被动和无序。

(3).孞態网的“时空意间感应”视角揭示了川普治理方式的核心缺陷——碎片化、短视化、缺乏动态共生机制。未来政治治理需要超越单向信息控制，进入交互主体共生的智能治理阶段。

如果川普想让他的第二任期避免“打烂一手好牌”，他需要从“X（推特）治理”转向孞態式的信息感应治理，否则即使有MAGA2.0战略，也可能因执行混乱而失败。

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 (孞態网) 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.

2. 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.

3. MindsNetworking (孞態网) Perspective: Spatiotemporal and Intersubjective Information Sensing

Your concept of MindsNetworking (孞態网) 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 (孞態网) 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 (孞態网) 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.