中国历来讲究“稳定”“和谐”，不仅仅胡锦涛习近平（习极端了），已经几千年了，“指导思想”以前是儒家，现在是“山寨马列主义”（中国特色的社会主义？谁也不知道是什么）。强调“国家民族利益”高于个人利益，强调牺牲个人的利益来换取国家的安全、稳定，对个人来说，“自由”是稀有的，得到的回报是安全、繁荣、生活水平的提高，日子不中断。不过这个过程既缓慢也不均匀，多数人得益，少数人得大益，一部分人被遗留在后，结果是大家都有意见，都抱怨。
不过中国算是活过来了，几千年，数次外族入侵，还统治几百年，融合的也不少（其实这是极其正常的事，叫历史），但中华文化本身一直得以延续。中国的制度有多大优越性，也不是这儿要说的，我甚至会说其缺陷其实一般大，还是必须接纳众多的西方思想，否则路越走越窄。
英国是现代西方自由资本主义的鼻祖，除了工业革命，就靠这儿发家，英国有一些基本治国资本主义国策，诸如自由创业、多劳（包括脑力）多得，财产权，法律法制，但还有一个关键，叫体制（institutions），一个稳定、健全、依法守法的体制，因此，英国精英对中国过去一千年的官僚体制，择优录取（而并非家族遗传）的文官制度充满敬佩，很服，至今依旧是个研究课题。你说只是为皇权卖命也行，充满腐败也行，但社会是运作了，中国在衰退前一直是世界经济大体，总体国力很强。
这一点，在Daron Acemoglu 和James Robinson两人的长作《国家衰落之根源（Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty）》是个讨论的主线（当然两人还强调“好的”“坏的”体制，如中国的极权，限制个人自由就是个“坏”体制，“迟早”遭殃）。
现在西方经济社会学对非洲落后研究的一个看法是，非洲缺乏这种社会体制、框架，现有的一个极其不健全的体制是西方殖民主义者遗留下来的专门用于统治掠夺非洲的最腐败的一套（不是我说的，Acemoglu 和Robinson两人之言）。
一个健全的体制，一个不健全的体制，毫无体制，还有一个动荡的体制。这最后一个情形就是美国今天面临的。
动荡，是国内的分裂，对立。美国左右，“进步”“保守”两派的对立，几十年了，里根年代的妥协早就无影无踪了，现在的对立还极端，到了你死我活的地步，而今在淳朴（Donald Trump）的煽动下似乎要把全国引入内战。
淳朴说现在的“政府是腐败的”，“媒体是腐败的”，“金融银行界是腐败的”，“克林顿（Hillary Clinton）是腐败的”(比尔·克林顿更是王八蛋，是当今妇女受爱的罪魁祸首，我也是克林顿的受害者），就是说“凡是对我有意见的都是腐败的，都黑”，“现在是历史上最黑暗的时刻”。
响应淳朴召唤暴动，蠢蠢欲动的淳粉。《波斯顿环球报》周末这篇报道在全国引起震荡。
《皮尤》【3】：党派间的怨愤
《皮尤》【3】：对他方的反感
《皮尤》【3】：对他方的态度
我在剖析淳阵民众心态：大家图啥？一文里详细解释了淳阵的很多铁杆其实并不穷，收入大大高于全国中值，没受自贸的打击，然而这并不妨碍他们的极端态度。
换句话说，白人是真的觉得社会不公平，自己的机会都给他人夺去了，奥巴马大大咧咧的还给他们撑腰，就是要把我们的一切都夺走啊。真是对淳阵民主心态最贴切的描述，是他们死心塌地支持淳朴的原因，这一点，把不同经济层次的淳阵民众团结在一起。
这一点，卡利亚【1】就密歇根大学的Inglehart和哈佛大学的Norris的新著：《Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash》再次重述：
大家的怨恨已经超越简单的经济因素，到了文化的程度，文化，就是我的世界观，生活观念，生活方式以及人生安全和过好日子的机会。现在都遭受威胁，有的已经被夺走了。
2015年，民主党众议院老大佩洛西（Nancy Pelosi）为了“维护众议院的尊严”，打算跨党支持共和党老大博纳（John Boehner），但因博纳自选退休而作罢。「老太太今年75岁，脑子还很快，佩服。共和党、右派、保守派都恨她，认为她是激进的代表，极左。」
这是个很关键的概念，不是机会越来越少了，而是被夺走了。被夺走，就是敌对，就是势不两立，以致到了你死我活的不可调和的程度，随之而来的种族歧视、宗教歧视、性别歧视都是自然而然的结果。
【2】：
华裔有“滚回中国”的风波。
与以往大选不同的是，这次大选淳朴的竞选发言如果没有大半也有一半是基于极其荒谬的谎言之上，有些谎言太可笑了，中学水平的人都一眼看穿，可是淳朴本人连这的能力都没有，但令人震惊的是淳粉也不在乎，越荒谬，月极端，大家月激昂，斗志越坚强。把自己的信念建立在谎言上，咋看起来不仅仅非理性，实乃不可思议。然而【4】介绍了另一项更新的研究，阐析这种心态。
Christopher H. Achen & Larry M. Bartels: Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government (Princeton Studies in Political Behavior)
美国选民看淡事实来做决定已经有一段历史了，即使候选人改变现有的经济政策，与自己原来的期望不一致，甚至有伤害自己利益的嫌疑，大家还是宁愿接受支持本党的候选人。这个解释是大家有个更加根深蒂固的观念，就是党一定代表自己的利益，所以最终选择本党的代表。
我对此的看法是从这种倾向的反面来看，那就是人最终关心的只是自己的生活方式和生活环境，对方总是在想方设法侵犯我的利益，只有我们同党们抱成一团才能挡住“对方”的攻击，所以具体政策有关系，但不是决定性的，我肯定会投本党一票。就目前的环境，这一利害关系就是大法官，那是影响到子子孙孙的生活方式的大事。
这个看法，跟几年前Jonathan Haidt的看法极其相仿。
Jonathan Haidt: The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
这种倾向叫“部落亲情”（tribal affinity），就是说同一个村的，大家去要饭，你觉得也得跟着去；去打劫、抢银行，你也不好推；要造反，呵呵，有灭九族的风险，但不去不行啊，大家都盯着你。
说俗了就是，你我相互瞅一眼，大家心照不宣，好歹是一帮的，咱彼此间的高尚品德还是卑鄙行径就放下不说了，现在外面都是豺狼，险，先联手再说，不是要击退它们，而是得把它们宰了。
既然如此，淳朴是否撒谎，是否具备基本人格，无关紧要。
有人把这叫牺牲小节为大义，我说这叫“什么奸”。
也就是你不在乎出卖自己的人格。
这就是共和党此刻心理的描述。淳朴都不是货真价实的共和党（参见，譬如：狗屁不通的淳朴经济政策），呵呵。
深深描绘当前的背景、心态的莫过于电影《拳帮》。你要是没看过，一定要看看。
诺顿（Edward Norton）和皮特（Brad Pitt）领衔主演
![Fight Club (10th Anniversary Edition) [Blu-ray]](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91-8aMymQWL._SX342_.jpg)
《拳帮》
电影上演时并不非常卖座，但随着时间越来越成为地下暗流信奉的偶像，反映的心态、信念和追随的潮流，主角Tyler Durden也是反潮流网站“零对冲”（Zero Hedge）的别名。
主角因为处处受人歧视压制，无法承受，开了个拳击班，帮规严厉，此后越来越大，到了无处不在的程度，拳帮最后策反，在全世界暴动，将金融中心一一炸毁，而主角Tyler Durden的双重人性（诺顿和皮特分别表演）最后也变成疯魔，把自己完全控制，他只有在自己杀了自己一条命后才恢复到人的原性。
难道淳朴是个双重人性？
大家冲动，不希望用脑子，明白，理解（Achen & Bartels，Haidt），同情。淳朴进来对整个体制的攻击，他自己不懂，不能在乎，意料之中。但我忍不住，问问大家，问问死心塌地的淳粉。你的房子是假的（房契被删改了），银行的账号是假的（被改了），股票行账号是假的，病了看病医生随时向陷害你，你的苹果手机、古狗搜索结果，脸谱信息，都是掺了假的，因为那是精英大学洗过脑的硅谷精英造的，难说不是为了控制全国。淳朴的言论就是彻底否认美国的民主机制，也就大家依据生活的基础，从而也否定西方价值的基础。
上周我已经断言淳朴败选成定局（参见：淳朴终于玩完了，克林顿依然胜券在握），淳朴的对策是将全国带入乌黑的年代，可惜淳朴脑子已经衰退了，说不定老年痴呆症，他自己压根儿就不知道除了自己一生积累的经验，还能有其他任何途径，任何天地，这是他唯一能说的是整个体制都已腐败的原因。
淳阵不计较他那黑暗的人生观，只是他的他的天地只是一部分而已，其他人很清楚淳朴本人就是现有体制的代表，是既得利益者，如果克林顿腐败，他每样都有过之无不及：
"If you look at the case we wanted to prosecute, for a lack of a better term, Hillary Clinton for — if you want to talk about the Clinton sex scandals, well, it turns out Donald Trump has his as well. And if you want to focus on the Clintons having a shady charity, well, Donald Trump has his own shady charity."At every turn, all the things you want to use against Hillary Clinton, Trump has all the same problems," he said.《商业内幕（Business Insider）》
正如我在恨现有体制腐败？先把联储给我砸了，再说别的里说的：
大部分人（有钱人）背景跟淳朴很相似，“闯”“创”出来的。不过这些人里不使些阴招，将各种关系门路用尽，到不了今天的地步。按此说法，他们才是“体制内的人”，是最大的受益者和利益集团。淳朴也是“体制内的人”，也是最大的受益者，是利益集团的一员。
淳朴的“三光政策”（“三光政策”参见：“华裔多数支持淳朴”这传说是哪来的？）
‘We’re bringing out tactical nukes now, with thermo nukes later.’ The attacks on the Clintons are also aimed at the ‘suppression of votes’ from millennial women, African-Americans and the ‘idealistic Bernie Sanders supporter,’
这思潮倒退到什么年代了？
面对美国陷入的瘫痪，中国冷眼在旁观看。淳阵完全否认精英的一切，克阵不完全否认精英，但也极端怀疑，西方精英们建造的这体制，让资本主义壮大繁华了几百年，现在美国欧洲面临的局势大有将整个体制引致瘫痪的地步，也许大家对中国的体制还是不屑，但未必能再显得高高在上了。
淳朴和淳粉声言的“系统腐败、被操纵”，“大选被盗窃”（polls rigged, media and system corrupt, debate moderators biased and election to be stolen）彻底否定了美国在全球领袖的地位
《金融时报》【5】The Chinese challenge to America’s democratic ideology is more subtle and perhaps more dangerous because China can make a good claim to be a well-governed country.The Chinese argue that their system selects leaders on merit, after decades of rigorous assessment. President Xi only made it to the pinnacle of state power after many years of work in the provinces and in different government jobs. He has been judged by his peers, not the voters, to be qualified to run the country.In Beijing recently, I was told that many Chinese officials quite like the idea of Mr Trump as US president “because he makes America look so bad”. By contrast, US allies around the world would be dismayed to see the Oval Office occupied by an erratic “America First” narcissist like Mr Trump.
中国想不自满一把拽不行了。想想啥孔子学院啊，亏大钱，还被人笑遭人骂，美国自己就把中国推到了前言，给“中国模式”找到了依据，中国剩下的就是琢磨如何推却（还不具备这实力）。
以前西方嘲笑中国金融落后，美国的金融大危机，大家不笑了。西方依旧嘲笑中国的体制，目前到底是谁笑谁呢？
【注】
淳朴如果当选，世界必定陷入经济危机。他的经济政策基本建立在无知上，尤其是贸易政策，世界贸易如果进入贸易战，中国一定陷入困境，但是中国不会是唯一，德国日本韩国的出口大国一同遭殃，所有靠原材料的国家也遭殃。如果谁以为这让美国立于不败之地，那是无知。美国经济没法脱离世界经济，这种所谓“筹码”般的政策不是玩笑，而是个（经济）原子弹，一投，大家一块死。
任何侥幸心态完全是无知。
【资料】
【1】《华盛顿邮报》法里德·扎卡利亚（Fareed Zakaria，美国新闻电视站CNN每周一次的“全球大众论坛”（GPS-Global Public Square）主持人）It’s no longer the economy, stupid: Our identity politics are polarizing us
【5】《金融时报》Donald Trump and the declining prestige of US democracy（附录在下）
And he is proclaiming conspiracies everywhere — in polls (rigged), in debate moderators (biased) and in the election itself (soon to be stolen)
This is a campaign right out of Breitbart-迈入妄想症时刻
How did it come to this? The presidential election debates should represent US democracy at its finest. Instead, the second Clinton-Trump debate centred around sordid allegations of sexual assault, threats, lies and mutual contempt.
At one stage, Mr Trump boasted that Mrs Clinton would “be in jail” if he were in charge of the legal system. Political rivals to the president get imprisoned in Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. America is meant to live by different standards.
Sunday night’s spectacle is not just embarrassing for the US. America is widely regarded as the “leader of the free world.” So the rise of Mr Trump threatens to damage the prestige of democracy everywhere.
The damage is not restricted to the world of ideas. Authoritarianism and anti-Americanism are on the march, led by increasingly confident governments in Beijing and Moscow. A strong and impressive US should be central to rallying the response of the world’s democracies. Instead, we had the depressing and degrading spectacle of the second Trump-Clinton debate.
Even in their current sorry state, the presidential debates have shown some of the drama and energy that distinguish US politics. Millions of people around the world watched and discussed the confrontation. The next session of China’s National People’s Congress will not attract a similar audience.
It is also true that neither Xi Jinping of China nor Vladimir Putin of Russia would ever be subjected to the kind of brutal interrogation to which American politicians are subjected on a routine basis. Instead, last week, the Russian Duma sent Mr Putin 450 roses to mark his birthday.
Yet, even so, the second presidential election debate was a desperately poor advertisement for US democracy. In some respects, Mr Trump has actually introduced some of the malign features of Russian and Chinese politics into the US. One of the strengths of the western democratic system is that a free press and open debate are meant to expose falsehoods. Yet Mr Trump sprays out lies like a skunk trying to repel its enemies. His method seems to be to create such confusion that the truth simply gets buried amid a mass of falsehoods. This is characteristic of the current Russian propaganda system described in an aptly titled book by Peter Pomerantsev: Nothing is True and Everything Is Possible.
The Chinese challenge to America’s democratic ideology is more subtle and perhaps more dangerous because China, unlike Russia, can make a good claim to be a well-governed country. China is the largest economy in the world measured by purchasing power parity. The Chinese argue that their system selects leaders on merit, after decades of rigorous assessment. President Xi only made it to the pinnacle of state power after many years of work in the provinces and in different government jobs. He has been judged by his peers, not the voters, to be qualified to run the country.
The Chinese do not yet argue that their system should be applied around the world. But they do increasingly condemn — as agents of America, seeking to “sow chaos” — those who make the case for a more liberal political system within the Sinic world, for example in Hong Kong or Taiwan. Beleaguered liberals in Russia or China need a well-functioning US democracy as a support and an inspiration. Instead, they see a system that produces Mr Trump, a man whose political style owes more to President Putin than to President Obama.
In Beijing recently, I was told that many Chinese officials quite like the idea of Mr Trump as US president “because he makes America look so bad”. By contrast, US allies around the world would be dismayed to see the Oval Office occupied by an erratic “America First” narcissist like Mr Trump.
Of course US politics has thrown up villains and melodrama before. The first great US political scandal that I followed as a child was Watergate — which also featured a “bad guy” making scandalous remarks on a secret recording. The Watergate tapes introduced the American public to the phrase “expletive deleted”. Many Americans were scandalised by the profanity and cynicism of Richard Nixon, their president. But the way that the US system — the courts, the press and the Congress working together — dealt with Nixon was ultimately very impressive. And for all his flaws, no one doubted that Nixon had the experience and the intelligence to be president.
By contrast, Mr Trump is manifestly unqualified and has thrown the US system into confusion, leaving the press and the Republican party floundering. The fact that more than 40 per cent of Americans, and a majority of whites, are probably going to vote for him suggests that the US is in deep trouble. We can, by now, all list the ingredients that have helped create this sickness — economic stagnation, inequality, illegal immigration, the rise of social media — but the outcome threatens the prestige of democracy worldwide.
If Mrs Clinton makes it to the White House there will be relief across the west and a certain disappointment in Moscow and, perhaps, Beijing. But it will be very hard to erase the memory of this campaign. It has presented an image of a troubled, divided and deluded US to the rest of the world. As a result, it has already dealt a serious blow to the prestige and power of the west.
