如果9月10日的辩论，川普翻不了盘，他八成就没有机会了。

拜登退选，哈里斯接手，不是Trump的胜利，却给了他一种虚假的胜利感，更增添了几分傲慢和轻狂，而且继续纠结于和拜登争高下，谈各种国际国内政策策略，以一种已经胜选的口吻谈乌克兰战争，选择副手和轻视全新的竞争对手——年轻世代的哈里斯！只能是漏洞百出，授人以柄！

Trump似乎完全没有意识到，在美国的年轻选民心中，他和拜登一样，被视作同一世代的过气政客，他们不管你回锅什么政策，甚至什么理由都不要，仅仅因为哈里斯是更年轻更有活力的美国人，就会选择她呢？！

当然，现在还为时尚早，局势也不是坏到完全没有扭转的可能。那就要看，哈里斯有没有软肋，而且她是不是象Trump一样，被并非最后的胜利冲昏头脑。哈里斯的软肋，不是她的过去，不是她的能力（质疑这个完全没有意义），而是她奉行“分好蛋糕”而非“做大蛋糕”、关注“结果平等”而非“过程平等”的“大锅饭”政策，过于用鲜花讨好选民，将可能把美国引向“通往奴役之路”——让美国“拉美化”！

Trump应当抓住的是哈里斯的软肋，用委内瑞拉马杜罗做反而教材，而以阿根廷米莱总统“唤醒雄狮”为己任，将竞选辩论的焦点转移到经济政策和美国的未来发展上，激发美国年轻世代和“铁锈带”选民的辨识能力和创造热情！

当然啦，我说“哈里斯的软肋”，那么，这话也是说给哈里斯听的，如果她的格局足够大！其实拜登这三年多，并没有完全抛弃川普上一任期践行的基本政策，而且某些方面做得更老到。

正如麦克阿瑟在日本投降仪式上的演讲所说：“倘若我们要拯救肉体，就必然从精神层面入手！”美国的伟大，植根于"We the People"精神权能及其生命自组织力与外连接平衡力得到全球首屈一指的充分发挥！这也是Trump第一个任期内，初露端倪的“川普经济学”（Trumpnomics）的精神实质！

当代美国人，也应当有一个莎士比亚式的“王子之问”：To be or not to be的问题。就象英国摇滚乐队The Beatles歌曲《Live and Let Die》那样，具有面对生存与毁灭时的彷徨、抉择，勇敢地选择Live and let live——即一种处理人际、群际、国际、乃至星际关系（包括人与自然、人与社会、人与自己身心灵三大关系）的思维方式和价值取向，那么，也就是把Live and Let Die与To be or not to be，放在Live and let live的语境，中来理解人们在彷徨与抉择、生存与毁灭的情感基调和选择结果！

并由此引出一个警示世人的糟糕后果——即：如果不能“Live and let live”（互利互惠，自己活也让别人活，生生不息），那么，就可能会导致“Evil and let evil”（自己邪恶，也让别人邪恶，互坑互害）！

将Live and let live上升到哲学认知，就是所有个体、共同体、Trust组织，尤其是群体身份的代表人物（尤其是作为世界第一强国的领导人），都要改变过去主客体二元对立的观念，即不以主体（Subject）自居，而把他者（她、它、祂）作为客体物质对象（Object）来支配操纵（哪怕动机再好也不行），也就是在认知上将主客体二元转变为主体间性即交互主体（Intersubjective）上，并且用共生（Symbiosos）亦即Live and let live 加能规范。

这样，2024年美国总统候选人，就继温思罗普“山巅之城”精神之后，站在了一个当代哲学新范式的高度——对于人类生活方式创新与再选择：凡事交互主体共生（Everything Intersubjective Symbiosism）！

当然，这对现行思维——即造成“全球性问题”的思维方式，是一种极富挑战性的智慧要求！

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voters, he and Biden are seen as outdated politicians of the same 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