美國民主最不適合美國，以及西方制度的執行條件

兔主席/tuzhuxi 202501016

剛在外網發了一系列帖子，總共25個推文，分享了一下“自由民主”和選舉政治的歷史特性和執行條件，為什麼歐洲長成這樣，以及為什麼美國是最不適合這個體制的。美國科技右翼掌權以來，社交媒體上的資訊審查和遮蔽少了（以前動輒封號），這些聲音也就可以發表出去了。

由於行文的字數和篇幅高度受限，主要為了傳播，所以言簡意賅，點到即止，沒有展開。僅供參考哈。

1.西方自由民主和選舉政治作為一種特定的制度與解決方案，源於並興起於獨特的歷史背景，也就是歷史上的歐洲。這種制度在特定條件下執行效果最佳，而這些條件往往存在於幾個世紀之前。這些因素如下：

（1）人口有限——最好是幾萬、幾十萬，至多幾百萬人口；有限的人口規模縮短了人們之間的“距離”，使個體之間能夠相互熟悉、彼此信任。

（2）領土面積適中——而非幅員遼闊或地域廣袤。地理距離與資訊交流、生活方式以及心理親近程度息息相關。簡而言之，社群規模越小，人們之間的關係就越緊密。

（3）人口具有高度同質性。這裡所說的“同質性”，首先指的是種族、語言、宗教、共同歷史、價值觀、生活方式，甚至性取向等——這包括了所有那些容易將人們劃分成不同群體的因素。

（4）社會是有機且共生的，在這種社會中，人們對人際關係、團結、共同價值觀、公共生活、規則、規範以及某種等級制度和社會結構（即便在民主制度下）有著基本且普遍的理解與維護。

（5）經濟相對“封閉”，可以與外國進行商品貿易，但資本和人口流動受限；只有在相對封閉且靜態的經濟環境下，一個社會才能坐下來解決勞資關係和社會分配問題。

（6）外國或外部干擾及影響有限；來自“全球化”或國際地緣政治的因素極少。這確保了自由政策能在政治、經濟和社會方面實現相對穩定。

（7）共享事實（資訊對稱）。人們閱讀相同的報紙，對基本事實達成共識，並基於共同的、普遍的認知來進行辯論。

2.正是在這些（理想）條件下，西方自由民主才能實現最佳、有效且可持續的運轉。這個制度本身並沒有問題，只是它需要特定條件才能執行併發揮其優勢。

3.自康德以來的歐洲大陸啟蒙哲學將民主視為自主性和自由的最大化；它不僅滿足個人需求，還延伸至“民族”層面，涉及“民族自治”，進而形成了民族國家（與自由民主）相契合的一套概念

4.正如前面所討論的，要讓“自由民主”妥善且有效地發揮作用，最好具備一些必要條件，而這些條件的本質實際上就是“同質性”。要解決這個問題，就需要構建一個定義明確、界限清晰的“民族”概念。

5.接下來要做的就是“找到自己的民眾”，界定“我們”（本國人）和“他們”（外國人）之間的界限，然後建立一個“民族國家”。在一個“民族”內部總會存在少數群體，而且這往往會引發種族衝突和種族清洗的傾向。

6.而在現實世界中，政治、經濟、社會、文化以及民眾總是在不斷演變和變化。這幾乎總會導致同質性受到侵蝕，進而使民族國家和自由民主的執行出現問題，削弱其合法性和問責性。

7.歷史上看，非民主制度的解決辦法往往是種族清洗；自由民主制度的解決辦法則是：（1）反移民與同化；（2）進一步分裂成更小的民族國家，或者從那些規模更大、缺乏責任性、不民主的集團（例如歐盟）中脫離出來，以此來完善制度。

8.如果你覺得歐洲的地圖很奇怪——為什麼有這麼多小國家？為什麼它們無法形成一股統一的政治力量？你已經找到答案了：源於啟蒙自由主義，歐洲各國分裂成更小的政治單元以提高民主效率和功能

9.那為什麼歐洲現在政治如此不穩定呢？民粹主義、極左和極右勢力興起，出現“非自由民主”的趨勢又是為什麼呢？你也能找到答案了：因為經濟全球化、大規模移民、文化多元化以及在數字時代“共享事實”的缺失。

10.這一切都可以歸於一點：同質性的喪失。幾個世紀前那些歐洲人（“死掉的白人男性”）所設想的“自由民主”的理想條件難以維持，且已不復存在。這一制度在執行和取得成效方面舉步維艱。

11.這也揭示了那些“歷史終結論”支持者，如弗朗西斯·福山之流，在哲學和思想層面極其幼稚的一面，他們認為自由民主和新自由主義代表了某種終極治理模式，卻未能理解二者之間內在的矛盾。

12.此前，我們討論了民主的理想條件。如果滿足那些社會政治因素，民主就能作為一種穩定器發揮作用，緩解衝突、促進社會進步、適應經濟和技術變革。戰後的西方就是這種情況。

13.但如果沒有那些條件，自由民主和選舉政治就會加速社會分裂和政治極化，導致更大的不穩定。例如，儘管人們大多關注經濟全球化，但社交媒體、人工智慧/自動化對民主構成的威脅要大得多。

14.而且人們應該思考一下，當資本、技術、大企業和政治聯合在一起時會發生什麼——這對普通公民意味著什麼？更有可能是烏托邦，還是反烏托邦呢？

15.最後，讓我們來談談美國。由於各種歷史上的“巧合”和“偶然因素”，美國已經演變成一個擁有3億多人口的龐大且異質化的社會。在西方文明中，它是一個相當獨特的異類，肯定不能代表常態。

16.在約250年前建國時，美國或許還滿足民主的理想條件。而異質性/多樣性問題——例如針對美洲原住民、黑人以及女性——是透過剝奪他們與白人男性平等的投票權來“解決”的。

17.但250年後的今天，在如今這個複雜得多的環境下，這些條件在美國已不復存在。不難得出一個不幸但很有可能正確的結論：美利堅合眾國是最不適合自身制度的國家。

18.如果你看到美國的民主面臨僵局、運轉失靈、動盪不安、兩極分化、極端主義、“非自由民主”抬頭，甚至有內爆的危險，同時又無力解決其深層次的政治和社會問題，那可不要感到驚訝。

英文（原文）

1.Western liberal democracy and electoral politics, as a specific system and solution, stemmed from and arose in unique historical context, namely the historical Europe. such a system works best under specific conditions, often present centuries ago.These factors are:

1）limited populations – preferably tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or a few millions at most; a limited population size shortens the "distance" between people, enables familiarity and trust among individuals.

2) Modest territorial size – not a vast or geographically sprawling. Similarly, geographical / physical distance is tied to information exchange, lifestyle, and psychological proximity. In short, the smaller the community, the closer people are.

3)Populations as highly homogenous. By “homogeneity”, above all, we mean ethnicity/race, language, religion, shared history, value, way of life, even sexuality, – all the factors that tend to separate people into groups.

4)Society being organic and symbiotic, where there is a basic and prevailing understanding and upholding of relationship, unity, shared values, and communal life, rules, norms and a certain hierarchy and social structure (even in a democracy)

5)A relatively “closed” economy, there can be trade in goods with foreign countries, but limited capital and population movement; only in a relatively closed and static economy, a society can “sit down” and reconcile capital-labor relations and social distribution issues

6) Limited foreign/external interference and influence; minimal factors from “globalization” or international geopolitics. 1/ This ensures a liberal policy achieves relative stability in politics, economy, and society.

7)Shared facts (information symmetry). people consumed the same newspapers, agreed on basic facts, and conduct debated based upon shared, common understandings.

2.It is under these (ideal) conditions, a western liberal democracy could function optimally, effectively and sustainably. There is nothing wrong with the system, just that it requires certain condition to operate and realize its merits

3.The Continental Enlightenment philosophy since Kant then saw democracy as maximizing autonomy and freedom; it not only meets individual needs, but also extended to “nations”, to "national autonomy", and that gives an alignment concept of nation-state (with liberal democracy)

4.And as discussed earlier, for "liberal democracy" to function properly & effectively, you better have those necessary conditions, & the essence of which is in fact “homogeneity”. To solve the problem, you need to construct a clearly defined and well-bounded idea of “nation”

5.The exercise is now “find your people”, define the boundaries between “us” (nationals) and “them” (non-nationals), and then establish a “nation-state”. There are always minorities within a “nation” and oftentimes give rise to tendency for ethnic conflicts and cleansing

6.And in the real world, politics, economics, society, culture, people always evolve and change. it almost always leads to the erosion of homogeneity, which subsequently problematize the function of nation-state and liberal democracy, reducing its legitimacy and accountability

7.Historically, a non-democracy’s solution could be ethnic-cleansing; a liberal democracy’s solution is: 1) anti-immigration and assimilation 2) further divide into smaller nation-states or dissociate from larger, unaccountable blocs (e.g. EU), so as to optimize the system

8.If you find Europe’s map odd—why so many small countries？why they're unable to become one unifying political force—you got the answer: rooted in enlightenment liberalism, European nations are fragmented into smaller polities to enhance democratic efficiency & functionality

9.And why is Europe having so much political instability now? The rise of populism, far-left and far-right, the trend of “illiberal democracy”? you got the answer too: because economic globalization, mass immigration, culture pluralism, loss of “shared facts” in the digital age

10.It all comes down to one thing: the loss of homogeneity and coherence. The ideal conditions for “liberal democracy”, envisioned by those Europeans （“dead white men“）centuries ago, are hard to sustain and no longer exist. The system struggles to function and deliver results.

11.And this tells you the uttermost philosophical and intellectual naivety of those “end-of-history” proponents, Francis Fukuyama and alike, believing that liberal democracy AND neoliberalism represents some ultimate model of governance, while failing to understand the inherent tensions between the two

12.Earlier, we discussed the ideal conditions for democracy. If those socio-political factors are met, democracy can function as a stabilizer to mitigate conflicts, promote social progress, accommodate economic and technology shifts. This was the case for the post-war West

13.But w/o those conditions, liberal democracy may actually accelerate social division & political polarization, leading to greater instability. E.g. while much attention is on economic globalization, social media, AI/automation poses a much greater threat to democracy

14.And one should consider what happens when big capital, advanced technology, big corporations, and politics align together? what does this mean for the average citizen? Would it more likely to be a utopia, or a dystopia

15.Lastly, let’s turn to the US. on top of various historical “coincidences” & “contingencies”, the U.S. has evolved into a vast, heterogeneous society of 300+ million people. Within Western civilization, it is a rather unique outlier, certainly not representative of the norm

16.And when it was founded c.250 years ago, ideal conditions for democracy might have been met. The heterogeneity/diversity issues—e.g. Native Americans, Black people, and women—were “solved” by denying them equal voting rights with white men.

17.But ~250 years later, in today’s vastly more complex environment, these conditions no longer hold in this country. It is tempting to draw the unfortunate but likely true conclusion, that the United Staters of America is the least suited country for its own system.

18.If you see U.S. democracy facing gridlock, dysfunction, unrest, polarization, extremism, a rise in illiberal democracy, or even implosion, while unable to solve its deep political and social issues, do not be surprised.

【如您覺得本文不錯，歡迎點贊打賞以資鼓勵（1元即可）！】