宪政自由与机会平等：

共生政治学视野下美国两党“易道对抗”之转换

Constitutional Liberty and Equality of Opportunity:  

The Transformation of U.S. Two-Party “Changing Lanes” Rivalry in the Symbiopolitics Perspective  

钱宏（Archer Hong Qian）  

2025年10月31日凌晨 · 新加坡  

里根的小故事  

我（里根）和朋友的六岁小女儿聊天。她说长大要当总统。她的父母——一对自由派民主党人——就站在旁边。我问：  

“如果你当了总统，第一件事想做什么？”  

“我要给所有无家可归的人提供食物和房子。”  

“多么崇高的目标！”我告诉她：  

“你不必等到当总统。现在就可以做到：来我家割草、拔草、扫人行道和车道，我付你50美元。然后我带你去杂货店——那儿常有个无家可归的人——你把50美元给他，让他买吃的，或者存着买房子。”  

她想了想，才六岁。当她妈妈怒视我时，小女孩直盯着我的眼睛问：  

“为什么那个无家可归的人不自己来干活，你直接给他50美元呢？”  

我说：“欢迎加入共和党！”  

一、联邦立宪与“人民之名”：美国政治的原点  

美国建国之初，从大陆会议到制宪会议，并无现代意义上的政党。“联邦党人”不是政党，而是一群主张强中央、联邦宪制与国家信用的思想者；反联邦派则捍卫地方自治与个体自由，警惕中央权力膨胀。  

正是在这两种力量的张力中，《美国宪法》以一句“We the People”开篇，宣告国家合法性的唯一源泉——人民主权。

此后近半个世纪，美国仅有一个“民主共和党”。随着领土扩张、工业化与社会分层，该党逐渐裂解，最终形成民主党与共和党。1860年，林肯作为首位共和党总统当选，以“维护联邦统一、废除奴隶制、实现普遍公义”为核心使命，奠定共和党精神原点。

作为中国人，这里有必要讲到林肯葛底斯堡演说中的经典箴言：“of the people, by the people, for the people”的中文翻译，必须置于美国宪政传统与《独立宣言》的“We the People”语境中，进行重构——抓住其隐含主语government即政府权力来源、授权机制与服务宗旨的三重逻辑。这不仅是翻译问题，更是对政府合法性根基的哲学溯源。

英文原句是三个并列介词短语，修饰“government”：

“that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”愿这个国家在上帝的庇佑下获得自由的新生——愿源自民、授于民、服务民的政府永不消亡（钱宏冒昧如此翻译）。

林肯“三民箴言”中的隐含主语是：“government”，构成一个完整的良性权力循环三重逻辑：

Of the people → 政府的权力来源于人民（人民是权力的所有者）

By the people → 政府的权力由人民授权（通过选举、代议制等程序）

For the people → 政府的权力为人民服务（目的在于保障人民权利）

这正是美国建国者对社会契约论（综合英法洛克、卢梭）的制度化表达：人民让渡部分自然权利 → 建立政府 → 政府受托（Trust）行使权力 → 最终服务于“We the People”的福祉——这是政府价值的检验标准。

二、从“国家统一”到“经济均衡”：两党理念的第一次易道

19世纪末至20世纪中叶，美国政治主轴从“国家能否统一”转向“经济如何均衡”。  

罗斯福新政时期，民主党以凯恩斯主义为纲，通过政府干预、公共工程与社会保障，确立了“结果平等”导向的福利政治传统；共和党则坚持市场自由、财政纪律、个人责任与尊严，强调“机会平等”的竞争精神。  

这场关于“政府应为社会做多少”的百年争论，构成美国政经主旋律：

民主党代表需求侧的“分配公平正义”  

共和党代表供给侧的“自由秩序效率”  

两党平衡，驱动宪政体系的“制衡—修正—再平衡”机制。

新大陆的人们，上天入地外拓内敛纵横捭阖展开生命自组织灵动力，而且，无论是在主权上还是人权上，堪称是“爱之智慧创世方程”典范案例。其公开（行政）、公平（立法）、公正（司法）、公道（传媒）、公理（公民拥枪）的精神诉求、制度设置、适应机制、民意调节，呈现“存同尊异，开放赋能，间道竞合，和恊共生”特质，大大方方地益于个人、社群生命自组识力与外连接平衡力尽情尽善尽美发挥！

山颠之城（温斯罗普）、独立宣言（杰弗逊）、制宪会议（华盛顿）、战后和解（林肯）、反垄断法（谢尔曼）、进步主义释放中小企业潜能（老罗斯福）、三证券法资本社会化、四大自由普世价值（小罗斯福）、马歇尔计划（外连平衡）、保守自由激励创新经济（里根）、“三链三零”去政治化结构性重组（川普）……美国不是没有问题，谁都不可能没有问题，乃至危机，而且，正如认知水平与认知半径呈反比例关系，解决问题、化解危机的适应性与问题危机大小，亦往往呈现反比关系！所以，不同人、不同国家的问题和危机，也是不同的甚至是有层次维度差异和差距的，不可混为一谈！

关键在于解决问题化危为机的适应性强弱，而有史以来最具适应性者，当然是爱之智慧创世方程展示出共生的约定创新生活方式的精神力量（The Mind Power to Agree on An Innovative Lifestyle）！

然而，从二战至1970年代，从罗斯福新政到卡特，美国经过四次政党轮替，经济政策呈现出在“自由市场和政府干预之间摇摆”，但总体上政府在经济中扮演了积极角色，这就带来了经济停滞和高通胀并存的“滞胀”。虽然卡特政府政策应对滞胀的挑战效果不佳，也为后来的里根经济学提供了社会呼唤改革的动力。

三、里根革命：从“山巅之城”的隐喻，到“自由负责”的再定义  

“山巅之城”（City Upon a Hill）一词源自1630年清教徒领袖约翰·温斯罗普（John Winthrop）的布道词。从肯尼迪到里根，两位总统重提这个概念，其意义在于对“American exceptionalism”的诠释和强调截然不同，反映了各自时代的政治经济文化氛围和美国的世界定位。 

重提“山巅之城”的意义，在于话语权的转移和内涵的演变：肯尼迪将City Upon a Hill用作对美国人民的内在道德要求和责任警示，强调集体牺牲和审慎的国内治理；而里根则将City Upon a Hill重新塑造成外向型、乐观主义的美国例外论宣言，强调美国作为全球自由灯塔的既定地位和神圣使命。里根的诠释将这个概念普及化，使其成为后来MAGA运动和现代美国保守派政治词典中的核心短语之一。

1970年代深陷滞胀美国，里根面对：高通胀（13.5%）、高失业（7.5%）、低增长，凯恩斯主义失灵，国家信用动摇，里根以供给侧改革为核心：  

减税扩大税基（最高边际税率从70%降至28%）  

放松管制（废除4000余项联邦法规）与决策透明化  

打击通胀、重振军工与科技  

为此，里根政府不惜高利率从华尔街贷款，低利率贷给富有创业、创新精神的中小企业，特别是科技和军工企业。

里根的名言“政府不是解决问题的办法，政府本身就是问题”成为20世纪末政治转折点。自此，三组价值分歧固化为两党坐标：

1. 机会平等vs.结果平等

2. 社会秩序自由vs.政治正确自由

3. 减税扩大税基vs.增税提高税率  

里根革命，不仅重启经济（1983–1989年均GDP增长3.5%，新增1900万就业），更重塑公民自由观——从依赖政府的受惠者，回归对自身命运负责的公民主体。  

四、从克林顿到川普：社会代表性的“再易道”  

21世纪，美国裂变从经济政策转向代表性结构。  

民主党：克林顿（NAFTA）、奥巴马（TPP）时代，重视美国产业链、供应链高端占有的全球化，将中低端生产转移给发展中国家，民主党，也就自然而然地从劳工/中产基础转向代表全球化、跨国资本与高科技寡头，造成“占领华尔街运动”的反弹，却试图以“高福利”平息。  

共和党：在川普（Trupm）重申“City Upon a Hill”美国精神的MAGA-MAHA运动冲击下，从精英资本之党逆向重组，转型为代表中下层工人、“红脖子”农民、地方中产与“被遗忘者”的回归真正的民权之党。  

美国政治从“左右对抗”裂解为“上层-下层”：

民主党主推身份政治与政治正确  

共和党捍卫文化传统与社会秩序  

两党张力从制度博弈升格为文明观对抗。 两党张力从制度博弈升格为文明观对抗。 但事情的发展的底层逻辑，从共生政治学（Symbiopolitics）到共生经济学（Symbionomics）看，相较合了“健康黄金率”的瑞士人的生活，MAGA运动中的美国人确实应该注入MAHA的内涵。

至于不健康的经济和生活方式，是不是由全球化2.0系统性互害机制造成的，已经是一个结果，重要的是“如何让美国健康起来？”

亚当·斯密曾倡导身处工商文明之中的人们，Mind like a farmer（怀农夫之道），像農夫一樣： 

感知世界的共生起源

守住社會的共生底線

獲得自己的共生灵魂

这应该是川普再次当选美国总统的根本原由！

五、宪政自由与民权回潮：美国政治的第三阶段  

在全球化2.0互害机制的冲击下，“民主党”不再代表人民，“共和党”转而捍卫宪法民权，美国政治进入新周期。

全球化2.0的系统性互害是指： 

权贵与资本：沆瀣一气又勾心斗角，特别是在中国权贵与美国资本“双赢”博弈中，两国国民沦为被损害的“韭菜”或“炮灰”。 

中国：乡村败落、劳工低人权、土地、空气、微生物环境污染、贸易顺差、权势集团坐大（全官寻租化、全民佃户化）。 

美国：城市空心化、产业出走（2000-2010年制造业岗位减少600万个）、“中产阶级占领华尔街”、国债高筑（2024年贸易赤字1.2万亿美元）、贸易逆差过大、内生能力塌陷。

 双方各自结构性失衡被包装为“互利共赢”话术，结果WTO规则被破坏而丧失公孞力，自由贸易乌托邦的破灭：以川普为代表的实干家和美国民众意识到，新古典经济学的“自由贸易”理论，成为经济乌托邦，试图砸烂其枷锁，终结全球化2.0（参考《最简明的全球化三段论》 http://symbiosism.com.cn/9985.html）。

 顺便说一句，这一转折动力很大程度上来自社会底层年轻世代，如查理·柯克的“美国转折点”运动。所以，川普不是孤立现象，而是社会自我校正：

揭露官僚特权、行政腐败、利益集团控制  

唤醒“沉默多数”——被全球化边缘化、被技术经济淘汰的普通美国人  

民权vs.官僚特权的对抗，成为宪政再生的动力。  

这正是“We the People”的制度重启——不只是口号，而是不断复苏的公民意志。

六、从对抗到共生：政治文明的自修机制  

纵观美国250年政治演化：  

1. 第一阶段：联邦建制 → 解决国家统一  

2. 第二阶段：经济再分配 → 解决工业社会公平  

3. 第三阶段：民权回潮 → 直面全球化代表性危机  

每一次危机，都是体系自我更新。美国未陷极权或分裂，根源在于宪政设计的共生性修复机制：  

立法、行政、司法三权互动  

党派轮替  

社会自治  

这种平衡不是静态妥协，而是持续自我纠偏。  

这便是美国政治文明之“易道”——在对抗中生成共生的自组织秩序。  

七、世界视野：从两党易道到人类共生政治  

今日，全球多极化、科技革命、AI治理重塑人类社会，美国“两党易道”已成现代政治系统演化原型：  

揭示自由与秩序的永恒张力  

展示竞争与共生可共构  

预示文明更新非暴力革命，而是制度与意识同步演化  

未来政治不再是“左”与“右”，而是“交互共生”vs.“垄断操纵”。  

美国“两党政治”的经验，若能超越党派互斗，进入文明自觉，特别是民主党重新找到自己的应有的位置，便可为人类提供基于生命自组织连接动态平衡的交互主体共生政治创新（Symbiopolitics）与再组织、再选择的新范式。  

Constitutional Liberty and Equality of Opportunity:

The Transformation of U.S. Two-Party “Changing Lanes” Rivalry in the Symbiopolitics Perspective

By Archer Hong Qian 

October 31, 2025, Dawn · Singapore

Reagan’s Little Story

I (Reagan) was chatting with a friend’s six-year-old daughter. She said she wanted to be president when she grew up. Her parents—a pair of liberal Democrats—stood nearby. I asked:

“If you became president, what’s the first thing you’d do?”

“I’d give food and homes to all the homeless.”

“What a noble goal!” I told her.

“You don’t have to wait to be president. Come mow my lawn, pull weeds, sweep the sidewalk and driveway—I’ll pay you $50. Then I’ll take you to the grocery store where a homeless man often hangs out. You give him the $50 to buy food… or save for a house.”

She thought for a moment. She was only six. As her mother glared at me, the girl looked me in the eye and asked:

“Why doesn’t the homeless man just come do the work and you pay him the $50?”

I said:

“Welcome to the Republican Party!”

I. Federal Constitutionalism and “We the People”: The Origin of American Politics

At America’s founding—from the Continental Congress to the Constitutional Convention—there were no modern parties. “Federalists” were not a party but thinkers advocating strong central government, federal structure, and national credit. Anti-Federalists defended local autonomy and individual liberty, wary of centralized power.

In the tension between these forces, the U.S. Constitution opens with “We the People”, declaring popular sovereignty as the sole source of legitimacy.

For nearly half a century, America had only the “Democratic-Republican Party.” As territory expanded, industrialization accelerated, and social stratification deepened, it split—eventually forming the Democratic and Republican parties. In 1860, Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, was elected with the mission of preserving the Union, abolishing slavery, and achieving universal justice—cementing the GOP’s spiritual origin.

II. From “National Unity” to “Economic Equilibrium”: The First “Changing Lanes” of Two-Party Ideas

From the late 19th to mid-20th century, America’s political axis changed lanes from “Can the nation stay united?” to “How should the economy be balanced?”

During FDR’s New Deal, Democrats, guided by Keynesianism, used government intervention, public works, and social security to establish a welfare tradition oriented toward equality of outcome. Republicans defended market freedom, fiscal restraint, and personal responsibility, emphasizing equality of opportunity through competition.

This century-long debate—“How much should government do for society?”—became America’s political-economic leitmotif:

· Democrats: demand-side distributive justice

· Republicans: supply-side freedom, order, and efficiency

Their balance powered the constitutional cycle of checks, correction, and rebalancing. Yet, from WWII to the 1970s—spanning Roosevelt to Carter—four party alternations saw policy oscillate between free markets and intervention, with government generally dominant. This bred stagflation. Though Carter’s response faltered, it built social momentum for Reaganomics.

III. The Reagan Revolution: From “City Upon a Hill” Metaphor to the Redefinition of “Responsible Freedom”

“City Upon a Hill” originates from John Winthrop’s 1630 sermon. Kennedy used it as an internal moral call for sacrifice and prudent governance; Reagan reshaped it into an outward, optimistic American exceptionalism declaration—America as the world’s beacon of freedom. Reagan’s version popularized the phrase, making it core to MAGA and modern conservative lexicon.

Facing 1970s stagflation—13.5% inflation, 7.5% unemployment, near-zero growth—Reagan’s supply-side revolution:

· Tax cuts to expand the base (top rate: 70% → 28%)

· Deregulation (eliminating 4,000+ federal rules) and decision transparency

· High-interest loans from Wall Street, low-interest loans to innovative SMEs (tech, defense)

· Inflation control, military-industrial revival

His maxim—“Government is not the solution; government is the problem”—marked the late-20th-century turning point. Three enduring divides crystallized:

1. Equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome

2. Ordered liberty vs. politically correct liberty

3. Tax cuts to broaden the base vs. tax hikes to raise rates

The Reagan Revolution not only restored growth (3.5% annual GDP, 19 million jobs, 1983–1989) but reshaped citizenship—from government-dependent beneficiaries to self-reliant agents of destiny.

IV. From Clinton to Trump: The Second “Changing Lanes” in Social Representation

In the 21st century, America’s fissures changed lanes from economic policy to representational structure.

· Democrats: Under Clinton (NAFTA) and Obama (TPP), prioritized high-end global supply chains, offshoring mid/low-end production. Naturally shifted from labor/middle-class roots to representing globalization, multinational capital, and tech oligarchs—sparking Occupy Wall Street, quelled with high welfare.

· Republicans: Under Trump’s MAGA-MAHA movement reaffirming “City Upon a Hill” American spirit, underwent reverse reorganization—from elite capital to a true civil-rights party for working-class, “redneck” farmers, local middle-class, and the “forgotten.”

Politics fractured from “left-right” to “elite vs. populist”:

· Democrats: identity politics and political correctness

· Republicans: cultural tradition and social order

The tension escalated from institutional gamesmanship to civilizational confrontation.

V. Constitutional Liberty and Populist Backlash: The Third Phase of American Politics

Under Globalization 2.0’s mutual-harm mechanism, “Democrats” ceased representing the people; “Republicans” took up constitutional civil rights—ushering a new cycle.

Globalization 2.0 systemic mutual harm:

· Elites and capital: Collusion and rivalry; in China-U.S. “win-win,” citizens become “leeks” or “cannon fodder.”

· China: Rural decay, low labor rights, pollution, trade surpluses, entrenched power (full rent-seeking, tenant society).

· U.S.: Urban hollowing, industrial flight (6 million manufacturing jobs lost 2000–2010), Occupy Wall Street, soaring debt (2024 trade deficit $1.2 trillion), endogenous collapse.

“Mutual benefit” rhetoric masked imbalances; WTO rules eroded credibility. Free-trade utopia shattered. Trump and pragmatic Americans saw neoclassical “free trade” as economic utopia—smashing its shackles to end Globalization 2.0.

Much momentum came from grassroots youth, like Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA. Trump was not an anomaly but societal self-correction:

· Exposing bureaucratic privilege, administrative corruption, interest-group capture

· Awakening the “silent majority”—globalization’s marginalized, tech-economy casualties

Civil rights vs. bureaucratic privilege became the engine of constitutional renewal. This is the reactivation of “We the People”—not mere rhetoric, but perpetually rebooting civic will.

VI. From Confrontation to Symbiosis: The Self-Repairing Mechanism of Political Civilization

Across 250 years of American political evolution:

1. Phase I: Federal establishment → resolved national unity

2. Phase II: Economic redistribution → resolved industrial fairness

3. Phase III: Populist resurgence → confronts globalization’s representation crisis

Each crisis triggers systemic renewal. America avoided tyranny or fragmentation due to its symbiotic repair mechanism:

· Legislative, executive, judicial interaction

· Party alternation

· Social self-governance

This balance is not static compromise but continuous self-correction. This is the “Changing Lanes” of American political civilization—a self-organizing order born of confrontation, sustained by symbiosis.

VII. Global Perspective: From Two-Party “Changing Lanes” to Human Symbiotic Politics

Today, amid multipolarity, technological revolution, and AI governance, America’s two-party “Changing Lanes” transcends domestic politics to become a prototype of modern political evolution:

· Revealing the eternal tension between freedom and order

· Demonstrating that competition and symbiosis can coexist

· Foretelling that civilizational renewal occurs not through violent revolution but synchronized institutional and conscious evolution

Future politics is no longer “left” vs. “right,” but “interactive symbiosis” vs. “monopolistic manipulation”.

If America’s two-party experience transcends partisan strife—especially if Democrats rediscover their proper role—it may offer humanity a new paradigm of Symbiopolitics:

political innovation grounded in life’s self-organizing connectivity and dynamic equilibrium among interactive subjects, enabling re-organization and re-selection.

Constitutional Liberty and Equality of Opportunity:

The Transformation of U.S. Two-Party “Changing Lanes” Rivalry in the Symbiopolitics Perspective

By Archer Hong Qian 

October 31, 2025, Dawn · Singapore

Reagan’s Little Story

I (Reagan) was chatting with a friend’s six-year-old daughter. She said she wanted to be president when she grew up. Her parents—a pair of liberal Democrats—stood nearby. I asked:

“If you became president, what’s the first thing you’d do?”

“I’d give food and homes to all the homeless.”

“What a noble goal!” I told her.

“You don’t have to wait to be president. Come mow my lawn, pull weeds, sweep the sidewalk and driveway—I’ll pay you $50. Then I’ll take you to the grocery store where a homeless man often hangs out. You give him the $50 to buy food… or save for a house.”

She thought for a moment. She was only six. As her mother glared at me, the girl looked me in the eye and asked:

“Why doesn’t the homeless man just come do the work and you pay him the $50?”

I said:

“Welcome to the Republican Party!”

I. Federal Constitutionalism and “We the People”: The Origin of American Politics

At America’s founding—from the Continental Congress to the Constitutional Convention—there were no modern parties. “Federalists” were not a party but thinkers advocating strong central government, federal structure, and national credit. Anti-Federalists defended local autonomy and individual liberty, wary of centralized power.

In the tension between these forces, the U.S. Constitution opens with “We the People”, declaring popular sovereignty as the sole source of legitimacy.

For nearly half a century, America had only the “Democratic-Republican Party.” As territory expanded, industrialization accelerated, and social stratification deepened, it split—eventually forming the Democratic and Republican parties. In 1860, Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, was elected with the mission of preserving the Union, abolishing slavery, and achieving universal justice—cementing the GOP’s spiritual origin.

II. From “National Unity” to “Economic Equilibrium”: The First “Changing Lanes” of Two-Party Ideas

From the late 19th to mid-20th century, America’s political axis changed lanes from “Can the nation stay united?” to “How should the economy be balanced?”

During FDR’s New Deal, Democrats, guided by Keynesianism, used government intervention, public works, and social security to establish a welfare tradition oriented toward equality of outcome. Republicans defended market freedom, fiscal restraint, and personal responsibility, emphasizing equality of opportunity through competition.

This century-long debate—“How much should government do for society?”—became America’s political-economic leitmotif:

· Democrats: demand-side distributive justice

· Republicans: supply-side freedom, order, and efficiency

Their balance powered the constitutional cycle of checks, correction, and rebalancing. Yet, from WWII to the 1970s—spanning Roosevelt to Carter—four party alternations saw policy oscillate between free markets and intervention, with government generally dominant. This bred stagflation. Though Carter’s response faltered, it built social momentum for Reaganomics.

III. The Reagan Revolution: From “City Upon a Hill” Metaphor to the Redefinition of “Responsible Freedom”

“City Upon a Hill” originates from John Winthrop’s 1630 sermon. Kennedy used it as an internal moral call for sacrifice and prudent governance; Reagan reshaped it into an outward, optimistic American exceptionalism declaration—America as the world’s beacon of freedom. Reagan’s version popularized the phrase, making it core to MAGA and modern conservative lexicon.

Facing 1970s stagflation—13.5% inflation, 7.5% unemployment, near-zero growth—Reagan’s supply-side revolution:

· Tax cuts to expand the base (top rate: 70% → 28%)

· Deregulation (eliminating 4,000+ federal rules) and decision transparency

· High-interest loans from Wall Street, low-interest loans to innovative SMEs (tech, defense)

· Inflation control, military-industrial revival

His maxim—“Government is not the solution; government is the problem”—marked the late-20th-century turning point. Three enduring divides crystallized:

1. Equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome

2. Ordered liberty vs. politically correct liberty

3. Tax cuts to broaden the base vs. tax hikes to raise rates

The Reagan Revolution not only restored growth (3.5% annual GDP, 19 million jobs, 1983–1989) but reshaped citizenship—from government-dependent beneficiaries to self-reliant agents of destiny.

IV. From Clinton to Trump: The Second “Changing Lanes” in Social Representation

In the 21st century, America’s fissures changed lanes from economic policy to representational structure.

· Democrats: Under Clinton (NAFTA) and Obama (TPP), prioritized high-end global supply chains, offshoring mid/low-end production. Naturally shifted from labor/middle-class roots to representing globalization, multinational capital, and tech oligarchs—sparking Occupy Wall Street, quelled with high welfare.

· Republicans: Under Trump’s MAGA-MAHA movement reaffirming “City Upon a Hill” American spirit, underwent reverse reorganization—from elite capital to a true civil-rights party for working-class, “redneck” farmers, local middle-class, and the “forgotten.”

Politics fractured from “left-right” to “elite vs. populist”:

· Democrats: identity politics and political correctness

· Republicans: cultural tradition and social order

The tension escalated from institutional gamesmanship to civilizational confrontation.

V. Constitutional Liberty and Populist Backlash: The Third Phase of American Politics

Under Globalization 2.0’s mutual-harm mechanism, “Democrats” ceased representing the people; “Republicans” took up constitutional civil rights—ushering a new cycle.

Globalization 2.0 systemic mutual harm:

· Elites and capital: Collusion and rivalry; in China-U.S. “win-win,” citizens become “leeks” or “cannon fodder.”

· China: Rural decay, low labor rights, pollution, trade surpluses, entrenched power (full rent-seeking, tenant society).

· U.S.: Urban hollowing, industrial flight (6 million manufacturing jobs lost 2000–2010), Occupy Wall Street, soaring debt (2024 trade deficit $1.2 trillion), endogenous collapse.

“Mutual benefit” rhetoric masked imbalances; WTO rules eroded credibility. Free-trade utopia shattered. Trump and pragmatic Americans saw neoclassical “free trade” as economic utopia—smashing its shackles to end Globalization 2.0.

Much momentum came from grassroots youth, like Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA. Trump was not an anomaly but societal self-correction:

· Exposing bureaucratic privilege, administrative corruption, interest-group capture

· Awakening the “silent majority”—globalization’s marginalized, tech-economy casualties

Civil rights vs. bureaucratic privilege became the engine of constitutional renewal. This is the reactivation of “We the People”—not mere rhetoric, but perpetually rebooting civic will.

VI. From Confrontation to Symbiosis: The Self-Repairing Mechanism of Political Civilization

Across 250 years of American political evolution:

1. Phase I: Federal establishment → resolved national unity

2. Phase II: Economic redistribution → resolved industrial fairness

3. Phase III: Populist resurgence → confronts globalization’s representation crisis

Each crisis triggers systemic renewal. America avoided tyranny or fragmentation due to its symbiotic repair mechanism:

· Legislative, executive, judicial interaction

· Party alternation

· Social self-governance

This balance is not static compromise but continuous self-correction. This is the “Changing Lanes” of American political civilization—a self-organizing order born of confrontation, sustained by symbiosis.

VII. Global Perspective: From Two-Party “Changing Lanes” to Human Symbiotic Politics

Today, amid multipolarity, technological revolution, and AI governance, America’s two-party “Changing Lanes” transcends domestic politics to become a prototype of modern political evolution:

· Revealing the eternal tension between freedom and order

· Demonstrating that competition and symbiosis can coexist

· Foretelling that civilizational renewal occurs not through violent revolution but synchronized institutional and conscious evolution

Future politics is no longer “left” vs. “right,” but “interactive symbiosis” vs. “monopolistic manipulation”.

If America’s two-party experience transcends partisan strife—especially if Democrats rediscover their proper role—it may offer humanity a new paradigm of Symbiopolitics:

political innovation grounded in life’s self-organizing connectivity and dynamic equilibrium among interactive subjects, enabling re-organization and re-selection.