特朗普再次当政后，在百日内急风暴雨般出台了多项内政和外交政策。不仅美国的政界和商界震荡不 已，一向被视为"象牙塔"的学术界也受到巨大冲击。很多学者将特朗普的新政批评为"政治干预学术"， 还有人认为这是一个"草台班子"的疯狂行动。然而，从围绕"美国例外论"的长期视角来看，美国当前的 乱局却有着久远的历史根源，不能仅仅解读为特朗普内阁的肆意妄为之举。 "美国例外论"的威权式回归 已故的美国政治学家西蒙·李普塞特曾对"美国例外论"进行了深刻而详尽的对比分析。在他看来，相比 于世界上其他国家（特别是欧洲国家），美国建立在一套独特的价值观念之上，可称为"美国信 条"（the American Creed）。美国信条包括五大要素：自由、平等、个人主义、民粹主义与自由放任的 经济模式。信条中的"自由"是指那种不受政府干预的消极自由；"平等"并不是指当代左翼主张的结果平 等，而是强调个人机会与尊严的平等。 进入现代社会后，欧洲的封建体制虽然分崩离析，但重视社会等级的文化特征仍然留存下来，欧洲人因 而具有鲜明的阶级意识。李普塞特指出，欧洲各国的左右翼政党为了解决中下阶层的社会问题，都乐于 采取福利制度、公共住房和医疗保障等国家 ...

Group 1 - The article discusses the election of Lee Jae-myung as the new President of South Korea, highlighting his political journey and contrasting him with previous leaders [2][3] - Lee Jae-myung is referred to as the "Korean Trump" due to his populist approach, although he is positioned on the left side of the political spectrum, unlike many other figures labeled similarly [3][4] - The term "public recommendation massacre" is introduced, describing a political tactic where dominant factions within a party eliminate dissenting candidates during the nomination process [4][5] Group 2 - The article outlines the internal conflicts within the Democratic Party, particularly between Lee Jae-myung and former allies, leading to significant political shifts and departures from the party [6][7] - Lee Jae-myung's controversial actions, including attempts to suppress opposition within his party and aggressive legislative maneuvers, are highlighted, showcasing his assertive political style [8][9] - The article notes Lee's shifting political stance, including his outreach to conservative factions and business leaders, indicating a potential realignment of his party's identity [10][11] Group 3 - The implications of Lee Jae-myung's presidency for former President Moon Jae-in are discussed, suggesting that Moon may find relief from political scrutiny, while Lee faces high expectations and challenges [12]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the rise of Trump's MAGA group as a significant force in American politics, emphasizing their historical roots and their impact on immigration and foreign policy [2][3][4]. Group 1: MAGA Group Characteristics - The MAGA group is primarily composed of working-class individuals, farmers, and residents of small towns, characterized by lower income and education levels compared to the national average [6][7]. - This group exhibits strong patriotic and nativist sentiments, often feeling alienated by globalization and cultural diversity, leading to a persistent hostility towards immigration and foreign influences [10][11][12]. Group 2: Historical Context - The historical roots of the MAGA group can be traced back to various populist movements in American history, including the Jacksonian democracy and the anti-imperialist sentiments of the 1890s [7][8][9]. - The article highlights that the MAGA group's attitudes towards foreign policy reflect a long-standing tradition of American isolationism, which has resurfaced in contemporary politics [5][6]. Group 3: Political Dynamics - Trump's political success is attributed to his ability to mobilize this historically marginalized group, which has been characterized by anti-establishment sentiments and a rejection of elite political norms [3][4][19]. - The article suggests that the MAGA group's influence on foreign policy is likely to grow, potentially surpassing the impact seen during Trump's first term [4][19]. Group 4: Foreign Policy Implications - The MAGA group's preferences indicate a shift towards isolationism, with recent polls showing a decline in support for active U.S. involvement in international affairs [33][34]. - There is a notable trend among MAGA supporters to prioritize domestic issues over foreign policy, reflecting a broader sentiment of "America First" [33][36]. Group 5: Future Considerations - The article raises questions about the sustainability of the MAGA movement's influence on U.S. foreign policy, particularly in light of the changing political landscape and the potential for internal divisions within the group [35][39]. - It emphasizes the need for ongoing observation of how these dynamics will shape America's international role and policy decisions moving forward [39].

Group 1 - The article discusses the contrasting narratives that arise during economic crises in capitalist countries, highlighting the tendency to attribute crises to class oppression or to blame foreign entities and specific domestic groups [1][2] - Trump's narrative aligns with the latter, attributing job losses and income declines to trade surplus countries and immigrants, which has resonated with voters in the Rust Belt [3][4][6] - The article notes that Trump's economic nationalism has led to significant political support from traditionally Democratic voters in struggling industrial regions [6][7] Group 2 - The U.S. is the largest steel importer, relying on imports for about 30% of its steel needs, primarily from Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and South Korea [8] - During his first term, Trump imposed a 25% tariff on steel and a 10% tariff on aluminum, which had limited effects due to exemptions for certain "friendly countries" [9][10] - In a recent announcement, Trump stated that tariffs on steel and aluminum would be doubled to 50%, claiming it would force American companies to buy from domestic suppliers [11] Group 3 - As of May 26, the average price of steel in the U.S. reached $901 per ton, double the global average, indicating that increased tariffs will further elevate domestic steel prices [12] - While higher steel prices may benefit the U.S. steel industry, they will impose cost pressures on sectors like automotive and construction, with Ford estimating a $1.5 billion profit reduction due to tariff impacts [13] - Economic analyses from Trump's first term suggest that while tariffs created thousands of steel jobs, they also resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in manufacturing and construction [14] Group 4 - The unprecedented 50% tariff will likely lead to continued reliance on imports in the short term, as equipment investments in the steel industry typically take years to materialize [15] - Rising prices for steel and aluminum could diminish the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing [16] - The article suggests that Trump's focus on economic nationalism may prioritize populist sentiments over actual manufacturing recovery [17] Group 5 - Canada and Mexico, as primary suppliers of steel and aluminum to the U.S., face severe industry impacts from the 50% tariffs, with suppliers indicating that such tariffs could devastate their sectors [18] - The article highlights the deep economic integration between Canada and the U.S., which has been beneficial for both nations, but notes that Trump's policies have prompted Canada to consider trade diversification [20][21] - The trade dependency is heavily skewed, with 78% of Canada's exports and 80% of Mexico's exports going to the U.S., while the U.S. imports only 14% and 15% from these countries, respectively [25][26] Group 6 - Trump's trade policies extend beyond economic issues, affecting immigration, drug cooperation, and water rights disputes [22][23] - The article emphasizes that the tariffs serve as a political tool, effectively a consumption tax that shifts costs and responsibilities while aiming to secure votes [34] - The potential for more radical populist leaders to emerge in the future is noted, suggesting that the current political climate may lead to even more extreme measures [36][37]

Group 1 - Harvard University has become a focal point of global public opinion due to a series of controversial events reflecting deep societal contradictions in the U.S. [1] - The conflict between the Trump administration and Harvard is fundamentally about the boundaries of educational autonomy and government regulation, originating from protests supporting Palestine that sparked anti-Semitic controversies [3] - Harvard's response to the government's pressure included a public rebuttal, emphasizing academic freedom and institutional autonomy, contrasting sharply with the Trump administration's hardline stance [5] Group 2 - The Trump administration's measures, while causing widespread public uproar, face significant implementation challenges, such as vague standards for reporting international students' activities [5] - The financial implications of these policies could severely impact Harvard's revenue from international students, which amounts to hundreds of millions annually, and could hinder its STEM research projects due to talent loss [5] - The ongoing debate over educational equity in the U.S. highlights accusations against Harvard for implementing de facto discrimination through racial quotas in admissions, particularly against Asian students [11] Group 3 - The rise of nativist sentiments in the U.S. is reflected in the Trump administration's policies towards international students, which could undermine America's global innovation leadership [9] - The events at Harvard and other universities illustrate the tension between maintaining free speech and ensuring personal safety amid rising identity politics [13] - Overall, the controversies surrounding Harvard represent a microcosm of the broader challenges facing American society in balancing multicultural coexistence with national interests [15]

Group 1 - The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced the suspension of Harvard University's eligibility to enroll new international students, revoking its SEVP certification, which directly impacts the university's ability to provide I-20 forms and F-1 visa applications [1] - Harvard will not accept any foreign students holding F/J visas for the 2025-2026 academic year, and current international students must transfer to other certified institutions to maintain their legal status in the U.S. [1] - Harvard has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration regarding the international student ban, and a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order to maintain the status quo until a hearing [1][2] Group 2 - The incident reflects a broader struggle between populism and elitism in American society, highlighting deep-rooted issues such as political interference, structural conflicts among elites, and the politicization of higher education [2] - Trump's administration's actions against Harvard are seen as a political maneuver to appeal to his base, which is characterized by populist sentiments and anti-elitism [9][15] - The event underscores the tension between the elite institutions of higher education and the working-class sentiments, as many feel marginalized by the prevailing meritocratic system [6][8] Group 3 - The concept of meritocracy in the U.S. has been criticized for perpetuating inequality, as it often favors affluent families over middle-class children, leading to a perception that the system is rigged against the latter [7][11] - Trump's rise to power is attributed to his ability to channel public discontent with the meritocratic system, positioning himself as a voice for those who feel left behind [8][10] - The ongoing conflict between populism and elitism raises questions about the future of education as a tool for social mobility and its role in political power dynamics [16]

Core Points - Independent candidate Karol Nawrocki won the Polish presidential election with 50.89% of the votes, narrowly defeating Rafal Trzaskowski of the Civic Coalition, who received 49.11% [1] - The election results reflect deep social divisions in Poland, with Nawrocki's victory indicating a potential shift towards a more populist and nationalist direction under U.S. support [1][10] - Nawrocki, a historian and amateur boxer, received backing from the right-wing Law and Justice Party, suggesting a possible collaboration that could challenge the current government led by Prime Minister Tusk [1][5] Election Context - The Polish presidential role holds significant power in influencing foreign policy and legislative vetoes, beyond ceremonial duties [3] - Nawrocki will succeed Andrzej Duda, whose term ends on August 6, 2023, and the presidential term lasts five years with the possibility of one re-election [3] - The first round of voting on May 18 did not yield a majority winner, leading to a runoff between the top two candidates [3] Political Implications - Tusk's coalition government, which took office at the end of 2023, faces challenges in fulfilling campaign promises due to ideological divisions and legislative vetoes from Duda [5] - Nawrocki's election may complicate Tusk's ability to deliver on reforms, particularly in the judiciary, which has faced criticism from the EU [5] - Observers suggest that unfulfilled promises could jeopardize Tusk's government ahead of the next parliamentary elections scheduled for late 2027 [5] Nawrocki's Background - Nawrocki, currently the head of the Polish National Memory Institute, is seen as a new face for the Law and Justice Party, distancing from past scandals [7] - He has been involved in nationalist initiatives, including the removal of Soviet monuments, and is viewed as a protector of traditional values by his supporters [7][9] - Despite controversies regarding alleged criminal ties and past street fights, these issues have not significantly impacted his support among right-wing voters [9] International Relations - Former U.S. President Trump has openly supported Nawrocki, indicating potential strengthening of military relations between Poland and the U.S. if he assumes office [10] - Nawrocki has pledged continued support for Ukraine while criticizing its leadership and addressing concerns about Ukrainian refugees in Poland [10]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the escalating conflict between the Trump administration and Harvard University regarding the admission of international students, highlighting the ideological battle between right and left in the U.S. [1] Group 1: Background - The conflict stems from student protests against U.S. support for Israel, leading the Trump administration to accuse these movements of anti-Semitism and to impose restrictions on universities, including Harvard [4] - The Trump administration froze $2.6 billion in research funding to Harvard, which is significant given that Harvard's total revenue for 2024 is projected at $6.5 billion and its expenses at $6.4 billion [4] - Harvard's international students contribute over $300 million annually in tuition, making the administration's decision to revoke its ability to enroll international students impactful [4] Group 2: Ideological Divisions - The article identifies three core ideological conflicts shaping American society: globalism vs. nationalism, liberalism vs. conservatism, and elitism vs. populism [5][6][11] - Globalists advocate for U.S. involvement in international affairs and multiculturalism, while nationalists prioritize national interests and border control [7] - Liberals focus on individual rights and social justice, contrasting with conservatives who emphasize traditional values and limited government [10] - The rise of populism, exemplified by Trump, challenges the established elite, leading to a polarized information ecosystem where both sides have increasingly divergent views on facts [12] Group 3: Political Dynamics - The article notes that the Democratic Party is reflecting on its disconnect with ordinary citizens, as many feel alienated by the party's focus on diversity and identity politics [14] - Trump's support among Asian and Hispanic voters has increased, indicating a shift in political dynamics as these groups react against extreme policies [15] - The U.S. constitutional system is described as a balancing mechanism that encourages coexistence rather than the complete victory of one side over the other [15][16]

每经编辑｜毕陆名 据央视新闻26日消息，当地时间25日，美国总统特朗普威胁称，联邦政府将可能不再继续向哈佛大学提供新的拨款，并要求校方提供所有国际学生的姓名及 国籍信息，以便进一步审查。 《日本经济新闻》网站文章认为，来自全球的优秀人才曾支撑起美国的繁荣，而特朗普政府正试图切断这一循环。 近期在英国伦敦发布的《2025年全球软实力指数》显示，美国在国际社会的"声誉"指标明显下滑。软实力概念的提出者、哈佛大学肯尼迪政府学院前院长约 瑟夫·奈在去世前曾撰文说，美国吸引其他国家的能力已日渐衰落，特朗普政府的种种做法正严重损害美国的"软实力"。 斯普雷策表示，美国教育委员会在4月就给美国国务院和国土安全部致信，要求他们如果要撤销学生签证，终止学生及交流访问学者项目，就需要提供更多 信息，但并没有收到回应。 斯普雷策说，她担心准入学的国际学生觉得来美国风险太大，从而导致学生数量开始下降，而国际学生去年一年就给美国带来了430亿美元的经济收益。 另据新华社报道，针对特朗普政府对哈佛大学的"国际禁招令"，哈佛大学教授瑞安·伊诺斯称，美国政府正试图对一个美国机构施加惩罚，原因仅仅是这个 机构没有屈服于美国政府的政治意愿。 美 ...

Core Points - The recent Australian federal election resulted in a decisive victory for the Labor Party, solidifying its dominance in the political landscape with 90 seats in the House of Representatives compared to only 40 for the opposition [1] - The defeat of Peter Dutton, the opposition leader known as the "Australian Trump," signifies a significant setback for the conservative camp, which is now facing marginalization [2][3] - Similar trends are observed in Canada and the UK, where conservative parties have also faced defeats, indicating a broader decline of right-wing populism in Western politics [4][6] Summary by Sections Australian Political Landscape - The Labor Party's overwhelming win in the recent election has further entrenched its position, leaving the conservative opposition in a weakened state [1] - Peter Dutton's unexpected loss highlights the internal strife and fragmentation within the conservative ranks, making it difficult for them to regain their footing in the coming years [2][3] Canadian Political Context - The Canadian Liberal Party, leaning center-left, successfully defeated the Conservative Party, which had been leading in polls by 25 percentage points [4] - Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative leader often compared to Trump, also faced a significant defeat, indicating a similar trend of conservative decline in Canada [5] UK Political Dynamics - The UK Conservative Party has suffered losses in local elections, losing control of several councils and mayoral positions to the populist Reform Party led by Nigel Farage [6] - The leadership of Kemi Badenoch, a staunch Trump supporter, has not been able to reverse the party's declining fortunes, suggesting a potential leadership challenge in the near future [7][9] Broader Implications for Western Conservatism - The election outcomes across Australia, Canada, and the UK signal a clear message: conservative parties attempting to emulate Trump are not benefiting but rather accelerating their political decline [11] - The unique political and social contexts in these countries differ significantly from the conditions that allowed Trump's rise in the U.S., making such emulation ineffective [15][22] - The extreme rightward shift of conservative parties has alienated moderate voters, leading to further internal conflicts and a loss of mainstream support [16][17] Conclusion on Political Trends - The failures of conservative leaders like Dutton and Poilievre reflect a collective misalignment with voter sentiments, as they struggle to connect with the electorate's pressing concerns [37][42] - The ongoing political landscape suggests that conservative parties must reassess their strategies and move away from Trump-like tactics to regain relevance and support [43]