Name: 盟友們再也無法信任我們了！接下來該怎麼辦？ (Our allies can no longer trust us. So now what?)
Uploaded: 2026-03-13T16:50:16.000Z
Duration: 34 min 23 s

This post World War II US led world order, whatever you want to call it, right.

二戰後，美國主導的世界秩序，你想怎麼稱呼它都可以，對吧。

情態副詞

If it does erode, do you think we'll miss it when it's gone?

如果它真的被侵蝕了，你覺得它消失的時候我們會想念它嗎？

When you have a bunch of strong countries that are working together, other countries are less likely to attack all of them.

當你有一群強國團結合作時，其他國家就不太可能攻擊他們所有人。

And then internally, countries that are in an alliance are not likely to want to fight each other because they're in an alliance, and

然後在內部，同盟國家不太可能想互相打仗，因為他們是同盟關係，而且

they reap benefits of not getting attacked by states outside of that alliance.

他們能從未被同盟外的國家攻擊中獲益。

My guest today is my friend and Vox colleague, Zach Beacham.

我今天的來賓是我朋友兼 Vox 同事 Zach Beacham。

He covers ideology, particularly the political right, both here and abroad, and

他涵蓋意識形態，特別是國內外的政治右派，而且

just sort of reports on the state of democracy around the world.

So that's an interesting and pretty capacious beat.

所以這是一個很有趣、涵蓋範圍很廣的領域。

為什麼，為什麼，為什麼要研究？

Why write about the right wing and, and democracy and ideologies more generally?

為什麼要寫關於右派、民主和意識形態的內容？

Is that just a long standing interest of yours or you just sort of accidentally fell into it as a journalist?

這只是你長久以來的興趣，還是你當記者時不小心接觸到的？

Yes, I would say long standing, but it's kind of a circuitous route.

是的，我會說是長久以來的興趣，但過程有點曲折。

I've always been interested in the global fate of democracy and sort of the pro political philosophy.

我一直對全球民主的命運和政治哲學很感興趣。

I think, like a lot of people, things really started to change for me around 2015.

我想，跟很多人一樣，大概在 2015 年左右，事情開始對我有了很大的轉變。

You know, it's a confluence of things, right?

你知道，這是一堆事情的巧合，對吧？

It was the extremely negative reaction to the European refugee crisis.

是歐洲難民危機引發的極度負面反應。

It was one of the really early things that set me on this path because it set alarm bells ringing that people weren't willing to tolerate the kind of liberal multiculturalism that seems dominant at that point in time, that it would create frictions in political systems.

這是我走上這條路的早期催化劑之一，因為它敲響了警鐘，讓人們不願容忍當時似乎佔主導地位的自由多元文化主義，這會在政治體系中產生摩擦。

And he combined that with the Brexit vote at first, and

他一開始將其與英國脫歐公投結合，

then Trump, of course, and it was just sort of.

然後當然還有川普，這一切就這樣發生了。

I mean, the world transforms between 20 in 2015 and 2016.

我想說，世界在 2015 年到 2016 年之間發生了翻天覆地的變化。

Do you feel like you've been right more often than wrong?

你覺得自己猜對的次數比猜錯的多嗎？

Like, do you feel like you've had a pretty good sense the last decade or so of where things were, were heading?

像是，你覺得過去十年左右，你對事情的走向有很準確的判斷嗎？

Has it gone the way you thought it would?

事情有照你預想的方向發展嗎？

Are we taken several detours that you really didn't see coming this year to predictions and we can test those.

今年我們走了幾條你真的沒預料到的彎路，我們可以來驗證一下這些預測。

I think that if you're a professional gambler and you win 55% of the time, is that good?

你覺得如果你是職業賭徒，贏了 55% 的時候，這樣算好嗎？

I think the, the thing I feel most proud of recently is a piece I wrote this was also early last year, very early in the first Trump administration or in the second Trump administration, when I made the case that they were failing, that they were not achieving their political goals.

我認為，最近我最引以為傲的一件事，是我寫的一篇文章，這也是在去年初，川普第一任或第二任總統任期非常早期的時候，我當時主張他們做得不好，沒有達成他們的政治目標。

And that was very controversial at the time.

They thought I was whitewashing the scope of what the Trump administration was doing, failing to appreciate how much they changed American government.

他們認為我是在淡化川普政府所做事情的嚴重性，沒有體會到他們改變了美國政府多少。

But the benchmark that I used was not, are they changing things, or are they getting away with breaking laws?

但我使用的標準不是，他們有沒有在改變事情，或者他們有沒有規避法律。

But rather, were they successfully implementing changes that could durably affect the political competitiveness of the American system.

而是，他們有沒有成功地實施能夠持久影響美國體系政治競爭力的改變。

The opposition's ability to compete fairly and compromising the rule of law, making it difficult for there to be opposition activity in between elections.

反對派公平競爭的能力，以及破壞法治，讓選舉之間的反對派活動變得困難。

Because those were the things I'd been trained to look at in other countries where democracy had started to decline.

因為這些都是我在其他民主國家開始衰落的案例中，被訓練要觀察的。

Like the archetypal case that everyone cites is Hungary, which was one of the first American reporters to write a long piece on how authoritarianism in Hungary works.

像是大家常引用的典型案例是匈牙利，他是一位美國記者，他寫了一篇關於匈牙利威權主義如何運作的長文。

And so, like, looking at countries like that had helped, had given me a sense of what to look for when you want to see effective control being exercised by a leader over a democratic system.

所以，像是觀察那些國家，有幫助我瞭解，當你想看到一個領導人如何有效地掌控民主體系時，該注意哪些地方。

And I just didn't see the Trump administration doing that.

而我並沒有看到川普政府這麼做。

They were not doing a very good job following the playbook, especially in the wake of the massive public backlash against the shootings in Minneapolis.

他們在遵循這套劇本上做得並不好，尤其是在明尼阿波利斯槍擊案引發大規模民眾強烈反彈之後。

Many more people have come around to my view than were, you know, when I wrote the piece last year.

比我去年寫那篇文章時，有更多人贊同我的看法了。

That to me, is a really was a really clear example of, like, when what I'm doing is working.

對我來說，那真的是一個很清楚的例子，說明我的做法是有效的。

Support for this show comes from Harvey AI.

It's forged through repetition, sharpened by judgment, and perfected in the details.

它透過重複鍛鍊，藉由判斷磨利，並在細節中臻於完美。

Most people never see practice made perfect is Harvey's belief in relentless refinement, in turning complexity into clarity, pressure into precision, and

大多數人從未見過，Harvey 相信透過不斷精進，將複雜轉化為清晰，壓力化為精準，以及

經驗化為優勢，來達到完美的練習。

They say legal work isn't just about knowing the law.

他們說，法律工作不只是瞭解法律。

It's about applying it carefully, consistently, and under real stakes.

而是要謹慎、持續地應用它，並且在真實的壓力下。

Harvey is an AI platform they say is built specifically for legal practice.

Harvey 是一個 AI 平臺，據說專為法律實務而建。

It can help teams analyze large volumes of documents, draft with precision, and collaborate securely across complex matters.

它可以協助團隊分析大量文件，精確起草，並在複雜案件中安全協作。

他們說，它不會取代專業知識。

反而，它能讓法律工作更強大。

It can make teams faster, more exacting, more certain.

它可以讓團隊辦事更快、更精準、更有把握。

According to their data, more than half of the AmLaw100 use Harvey, and as part of their workflow.

根據他們的數據，超過一半的 AmLaw100 律師事務所都在使用 Harvey，而且是他們工作流程的一部分。

你可以在 Harvey AI 瞭解更多資訊。

I'm not going to say it's the biggest story in international politics at the moment because there's so much shit happening at the moment.

我不會說這是目前國際政治上最重大的新聞，因為現在實在是太多事情發生了。

But certainly one of the biggest stories in international politics at the moment is the state of the U.S.

但目前國際政治上最重大的新聞之一，絕對是美國主導的世界秩序的現況，以及在川普領導下它是否能繼續存續。

led world order and whether or not it is going to continue to survive under Trump.

回到川普的第一個任期，我想，才能理解當時的一些情況。

Go back to the first Trump term, I think, to understand some of the stuff at the time, right.

我寫過，也有其他人寫過，川普所做的，他試圖將美國的貿易關係和聯盟武器化的方式，來試圖從美國盟友那裡獲取利益，當時最顯著的例子就是把北約盟友的國防開支視為對美國的一種進貢，好像他們沒有支付應有的份額。

I wrote and some other people wrote, that what Trump was doing, the way that he was trying to weaponize America's trade relations and alliances to try to extract benefits from American allies, most notably at that point by like treating defense spending by NATO allies as a kind of tribute payments to the United States, like they weren't paying their fair share.

It's like a misunderstanding of how NATO works.

這就像是對北約運作方式的誤解。

But a thing that you heard primarily behind closed doors was that one term of this is something that Europe and other American allies could manage because it would be like, well, the United States, you know, they did a thing, it wasn't great, but

但你主要在閉門聽到的說法是，其中一個條件是歐洲和其他美國盟友可以應對，因為這就像是，你知道，美國他們做了一件事，雖然不是很好，但

it's still the United States, you know, they're the leader of the free world.

他們還是美國，你知道，他們是自由世界的領導者。

They, they can make mistakes sometimes and we can recover from that.

他們有時候會犯錯，我們可以從中恢復。

But a second Trump term, this is what people said during the first, would indicate that this is what America wants at this point, that at least one of its major parties was captured by a faction that was hostile to the global order and hostile to the foundations of the US Led alliance system.

但第二個川普任期，這是在他第一個任期時大家說的，這將表明這就是美國此刻想要的，至少其中一個主要政黨被一個敵視全球秩序和敵視美國主導的世界秩序聯盟體系的基礎的派系所掌控。

And that other countries would need to recalibrate their approaches if Trump were to win again.

而其他國家如果川普再次獲勝，就需要重新調整他們的方法。

I mean, not immediately, but a few years later.

And now what we're seeing is not, I don't want to quite say it's the inevitable outgrowth of what he'd done.

而現在我們看到的不完全是，我不太想說這是他所做事情的必然結果。

If you look at the way that European politicians behave, I'm focusing on Europe.

如果你看看歐洲政治人物的行為方式，我主要看歐洲。

This also applies to Japan, South Korea, Canada, where I now live especially.

這也適用於日本、南韓、加拿大，尤其是我現在住的加拿大。

They're like, desperate for things to go back to the way that they were.

他們好像很渴望事情能回到過去的樣子。

They really, really wanted Trump to come in and then have Marco Rubio, who is a known quantity as Secretary of State, and

他們真的很、真的很希望川普上臺，然後由馬可盧比歐（Marco Rubio），一位眾所皆知的國務卿人選，

things just be normal or as close to as normal as they could expect.

事情就會恢復正常，或者盡可能接近他們預期的正常。

You know, maybe Trump would say some weird stuff, but

你知道，川普也許會說些奇怪的話，但是

his actual deployment of forces and his foreign policies would be pretty consistent with the broad spectrum of different things that have happened under different US Presidents.

他實際的軍事部署和外交政策，會跟歷任美國總統的各種政策大方向 pretty consistent。

I mean, during the first term, there was a tweet of where Trump said, I promise not to do this.

我意思是，在第一任期時，川普發過一則推文說，我保證不會這樣做。

字幕列表影片播放

盟友們再也無法信任我們了！接下來該怎麼辦？ (Our allies can no longer trust us. So now what?)

stuff

sort

obvious

depression