美國政府努力試圖“把中國改造成一個更像西方的國家”和中方想建立的“新型大國關係”，哪個更容易實現？
我認為美國的這一努力並不只存在於歷史，這場和中國的思想、心理戰已經打了60年了，現在依然在繼續。在諸多問題上，中國需要處理，如西藏、香港、台灣問題，而美國一直都持續參與這些問題。但是我認為，從根本上講，如果中國繼續發展並持續解決好這些問題，中國無論如何都不會變成美國的複製品。
需要提醒的是，美國自己也未必是解決好問題的典範——美國是世界上貧富差距最大的國家，我們的各種基礎設施運作都不比從前了。這不是説美國本身的實力弱了，而是美國的生活品質下降了。但美國也沒有在解決這些問題上樹立榜樣，而且我也不怎麼相信為他人樹立榜樣這回事，在一國以自己的方式發展時，你不應該想去複製別國的成功，但是你可以向別國學習，美國卻總當自己是楷模。但美國最偉大的歷史學家查理斯·比爾德在二戰前説過，美國有一點令人震驚，就是你有選舉自由，這很重要，但是這種選舉自由從來沒有幫美國解決貧富差距，也沒有滿足美國人民各種基礎需求。
這應該可以讓美國人停下來，謙卑地想一想，不是我們體制裏的東西不好，而是我們體制裏好的東西沒有被實現，大量反思也仍沒有讓它們實現。所以與其打思想戰，傳播“西化中國”的思想，不如把這種精力省一省，打消這種念頭，把注意力都放在如何改變美國本土上。如何改變美國現狀就已經難住我們了，我們更不可能知道如何改變別人。
目前，太多中國人熱衷於美國大片和美劇，但這些電影電視劇中無不充斥著“美國夢”， 作為一個美國人，您怎麼理解“美國夢”？
我得先來做個區分。有人説，美國夢是單純的、以個人為中心的，我只需要做我自己的事，從個人利益出發，如果我成功了，那這個成功就屬於我自己。我不認為這是真正的美國夢。“美國夢”這個詞比較新，它在20世紀30年代被提出來，很多人認為“美國夢”最開始由有清教徒提出，但其實不是，它産生於在經濟大蕭條時期，由那些對美國商業文明最擔憂的人提出。20年代後，“利潤”變成了做所有事的第一考量，發展商業成了頭等要事，強烈的資本主義文化讓那些非商業性的價值離美國人越來越遠。在二三十年代，這些人要尋找一個夢想，一個民族夢，而不是世界夢，是一個重塑美國的夢，而不是重塑世界的夢，以便讓這個夢變成一種重要的文明，但現在你幾乎聽不到這種説法了。
但在那些年，當美國人提到美國文明，實際上就是在説理想在多大程度上適配于文明，如何更平等，如何掌控極端財富。富蘭克林·羅斯福就是其中一個，因為當你讀羅斯福的演講，你會看到他讓大家提防一種信念——只想賺錢並只為自己賺錢會創造出可行的社會和有意義的人生，有這種信念是危險的。
在另一個層面，如果你不了解社會結構，你就會像前人所説的那樣，陷入危險。所以，當人們問我美國夢是什麼的時候，我會更傾向於馬丁·路德·金在“我有一個夢想”演講中所説的，我的美國夢還沒有實現，現在接近於實現了，這是非常積極的，但是它還沒有真正實現，因為我們還在為很多事而奮鬥，比如更大的公平和滿足人民需要。有些人只想追求個人理想，這對很多個人來説可能可行，但對於整個社會來説，這是不夠的。所以這點更接近於我所理解的美國夢，我希望美國成長，停止嘗試統領全球，並把關注點撤回本土，也許我有生之年是看不到這天了，但是這是我所希望看到的，因為只有這樣，美國才能為自己創造有意義的民族文化。
最後一個問題，您對未來中美關係有什麼願景？
儘管實現起來有難度，但我希望，首先，美國人能更受到更好的教育，這很難，但是我希望美國把關注點撤回到本土。就這點而言，美國是有些進步的，因為在我人生當中，第一次看到共和黨內部，對美國的全球角色深感擔憂的人和麥凱恩以及麥凱恩的支援者，在這點産生意見分歧。所以首先我希望能看到美國聚焦本土。要不就是另一種，美國可以非常積極地保護它的全球角色，它的部分努力也可以繼續堅持，但同時，一方面它也得保護中國的權利和利益，另一方面非常精明、小心地對待中國以避免危機。我覺得這種關係是有風險的，中美兩國可以避免衝突，但是兩國間有危機升級的風險。所以，如果你問“習近平主席和奧巴馬總統會更直接地交流嗎”，或者“國家安全機構能否更協調”，我認為答案都是積極有利的。但是我認為，想要看到這些變化，你還是需要很多耐心，這些變化可能也産生於美國，並且對於和平世界來説也是必要的。儘管我之前説過，我認為時間站在中國這一邊。
[Transcript]
Well, I don’t think the American effort is part of a long history of war of ideas and psychological warfare against China that goes back now 60 years. It’s still ongoing, it’s there in certain ways China is dealt with, it’s there in Tibet, it’s there in Hong Kong, it’s there in Taiwan, these are all parts of ongoing incessant strategies that the US is involved in. But I think that the underlying point in the end is that China, if it is to continue the development and to continue to cope with.
And it’s a reminder the US itself is not exactly a paragon of how to solve certain problems, we have today the greatest extremes of wealth and power the US has ever faced, we have all sorts of basic infrastructure that is not working as it used to. That doesn’t mean the American power is weakening per se, but the quality of life in America is lessening. And the US is not providing any model for how to deal with that, and I don’t believe so much in models for others, people can learn from whatever they wish as a country develops in its own way, you shouldn’t think of I think of the world about copying other people, but you can learn from those people, the US often thinks of itself as the model, and yet one of our greatest historians Charles Beard before WWII, he said you know what the shocking things about the US is, it has its electoral freedoms, and they are important, but those electoral freedoms and it’s more true than ever, have never been to deal with economic inequality, and to ensure that the basic needs of all sorts of Americans are met.
And that should give some humility and pause to Americans, not that there aren’t good things in those systems, but there is certain things they have not accomplished and they are still not accomplishing in a great deal of rethinking that goes on. So rather than propagate such views in a war of ideas about how we are going to quote unquote Westernize China, pull back on all that effort, just stop it, and focus on transforming the US. It’s difficult enough to transform the US; we certainly don’t know how to transform anybody else.
Well, I think I make distinction, there is a very crude, simplistic, individual centric, I’m gonna go out do my own thing, personal interest, that’s what my life is, and if I succeed, great, and its mine. But I don't think that’s what the real American dream was about. The phrase is relatively new, it came in the 1930s, a lot of people think the American dreams goes back to the beginning of the puritans, it doesn’t, it emerged in the great depression, and it emerged among those who were most uneasy about a business civilization in the US after the 1920s, where everything was being reduced to profit, where business seemed to be supreme, where a intensely capitalist culture which of course the US is, had moved further and further away from non-commercial values. The goal of many of these people in the 20s and 30s was to find a dream, a national dream, not a universal dream, not a dream to remake the world but that to remake America, so that it would be a valid civilization, which you don’t hear about much anymore in the US.
But back in those years, we spoke in terms of an American civilization, it was inherently comparative, it was about how the ideals would fit in that civilization, it was how to have greater equality, and how to control extremes of wealth, and in its own way, Franklin Roosevelt was part of that, because when you read Roosevelt’s speeches, part of what he warned against was the dangers of the belief that wealth, simply earning wealth and earning it for yourself, would create a viable society and a meaningful life. While, it’s important to have the personal rights to pursue certain things.
At another level, if you don’t have the textures of society and community around that, then you end up with what the very people who initially articulated the dream warned against, so when people ask me what the American dream is, I’m a little closer to what Martin Luther King said in his I have a dream speech, which is the American dream I want isn’t here yet. There are things to draw on in America that are very positive, but it is not here yet. And that “yet” means the things he struggled for, the greater equality, meeting human needs, focusing in a world where simply pursuing your individual ventures, may be true for a lot of people, but in of itself, for a society as a whole, that was not enough. And so that’s closer to my dream about it, and as part of that, I would like to see America grow up, and stop trying to round the planet, and pull back, I don’t expect to see that in my life time, but that is what I would like because, and until does that, it cannot create a more meaningful national culture it itself.
Well, I would hope, as difficult as the relations are, I think they are difficult, that first, people in the US can be better educated, difficult, but to begin to pull back from the kind of role it has played in the world. There is a sort of an interesting development in the US in this regard, where there is even a divide now, for really first time in my lifetime, and in the Republican Party, between those who are deeply uneasy about American global role and people like McCain and others who favor it. So one element is to see that pull back in the US. The other is, the US can be very fierce about protecting its global role, and part of this effort is going to be to insist, on the one hand, that China’s rights and interest are protected, and on the other hand, that they be very shrewdly and carefully maneuvered so that crises do not get out of hand. And that I think is the risk, it’s nothing inevitable about a conflict between these two countries, but there is always a risk in crises escalating. So when you ask about the way President Xi and President Obama might communicate more directly or how national security would be more coordinated. I think that’s all to the good, but it’s gonna take a certain amount of patience even here, I think, to realize the kinds of changes, that are also gonna have to come from the US, that are necessary for a peaceful world, even though as I said earlier, I do think time is on China’s side.
