2018年11月，兰德公司发布评论文章《What Does America's Political Polarization Mean for Competition with China?》，文章中分析了美国政治极化如何影响对华战略。
文中通过对美国两党政治极化的深入阐述，揭示了美国对中国的制裁与反对一部分原因是为了调和美国国内政治的矛盾，并认为美国两党的极化斗争若继续下去，很可能导致国际危机面前实行更加极端危险决策的风险。这一结论虽然看似危险，但是符合“群体极化效应”的规律。文中最后也为美国两党政治的未来提出既温和又有效发展建议。
现由学术plus编译，仅供参考。
自内战以来，美国两党从未如此强烈分化，一些专家警告称，这种状况不仅使得民主制度的健康状况堪忧，党派仇恨也可能超出国内政治，而“政治失调”也正在上升为国家安全问题。
总的来说，美国政治极化对中美战略竞争可能带来以下三个重大影响：
首先两党在“中国威胁论”上的共识，为行动上的统一提供了一个重要但仍显薄弱的基础。
其次，激烈竞争的党派环境加剧了美国与中国的紧张关系，同时也增加了政治危机的风险。
第三，具有讽刺意味的是，如果危机爆发，激烈的党派关系也会增加决策陷入瘫痪的风险。
1. 美国两党的唯一共识：中国威胁论
即使美国两党斗争如火如荼，但是在“中国的威胁与挑战”这一问题上的态度立场达成了基本共识。皮尤民意调查显示，与其他问题相比，中国问题上的党派差距相对较小，双方的趋势相似。虽然两党可能在具体的贸易策略上存在分歧，但他们基本同意特朗普总统在加大对中国施压的力度。
例如，今年的国防授权法案得到了两党支持，其中涉及众多反间谍活动、影响力和军事力量的政策。另外，在特朗普的推动下，美国通过了一项600亿美元的援助计划，旨在部分打击中国的“一带一路”倡议。
2. 美国两党斗争只会加剧对中国制裁
在“对中国施压”这一方面的共识，并不足以克服美国社会的深层裂缝。政治两极分化达到了几十年未见的水平，
激烈的党派争斗在逻辑上会使得国家领导人的决策陷入困难，尤其在与中方的策略上，什么样的政策和行动才具有战略价值，而同时能最大化避免政治上的争议呢？
特朗普的回答果断而挑衅：退出TPP，对中国采取激进的公开立场，如贸易战以及和限制中国获取美国技术等行动。这些政策和行动虽然充满争议，但可以迅速且有效动员并统一公众舆论和两党，获得广泛的支持。
诸如此类的行动还包括：将中国列为2017年国家安全战略中的“战略竞争对手”，高层领导人高调演讲谴责北京等等行动，无一不在助长公众对中国的反感情绪。美国有民调显示，超过55％的美国人对中国持消极态度，而奥巴马在任期间美国民众对中国的好感占上风。
动员舆论反对中国，可能会暂时使有争议的政策通过，但同时也存在着巨大的风险。随着相互敌对的言论的加剧，中美可能会产生不稳定甚至对抗的双边关系，军事危机的风险也可能会增加。
3. 政治极化极可能导致更加快速和大胆的惊人决策
此外，虽然危机的风险可能会增加，但两极化的影响可能会首先表现在迅速和大胆的决策，这可能意味着政治不再停留在“水边”。
在和平时期，两党合作可能是可以实现的，但如果一个党派利用有争议的外交政策行动争取政治利益，那么两党会面临彻底决裂的风险。因此，美国领导人可能会在危机中采取跨领域政治和战略激励措施，但这样又可能导致决策的瘫痪。
人们不必同意特朗普总统的言论或具体政策，也不必赞同他在提高公众对中国战略竞争利益的认识方面取得的成就。除此之外，与美国盟国和合作伙伴的密切合作也可能有助于美国加强其国际战略地位。7月，美国，日本和澳大利亚同意投资亚太地区国家，以应对中国日益增长的地区影响力。加强国际合作也有助于遏制中国。在这方面的进展包括与澳大利亚，英国，加拿大和新西兰建立的“五眼”联盟，该联盟扩大了与日本和德国的情报共享联盟。
因此，在未来几年，美国领导人将需要更加努力，以减轻政治两极分化的影响，并以稳定，有效的方式管理与中国的竞争。
英文原文：
What Does America's Political Polarization Mean for Competition with China?
By Timothy R. Heath
Americans, facing levels of acrimonious polarization not seen since the Civil War, may understandably worry about the health of the country's democratic institutions.
However, the consequences of partisan rancor may also stretch beyond domestic politics. Already, some experts warn that “political dysfunction” is becoming a national security concern.
For America's strategic competition with China, its most formidable rival since the Cold War, political polarization potentially carries three significant implications:
First, bipartisan consensus on China's challenge offers an important, albeit fragile, basis for unified action. Second, a sharply partisan environment exacerbates America's tensions with China, raising the risk of a crisis. Third, ironically, intense partisanship also raises the risk of decisionmaking paralysis should a crisis erupt.
In a political environment in which America's two parties agree on very little, the challenge posed by China enjoys surprisingly broad bipartisan support. A Pew poll showed a relatively narrow partisan gap on the issue of China compared to other issues, with similar trends in both parties over time.
Democrats may disagree on trade tactics, but they largely agree with President Trump's efforts to step up pressure on China across a broad range of issues.
This year's National Defense Authorization Act, for example, passed with broad bipartisan support and involved numerous policies to counter Chinese espionage, influence, and military power.
Under President Trump, the United States passed a $60 billion aid program aimed in part at countering China's Belt and Road Initiative to integrate the Eurasian landmass.
A sharply partisan environment exacerbates America's tensions with China.
But unity on the challenge posed by China can do little to overcome deep fissures in American society. Political polarization has reached levels not seen in decades, with nearly one-third of people in each party describing the other party as a threat to the nation's well-being. Trust in all institutions, including media, government, and business has fallen considerably.
Intense partisan feuding imposes a severe obstacle for national leaders who are seeking to enact strategically valuable, but politically contentious measures to compete with China.
Symptomatic of this difficulty, President Obama failed to overcome bipartisan opposition to enact the ambitious trade pact, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
President Trump has abandoned the TPP, but his provocative leadership style has demonstrated how striking an aggressive public stance toward China can mobilize public opinion and bipartisan support for other politically controversial policies, such as restrictions on trade and access to U.S. technology.
Actions such as labeling China a “strategic competitor” in the 2017 National Security Strategy (PDF) and high-profile speeches by top leaders lambasting Beijing's policies have helped fuel rising public antipathy toward China.
Polls suggest over 55 percent of Americans now view China negatively, a notable shift from previous years, when China's unfavorability remained below 50 percent for most of President Obama's tenure.
A trade-off for U.S. leaders appears increasingly unavoidable between stable ties with China that come at the cost of a constrained ability to enact competitive policies on the one hand; and fewer constraints on the implementation of competitive policies that risk antagonistic, unstable bilateral ties on the other.
Mobilizing public opinion against China may ease the passage of contentious policies, but they carry their own risks. As strains deepen and mutually hostile rhetoric intensifies, the risks of a military crisis may be increasing.
The effects of polarization could impair rapid and bold decisionmaking in the event of a crisis.
Close encounters between military platforms of China and the United States have occurred before, but the hostile political atmosphere raises the danger of miscalculation in incidents like the near collision of a Chinese warship with the U.S.S. Decatur in late September.
Moreover, while the risks of a crisis may be increasing, the effects of polarization could impair rapid and bold decisionmaking in the event of a crisis. The politicization of foreign policy developments means politics no longer stops at “water's edge.”
Bipartisan cooperation may be achievable in peacetime when risks are low, but the fragile basis of bipartisan support carries an inherent danger of rupture in a crisis if one partisan side exploits controversial foreign policy actions for political advantage against the other—a dynamic well exhibited in the intense partisan rancor over the Iraq War and the U.S. 2011 intervention in Libya.
U.S. leaders thus could face cross-cutting political and strategic incentives for action in a crisis, raising the risk of decisionmaking paralysis.
To address these vulnerabilities, national leaders could work harder to engage both domestic audiences and international allies and partners. Greater efforts to mobilize support and educate domestic constituents could help ease passage of strategically valuable, but politically sensitive, measures like regional trade pacts.
One need not agree with either President Trump's rhetoric or his specific policies to recognize his achievements in raising popular awareness of the stakes of the broader strategic competition with China.
Similarly, closer cooperation with U.S. allies and partners may also facilitate U.S. efforts to strengthen its strategic position internationally. In July, the United States, Japan, and Australia agreed on a plan to invest in countries across the Asia-Pacific to counter China's growing regional clout.
Stronger international cooperation could also help deter Chinese brinkmanship. Beijing's mulling of a possible provocation to test U.S. resolve becomes far more risky when other countries may be involved.
An encouraging development on this front involves the “Five Eyes” alliance including Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States, which has expanded a coalition for intelligence sharing purposes with Japan and Germany.
In coming years, U.S. leaders will need to work even harder to mitigate the effects of political polarization and manage competition with China in a stable, effective manner.
Timothy Heath is a senior international and defense research analyst with the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation.
This commentary originally appeared on The Hill on November 8, 2018. Commentary gives RAND researchers a platform to convey insights based on their professional expertise and often on their peer-reviewed research and analysis.
