乌克兰援助成为美国党争的焦点，政治是妥协的艺术还是政客的交易？

俄乌战争虽然还没有结束，已经逐渐淡出了人们的视野。这对比较弱小的，极度需要国际援助的乌克兰一方来说，确实是不太好的局面。泽连斯基总统也紧急地出访世界各国，特别是前往美国国会发表演讲，继续争取美元。不过，似乎遇到了不小的麻烦，因为对乌克兰的援助问题已经成为了民主和共和两党党争的一个焦点。

拜登政府提出了一个1000亿美元的援助方案，将对以色列和乌克兰的援助打包在了一起。这其中的算计就是将乌克兰和以色列进行捆绑，因为他们知道在共和党内部，反拜登的川普派也是以色列的坚定支持者，无法否决这个议案。毕竟，川普执政期间，对以色列的态度比拜登还要坚决，他的女婿就是犹太人，他的大女儿也改宗犹太教，还把美国驻以色列的大使馆迁到了最具争议的耶路撒冷，所以这一招还是非常毒辣的。而且也有效果，共和党人并没有表示出要强烈阻止这项议案通过，而是提出了一个条件，这就是要求民主党支持他们关切的边境管控和阻止非法移民的提案。

这就表现出了一个非常有趣的现象，就是党争。中国历史上，即便是专制王朝，秦制的专制王朝时期，党争也是见不鲜，宋朝、明朝、清朝都曾经发生过。而研究中国历史的学者却往往把党争当成王朝衰亡的一个重要原因，比如宋朝北宋时期，王安石变法，朝廷分裂成了新党和旧党，明末也有东林党和阉党的争斗，晚清近代也有党争就更加丰富多彩了，从一开始的保守派与洋务派，到后来的保守派与维新派，再到后来的立宪派，政治流派不断演变。但是，中国古代的这些党争都是官僚集团内部的，而且，还有一个最高统治者，皇帝或者太后存在，作为仲裁者存在，所以斗争的结果，虽然未必一派能够完全消灭另一派，但基本上可以达成赢者通吃的局面。失败的一方往往要遭遇比较残酷的清算。

但是，在美国这种民主体制下的党争，双方都代表了相当数量的选民。如果也搞这种赢者通吃的话，加上美国本来就是相对松散的联邦制，当然在林肯打赢内战之后，联邦政府已经相当于一个比较集权的中央政府了。一旦赢者通吃的话，很可能造成美国的分裂和内战。所以，美国民主制下的这种党争，就成了妥协的艺术。

对乌克兰的支持是拜登政府的国策，也是民主党推行意识形态软实力的重要手段。他们将乌克兰渲染成新兴的民主国家，与俄罗斯的战争是在对抗专制强权。如果放弃对乌克兰的支持，就是在展现美国价值观的虚伪。当然，拜登家族本身和乌克兰有很多千丝万缕的联系。如果乌克兰政府垮台，是否会将拜登家族多年来在乌克兰的黑箱操作曝光于世，从而彻底毁掉拜登的政治生命？这种可能性是存在的。所以，对乌克兰的援助是民主党至关重要的诉求。

而共和党，特别是川普的支持者，则更加关注国内事务。他们尤其对大量非法移民，透过边境进入美国与他们争抢工作机会，非常不满，也对这些移民挑战他们的生活习惯和文化，非常不满。所以加强边境管控，阻止非法移民潮。所以，当年川普喊着在南方边境建墙，就能够一呼百应获得大量的支持。所以，阻止非法移民这一条，是共和党和其选民的非常关切的利益。

所以，在民主党将乌克兰和以色列的援助捆绑之后，共和党的态度明显软化了。可以说，美国到底是一个以商业立国的国家。即便是政治，也是如同商场一样，双方的政治利益是可以进行交换的。于是，共和党就提出，你支持我的关切的提案，就是管控边境，阻止非法移民。我也可以支持你的援助乌克兰的提案。当然，民主党从自己的利益出发，管控边境，对它是不利的。它需要这些非法移民进入美国，并在来年的大选中给民主党投票，帮助他们保住执政地位。不过，既然是买卖，这样也是可以商量的。最新的消息就是，民主党给共和党的要求打了个折，说，不会建墙，完全阻止非法移民。民主党是办不到的，不过，他们可以想办法，把每年进入美国的非法移民数量限制在100万。因为如果不加控制的话，按现在的非法移民流入速度，这个数字是每年400万。而共和党方面也准备借坡下驴了，说这是一个有利的解决方案。

这似乎看似一个皆大欢喜的局面。也用一个听上去很美妙的词语来形容。就是政治是妥协的艺术。但真的是这样吗？这里似好的，这里似乎有一个矛盾。民主的支持者说，民主政治因为容许多党制和党派竞争，所以可以形成有效的监督机制和纠错机制。但是如果从乌克兰援助这件事情上来看的话，似乎并没有看到任何的限制和纠偏的机制在起作用。反而，双方不过是在讨价还价。你支持我的，我就支持你的。到最后，大家的主张都能够通过。但是这种讨价还价和真正市场上买卖商品和服务的讨价还价，却是完全不一样的。日常生活中市场上的讨价还价，成本是由参与交易的双方自己承担。买东西的花的是自己的钱，卖东西的赚的是自己的货。多花钱或者少赚钱，成本都是由自己承担。而政客这些主张，不管是给乌克兰援助还是在南部边境增加人力或者修筑隔离墙，花的都是老百姓的钱。不用自己承担，这就是最大的区别。在这样的所谓的妥协艺术之下，政客们什么都没有牺牲。不管是哪一方被牺牲的，都只有纳税人和民众的利益，实现的是政府权力的扩大。

可以说从某种意义上来说，这种民主制度下的党争还不如中国秦制皇朝时期的党争。在这些党争当中，往往是那些为朝廷据理、钱财、欺压百姓的奸臣获得最终的胜利。但毕竟赢者通吃。斗争的结果会将官场清洗一遍，在一定程度上达到了给官僚、官僚亲属施压的作用。可以说是两害相权，取其轻者。而民主制度下的这种党争，既扩大了政府权力，增加了民众的负担，也没有达到惩治、政客、机构的目的。难怪古希腊的一些圣贤会认为民主是最坏的制度。

而且这种政治交易，政治是妥协的艺术的搞法，实际上让多党制也失去了它本来的意义。因为并不存在什么多党。从美国的现在的历史政治形势也看得很清楚。所谓的共和党和民主党之争，已经越来越明显地演变成了建制派与草根派之间的矛盾。而建制派中就包括这些参与政治博弈和政治交易的政客。而草根派则是支持川普或者支持桑德斯这类政客的选民。

---

Although the Russian-Ukrainian war has not yet ended, it has gradually faded out of people's field of vision. This is indeed a not good situation for the relatively weak Ukrainian side, which is in desperate need of international assistance. President Zelensky also urgently visited countries around the world, especially to the US Congress to deliver a speech, and continue to fight for dollars. However, it seems that there is no shortage of trouble, because the issue of aid to Ukraine has become a focus of partisan contention between the Democratic and Republican parties.

The Biden administration has proposed a $100 billion aid package that packages aid to Israel and Ukraine. The calculation is to tie Ukraine and Israel together, because they know that within the Republican Party, the anti-Biden Trump faction is also a staunch supporter of Israel and cannot veto this bill. After all, during Trump's administration, his attitude towards Israel was even more resolute than Biden's, his son-in-law was Jewish, his eldest daughter also converted to Judaism, and moved the US embassy in Israel to the most controversial Jerusalem, so this move is still very vicious. And to an effect, Republicans have not expressed a strong desire to block the bill's passage, but have put forward a condition that Democrats support their concerns about border control and the blocking of illegal immigration.

This shows a very interesting phenomenon, that is, partisanship. In Chinese history, even during the autocratic dynasty and the autocratic dynasty of the Qin system, party strife was not uncommon, and there were times in the Song, Ming, and Qing dynasties. For example, during the Northern Song Dynasty of the Song Dynasty, Wang Anshi changed the law, and the imperial court was divided into the new party and the old party, and at the end of the Ming Dynasty, there was also a struggle between the Donglin Party and the eunuch party, and the party struggle in the late Qing Dynasty and modern times was more colorful. However, in ancient China, these party struggles were all within the bureaucracy, and there was also a supreme ruler, the emperor or the empress dowager, who existed as an arbiter, so the outcome of the struggle, although one faction may not be able to completely eliminate the other, can basically achieve a winner-take-all situation. The losing side often suffers a brutal reckoning.

However, in a democratic system like the United States, both sides represent a significant number of voters. If this kind of winner-take-all is also engaged, coupled with the fact that the United States is originally a relatively loose federal system, of course, after Lincoln won the Civil War, the federal government has become equivalent to a relatively centralized central government. If the winner takes all, it is likely to cause a split in the United States and a civil war. Therefore, this kind of partisan struggle under American democracy has become the art of compromise.

Support for Ukraine is the national policy of the Biden administration and an important means for the Democratic Party to promote ideological soft power. They portray Ukraine as an emerging democracy, and the war with Russia is against authoritarian powers. To abandon support for Ukraine is to demonstrate the hypocrisy of American values. Of course, the Biden family itself is inextricably linked to Ukraine. If the Ukrainian government falls, will it completely ruin Biden's political life by exposing the Biden family's black-box operations in Ukraine for many years? The possibility exists. Therefore, aid to Ukraine is a crucial demand of the Democratic Party.

Republicans, especially Trump supporters, are more focused on domestic affairs. In particular, they are very dissatisfied with the large number of illegal immigrants entering the United States through the border to compete with them for job opportunities, and they are also very dissatisfied with these immigrants who challenge their Xi habits and culture. Therefore, border control should be strengthened to stop the flow of illegal immigration. Therefore, when Trump shouted to build a wall on the southern border, he was able to get a lot of support in response. Therefore, stopping illegal immigration is a very concerned interest of the Republican Party and its voters.

So, after the Democrats tied up aid from Ukraine and Israel, the attitude of the Republican Party softened significantly. It can be said that the United States is a country founded on commerce after all. Even politics is like a shopping mall, and the political interests of both sides can be exchanged. So, the Republican Party put forward, and you support my concern about the proposal, which is to control the border and stop illegal immigration. I can also support your proposal to aid Ukraine. Of course, it is not good for the Democratic Party to control the border in its own interests. It needs these illegal immigrants to enter the United States and vote for the Democrats in next year's general election to help them retain their positions in power. However, since it is a sale, it is also negotiable. The latest news is that the Democrats have discounted the Republican Party's demands, saying that they will not build a wall to stop illegal immigration completely. The Democrats can't do that, but they can find a way to limit the number of illegal immigrants entering the United States to 1 million a year. Because if left unchecked, at the current rate of influx of illegal immigrants, that number would be 4 million per year. And the Republican side is also ready to take advantage of the slope to get off the donkey, saying that this is a favorable solution.

It seems like a happy situation. It's also a wonderful-sounding word. It's that politics is the art of compromise. But is that really the case? What seems good here, there seems to be a contradiction here. Proponents of democracy say that because democratic politics allows for competition among many party systems and factions, it can form an effective mechanism for supervision and correction of errors. But if we look at the matter of Ukrainian aid, it seems that there is no mechanism for restricting and correcting deviations at work. Instead, the two sides are just bargaining. If you support me, I will support yours. In the end, everyone's argument was able to pass. But this kind of bargaining is completely different from the bargaining of buying and selling goods and services in the real market. The cost of bargaining in the market in everyday life is borne by both parties involved in the transaction. Those who buy things spend their own money, and those who sell things earn their own goods. Spend more money or make less money, and the cost is borne by yourself. And the politicians' proposals, whether it is to give aid to Ukraine or to increase manpower on the southern border or build a separation wall, are spent on the people's money. You don't have to pay for it yourself, that's the biggest difference. Under such a so-called art of compromise, politicians sacrifice nothing. No matter which side is sacrificed, only the interests of taxpayers and the people are realized, and what is achieved is the expansion of government power.

It can be said that in a sense, the party struggle under this democratic system is not as good as the party struggle during the Qin Dynasty in China. In these party struggles, it is often the traitors who justify the court, make money, and oppress the people to win the final victory. But after all, winner takes all. The result of the struggle will be a purge of officialdom, which to a certain extent will have the effect of putting pressure on the bureaucracy and its relatives. It can be said that it is the lesser of two evils. This kind of party struggle under the democratic system not only expands the power of the government and increases the burden on the people, but also does not achieve the goal of punishing, punishing, and punishing politicians. No wonder some sages in ancient Greece considered democracy to be the worst system.

Moreover, this kind of political bargaining, in which politics is the art of compromise, actually makes the multi-party system lose its original meaning. Because there is no such thing as multi-party. We can also see very clearly the current historical and political situation in the United States. The so-called struggle between the Republicans and the Democratic Party has become more and more obvious to the contradiction between the establishment and the grassroots. The establishment includes these politicians who are involved in political games and political dealings. Grassroots, on the other hand, are voters who support Trump or politicians like Sanders.