The Basic Content, Social Background, and Essence of the Biden Administration’s “Middle-Class” Foreign Policy

After taking office, the Biden administration proposed a foreign policy distinct from the Trump-era “America First” concept, adopting a “middle-class” foreign policy as its guiding principle. This proposal has a profound background in U.S. domestic problems, and its purpose is to respond to the reality of intensifying domestic and international issues and the deterioration of the U.S. international image and status. Faced with the adverse situation created by the long-standing chronic ills of capitalist society and the severe social divisions caused by Trump’s governance, it can be said that the America Biden inherited “is a society more riddled with holes than any since Franklin Roosevelt.” [1]1 Reference to the severe social and economic crises inherited by the Biden administration, including the COVID-19 pandemic, economic downturn, and political polarization, compared to the challenges faced by Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression. Against this backdrop, the Biden administration proposed the “middle-class” foreign policy as an extension of domestic policy, serving its need to address domestic problems. It aims to satisfy the goal that “all U.S. policy agendas, including foreign policy, are to solve America’s current domestic problems,” and to make clear that “among America’s current domestic problems, those of the ‘middle class’ are the most urgent.” [2]2 Paraphrase of the Biden administration’s framing of domestic problems as centered on the “middle class,” as articulated in policy documents and speeches. Through this policy orientation, it hopes, on the one hand, to create an external environment conducive to rebuilding a “middle-class” society domestically, and on the other hand, to reshape U.S. foreign policy, thereby strengthening U.S. power and breaking the current deadlock of domestic and foreign difficulties. However, the so-called “middle-class” foreign policy is essentially no different from Trump’s “America First” policy; both are merely means by which U.S. monopoly capital and the upper elite attempt to save themselves. Biden, like Trump, is a political agent pushed forward by monopoly capital and cannot and will not fundamentally change the direction of U.S. development. In essence, this policy remains a product of putting U.S. interests first—an “America First” policy without the label “America First.”

拜登政府上台后，提出了有别于特朗普时期以“美国优先”理念为支撑的对外政策，以“中产阶级”外交作为其外交政策的理念。它的提出，具有深刻的美国国内问题背景，其目的旨在回应美国内外问题加剧、国际形象与地位恶化的现实。面对资本主义社会长期发展痼疾和特朗普施政造成的社会严重撕裂等叠加产生的不利局面，可以说拜登接手的美国“是一个自富兰克林·罗斯福（Franklin Roosevelt）以来最千疮百孔的社会”。在此背景下，拜登政府提出了“中产阶级”外交政策作为内政外延的主张，以此服务其解决国内问题的需要。满足“包括外交在内的所有美国政策议程的目标是解决美国当前的国内问题”，并“明确美国当前的国内问题以‘中产阶级’的问题最为迫切”。其希望通过这一政策指向，一方面打造有利于服务美国国内重建“中产阶级”社会的外部环境，另一方面以此重塑美国外交，达到增强美国实力，破解美国当前内外交困局面的目的。但是，所谓的“中产阶级”外交跟特朗普的“美国优先”政策没有本质的区别，都只不过是美国垄断资本和上层精英妄图自救的手段。拜登和特朗普一样，都是垄断资本推出来的政治代理人，不会也不可能从根本上改变美国的发展方向。这一政策实质上依然是美国利益至上的产物，是没有“美国优先”的美国优先政策。

I. Basic Content of the Biden Administration’s “Middle-Class” Foreign Policy

一、拜登政府“中产阶级”外交政策的基本内容

Before Biden ran for U.S. president, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, headed by William Burns, a core figure in his foreign policy team, published a research report titled “A U.S. Foreign Policy for the Middle Class.” [3]3 William Burns served as U.S. Deputy Secretary of State and later as CIA Director under Biden; the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is a prominent U.S. think tank. The report argued that overall global economic growth and a booming stock market do not necessarily benefit ordinary American working people, and therefore foreign policy must also be adjusted. Biden accepted this foreign policy proposition and made it a key part of his campaign platform to distinguish himself from Trump’s “America First” policy. In March 2020, Biden published an article in the U.S. journal *Foreign Affairs* titled “Why America Must Lead Again—Rescuing U.S. Foreign Policy After Trump,” formally proposing a foreign policy serving the “middle class” and stating that if elected, he would implement a foreign policy serving the “middle class.” [4]4 *Foreign Affairs* is a leading U.S. journal on international relations and U.S. foreign policy.

在拜登竞选美国总统前，其外交政策团队的核心人物伯恩斯（William. Burns）主管的卡内基国际和平基金会发表了《为“中产阶级”的美国外交政策》的研究报告。该报告认为，全球整体的经济增长及股市畅旺，不等于一般美国劳工阶层有所得益，因此外交政策亦必须有所调整。拜登接受了这一外交政策主张，并将其作为竞选主张的重要组成部分，以区别于特朗普的“美国优先”政策。2020年3月，拜登在美国《外交》杂志发表题为《美国必须再次领导世界——拯救特朗普之后的美国外交政策》一文，正式提出了服务“中产阶级”的外交政策，并称当选后他将推行服务“中产阶级”的外交。

After taking office, Biden formally listed the “middle-class” foreign policy as an important policy goal of his administration. On February 4, 2021, Biden delivered a foreign policy speech at the U.S. State Department titled “America’s Place in the World,” stating: “There is no longer a clear dividing line between foreign policy and domestic policy,” and “Every action we take in our conduct abroad, we must take with American working families in mind. Advancing a foreign policy for the middle class requires a sharp focus on our domestic economy—economic revitalization.” [5]5 Quotation from Biden’s February 4, 2021, speech at the State Department. The message conveyed by the speech was very clear: U.S. foreign policy and domestic policy are no longer distinctly separate; U.S. foreign policy serves its domestic policy, with a focus on promoting domestic economic revitalization and expanding the so-called “middle class.” On the same day Biden delivered this speech, the U.S. government released a “Memorandum on Revitalizing America’s Foreign Policy and National Security Workforce, Institutions, and Partnerships,” which specified the content of “implementing a foreign policy for the middle class” and stipulated that within 60 days of the memorandum’s signing, discussions would be held on readjusting U.S. foreign policy to meet the challenges and opportunities of serving the U.S. “middle class.” Within 30 days of the memorandum’s signing, each agency was to designate a senior official to lead initiatives aimed at benefiting the U.S. “middle class,” striving to better integrate foreign policy with U.S. domestic goals.

拜登执政后，正式将“中产阶级”外交列为其政府的重要政策目标。2021年2月4日，拜登在美国国务院发表题为《美国在世界上的地位》外交政策演说，提出：美国“外交政策和国内政策之间不再有明确界限”，“我们（美国）在海外行为中采取的每一项行动，都必须考虑到美国的工薪家庭。推进针对‘中产阶级’的外交政策，迫切需要把重点放在国内经济上——经济振兴”。演说传递的含义非常明确，即美国外交与国内政策不再有明显的区别，美国的外交政策服务于其国内政策，重点是能够促进美国国内经济振兴与扩大所谓的“中产阶级”。就在拜登发表该演讲当天，美国政府公布了《关于振兴美国外交政策和国家安全工作人员、机构和伙伴关系的备忘录》，其内容指明美国“为‘中产阶级’实施外交政策”的内容，并明确在备忘录签署60天内，讨论重新调整美国外交政策，以满足美国“中产阶级”需要的挑战和机遇。在备忘录签署30天内，各机构要指定高级官员领导实施旨在造福美国“中产阶级”的举措，努力使外交政策与美国国内目标更好地结合起来。

Subsequently, U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, in his introductory remarks on Biden’s speech, further elaborated that the “no longer clear dividing line” between foreign policy and domestic policy meant: “Foreign policy is domestic policy, because our strength at home determines our strength in the world, and domestic policy is also foreign policy.” [6]6 Blinken’s remarks on February 4, 2021, at the State Department. In a policy speech titled “A Foreign Policy for the American People,” Blinken further articulated this foreign policy orientation as serving U.S. workers and their families by providing good jobs, good incomes, and lower household costs. “Foreign policy will fight for every American job and for the rights, security, and interests of all American workers. Trade policy will need to answer very clearly how it will grow the American middle class, create new and better jobs, and benefit all Americans, not just those for whom the economy already works.” [7]7 Blinken’s policy speech on foreign policy for the American people, delivered in 2021. The Biden administration’s first national security document, the “Interim National Security Strategic Guidance,” explicitly stated that in today’s world, economic security is national security, and it highlighted the importance of the “middle class” to U.S. national security. [8]8 The “Interim National Security Strategic Guidance” was released in March 2021. In terms of policy orientation, this includes three layers of meaning: First, the “middle class” is the pillar of the United States and the source of its long-term economic advantage; from this perspective, U.S. trade and international economic policy must serve the American people, not just a privileged few. Second, trade policy must increase the size of the U.S. “middle class,” create new and better jobs, and raise wages. Third, build modern infrastructure and ensure that investments create good jobs with union protections and decent pay to expand the “middle class.” The official version of the “National Security Strategy” released in October 2022 reiterated the important role of the “middle class” in U.S. national security, promoting U.S. economic growth, and enhancing U.S. national cohesion. [9]9 The official “National Security Strategy” was released by the White House in October 2022. In a speech on April 27, 2023, at the Brookings Institution on reshaping U.S. economic leadership, U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan explicitly stated that everything the Biden administration is doing economically is part of the “‘middle-class’ foreign policy.” [10]10 Jake Sullivan’s speech at the Brookings Institution on April 27, 2023, focused on “reimagining American economic leadership.”

随后，美国国务卿布林肯（Antony J. Blinken）在对拜登此次演讲所作的介绍性讲话中，进一步将这一外交政策与国内政策“不再有明确界限”阐述为：外交政策就是国内政策，“因为国内的实力决定了我们在世界的实力，国内政策也是外交政策”。布林肯在题为《为了美国人民的外交》政策演讲中，进一步将这一外交政策取向阐述为外交政策是为了服务于美国工人及其家庭，为其提供好的工作、好的收入和较低的家庭成本。“外交政策将为每一份美国工作以及所有美国工人的权利、保障和利益而战。贸易政策将需要非常清楚地回答它们将如何发展美国‘中产阶级’、创造新的更好的就业机会并造福所有美国人，而不仅仅是那些经济已经为其服务的人。”拜登政府公布的首份关于国家安全方面的文件《国家安全战略临时指引》明确提出：在当今世界，经济安全即国家安全，并提到“中产阶级”的存在对于美国国家安全的重要性。政策指向上，包括三层含义：第一，“中产阶级”是美国的支柱，是美国长期的经济优势所在，从这个角度出发，美国的贸易和国际经济政策必须服务于美国人，而不仅仅是少数特权阶层。第二，贸易政策必须增加美国的“中产阶级”数量，创造新的和更好的工作，提高工资。第三，建设现代化的基础设施，并确保投资创造有工会保障的待遇良好的工作，以扩大“中产阶级”。在2022年10月公布的正式版的《美国国家安全战略》中，再次重申“中产阶级”对于美国国家安全和促进美国经济增长，提升美国国家凝聚力的重要作用。2023年4月27日美国总统国家安全事务助理杰克·沙利文（Jake Sullivan）在布鲁金斯学会关于重塑美国经济领导力的演讲中，明确指出拜登政府在经济上所做的全部都是“‘中产阶级’外交政策”的一部分。

Thus, the U.S. “‘middle-class’ foreign policy” has moved from the initial stage of policy declarations to domestic and international audiences at the start of the Biden administration to the formal stage of actual implementation, also marking the final formation of this policy.

可见，美国“‘中产阶级’外交”由拜登政府上任之初面向美国国内外的政策宣示阶段，正式进入实际执行阶段，也意味着这一政策的最终成型。

II. Social Background of the Biden Administration’s “Middle-Class” Foreign Policy

二、拜登政府“中产阶级”外交政策产生的社会背景

The Biden administration focuses its policy on the so-called “middle class.” However, it must be noted that the “middle class” is a non-class “class.” Thomas Piketty, in *Capital in the Twenty-First Century*, points out that the “middle class” refers to those who are “not wealthy” but “far from destitute.” [11]11 Thomas Piketty, *Capital in the Twenty-First Century* (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014), a widely cited work on wealth and income inequality. That is, the “middle class” is a mixture of the proletariat, the petty bourgeoisie, and part of the bourgeoisie. In the Marxist view, the middle class in capitalist society refers to the petty bourgeoisie (i.e., small property owners who “do not exploit others, or only exploit others to a slight degree”), such as small farmers, small business owners, and independent professionals like lawyers and doctors. [12]12 Reference to the Marxist definition of the petty bourgeoisie, as found in works such as *The Communist Manifesto* and *Capital*. This class undergoes continuous polarization with the development of capitalism, with most being bankrupted and becoming proletarians, while a minority may rise to the bourgeoisie. Hence, they are called the intermediate class between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Consequently, the “middle class,” which integrates multiple classes, can only be a non-class “class.” For this reason, there is no unified global definition of the “middle class.” The “middle class” Biden refers to mainly includes proletarians who do not rely on relief, small business owners, and middle-level capitalists.

拜登政府将政策的重点放在所谓的“中产阶级”（middle class）身上。但需要说明的是“中产阶级”是一个非阶级的“阶级”。托马斯·皮凯蒂（Thomas Piketty）在《21世纪资本论》中指出，“中产阶级”是那些“算不上富裕”，但是“远远不是赤贫”的这样一个群体。也就是说，“中产阶级”混合了无产阶级、小资产阶级和部分资产阶级。在马克思主义看来，资本主义社会的middle class指的是小资产阶级（即小私有者，“他们不剥削别人，或对别人只有轻微的剥削”），如小农、小业主和独立执业的律师、医生等，这个阶级随着资本主义的发展而不断两极分化，主要是因破产分化为无产者，少数人有可能上升为资产阶级，所以他们才被称为居于资产阶级与无产阶级之间的中间的阶级。因而，整合了多个阶级的“中产阶级”只能是非阶级的“阶级”。正因为如此，世界上并没有一个统一的关于“中产阶级”的定义。拜登所说的“中产阶级”主要是指那些不依靠救济过活的无产者、小业主和中等资本家等。

As the wealth gap in Western societies widens, inequality in income and wealth intensifies, and many who were originally in the “middle class” fall out of this “class” to become the social bottom reliant on relief; in the face of an increasingly rigid class structure, the social bottom has also lost the opportunity to enter this “class.” The “American Dream,” characterized by equality of opportunity, has “turned into a nightmare” for many in the “middle class,” with the result that “some Western countries, while continuously growing social wealth, have long experienced a huge gap between rich and poor and polarization.” [13]13 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Conference Celebrating the 100th Anniversary of the Founding of the Communist Party of China” (July 1, 2021).

随着西方社会贫富差距的日渐拉大，收入和财富的不平等愈演愈烈，很多原处于“中产阶级”的人跌出这一“阶级”，成为领取救济的社会底层；在日渐固化的阶级结构面前，社会底层也丧失了进入这一“阶级”的机会。以机会平等为特征的“美国梦”，对于很多“中产阶级”来说“变成了噩梦”，其结果就是“一些西方国家在社会财富不断增长的同时长期存在贫富悬殊、两极分化”。

The starting point of the Biden administration’s “‘middle-class’ foreign policy” is intended to stabilize and expand the “middle-class” group, especially by constructing pathways for blue-collar workers to enter the “middle-class” group, with the aim of alleviating social contradictions. However, research shows that the size of the U.S. “middle class” has been continuously shrinking. In 2016, the situation of the “middle class” in 90% of U.S. cities deteriorated, with many American families slipping out of the ranks of the “middle class.” Americans’ identification with the “middle class” has also declined; the proportion of Americans who self-identify as “middle class” or above fell from an average of 61% between 2000 and 2008 to 51% in 2016. Moreover, in nearly 25% of metropolitan areas, the “middle class” no longer constitutes a majority. At the same time, a 2017 study showed that the wealth of the richest 0.1% of American families equaled the total wealth owned by the bottom 90% of families. Another 2018 study showed that 43.5% of the total U.S. population (about 140 million people) live in straitened circumstances or with low incomes. In May 2019, the U.S. Gini coefficient was 0.482, far exceeding the international “warning line” of 0.4.

拜登政府“‘中产阶级’外交政策”的出发点，意在通过稳定和扩大“中产阶级”群体，特别是为蓝领劳工阶层建构进入“中产阶级”群体的路径，以期达到缓和社会矛盾的目的。但是，研究表明，美国“中产阶级”规模持续萎缩。2016年，90%的美国城市“中产阶级”境况趋于恶化，不少美国家庭滑出“中产阶级”的行列。美国人“中产阶级”认同也在降低，将自己定位为“中产阶级”或“中产阶级”以上的美国人从2000年至2008年的平均61%降到了2016年的51%。而且，在近25%的大都市中，“中产阶级”不再占据多数。与此同时，2017年的一份研究表明，美国最富有的0.1%家庭的财富相当于最底层90%家庭所拥有财富的总和。2018年的另一份研究表明，美国总人口的43.5%（约14亿人）生活拮据或收入低微。2019年5月，美国基尼系数为0.482，远超0.4的国际“警戒线”。

The polarization of American society has led to a superposition of political, economic, and social crises, leaving the social “middle class” and the bottom groups in an extremely vulnerable state. Faced with serious internal social problems, Western elites and the ruling class are incompetent, powerless, and unwilling to fundamentally solve them, hoping to resolve the crisis by vigorously pursuing economic nationalism and national egoism, “treating internal illness externally” and shifting contradictions. For large Western countries like the United States, “in order to protect their own jobs and trade interests, the pattern of great-power competition is gradually shifting toward issues such as trade that involve their own internal social employment and other areas.” This is actually a lose-lose approach that harms others without benefiting oneself.

美国社会的两极分化，使得美国呈现政治、经济、社会危机叠加的情况，社会“中产阶级”和底层群体，处于极其脆弱的状态中。面对严重的社会内部问题，西方的精英和统治阶级无能、无力，也不想从根本上解决问题，希望可以通过大搞经济民族主义和国家利己主义“内病外治”、转移矛盾的方式化解危机。对以美国为代表的西方大国来说，“为了保护本国的工作岗位和贸易利益，大国竞争的格局正在逐步转向贸易等涉及自身社会内部就业等问题领域”。这实际上是损人不利己的。

Since the beginning of the 21st century, the speed and extent of polarization in the United States have intensified day by day, with resources related to people’s livelihood being heavily squeezed by big capital. The Biden administration’s proposal of a “‘middle-class’ foreign policy” is an inevitable result of the intensification of its domestic social contradictions. It is actually a reset of the excessive tension of previous neoliberal policies, hoping to shift the focus of U.S. policy and the distribution of social wealth resources more toward the domestic sphere. However, severe inequality has penetrated every aspect of American society, and the spillover effects caused by U.S. domestic problems have already affected the international level. Since the Biden administration took office, the survival crisis of the “middle class” and the bottom masses has not improved; instead, the social crisis has deepened further. In addition to the pre-existing chronic problem of polarization and the impact of the epidemic, the high inflation since it took office has further exacerbated the survival crisis of ordinary Americans. Behind the high inflation, on the surface, this is the result of the “flooding” of domestic economic policy since Biden took office. But in essence, this is an inevitable result of the inherent contradiction of capitalism between the private ownership of the means of production and socialized large-scale production. This is also a continuation of the 2008 international financial crisis. The U.S. government has used a large amount of funds to bail out large enterprises, while social welfare programs have been massively cut, and workers’ wages have not kept pace with the inflation rate, widening the gap between the unlimited expansion trend of capitalist production and the relatively shrinking effective demand of the working people. No matter who is in power in the U.S. government, it is impossible to fundamentally solve this problem. The social backgrounds that gave rise to “America First” and the “‘middle-class’ foreign policy” are essentially no different; they are in fact nothing more than tricks by U.S. monopoly groups attempting to save themselves. If Trump doesn’t work, they replace him with another agent, Biden, and roll out another slogan, but inequality in American society has not changed at all.

进入21世纪以来，美国两极分化的速度和程度日益加剧，涉及民生福祉的资源被大资本大量挤占。拜登政府提出“‘中产阶级’外交政策”是其国内社会矛盾激化导致的必然结果。实际上是对既往新自由主义政策张力过大的重置，希望把美国政策焦点和社会财富资源的分配更多地转向国内。但是，严重的不平等已经渗透到美国社会的方方面面，而且由于美国国内问题导致的外溢效应已经影响到国际层面。拜登政府执政以来，“中产阶级”及底层民众的生存危机，没有得到好转，社会危机反而进一步加深。除了本就存在的两极分化痼疾和疫情的影响，其执政以来高企的通货膨胀，进一步加剧了普通美国人的生存危机。通胀高企的背后，从表面上看这是拜登执政以来国内经济政策“放水”的结果。但实质上，这是生产资料的私有制与社会化大生产之间的资本主义内在矛盾导致的必然结果。这也是2008年国际金融危机的延续，美国政府将大量的资金用于救助大企业，社会福利事业遭到大规模削减，工人工资并未赶上通货膨胀率，使资本主义生产无限扩大的趋势与劳动人民有支付能力的需求相对缩小之间的差距越拉越大。美国政府无论换谁执政，都不可能从根本上解决这一问题。“美国优先”和“‘中产阶级’外交政策”产生的社会背景没有本质的不同，它们其实都只不过是美国垄断集团妄图自救的花招。特朗普不行，就换一个代理人拜登，再推出一个口号，但美国社会的不平等并没有任何改变。

Research shows that “since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States has implemented a ‘flood irrigation’ policy, which, while pushing up the stock market, has also further widened the gap between rich and poor. The total assets owned by American billionaires have increased by $1.763 trillion, a surge of 59.8%. The top 10% of wealthy Americans hold 89% of U.S. stocks, a record high.” [14]14 “U.S. Billionaire Wealth Surges 59.8% Since Pandemic Began,” Xinhua News Agency, November 5, 2021. Yet Biden himself and his senior officials, who constantly mention the American working class and the “middle class,” have not made them the beneficiaries of their policies; they have only received “verbal care” to beautify their policies.

研究表明，“新冠肺炎疫情暴发以来，美国实施‘大水漫灌’政策，在推高股市的同时也进一步拉大了贫富差距。美国亿万富翁拥有的总资产增加了1.763万亿美元，涨幅高达59.8%。排名前10%的美国富人持有89%的美国股票，创下历史新高”。而拜登本人及其政府高官时时放在口中的美国劳工阶层和“中产阶级”，并没有成为其政策照顾的对象，只是得到了美化其政策的“口头照顾”。

In fact, the so-called “‘middle-class’ foreign policy” has evolved into a policy that exacerbates the suffering of the American people. According to a report by the New York Post on October 19, 2022, “a latest poll released that day showed that over 90% of respondents said they were worried about inflation in the United States, and 60% of respondents believed that inflation, which has soared to its highest level in 40 years, is worsening… 75% of American respondents believed that corporate price gouging is the main cause of inflation, and 64% believed that the federal government should bear some responsibility for it.” Even after the Federal Reserve’s consecutive interest rate hikes in 2023, inflation appears to have moderated somewhat, but this does not mean that the pain and survival crisis of ordinary Americans have eased. According to an October 2023 poll by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, about three-quarters of respondents said the economy is in poor condition. Two-thirds of respondents said their expenses have increased. “Although inflation has steadily cooled over the past year, the prices of many goods and services remain much higher than three years ago.” According to a report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported by NPR on October 26, 2023, in 2022, 44.2 million people in the United States lived in households that struggled to get enough food to feed everyone, an increase of over 10 million compared to 2021 (33.8 million in 2021). These households included over 13 million food-insecure children, an annual increase of nearly 45%. On June 4, 2022, the Boston Globe website published an article titled “People question whether he is up to the job: As crises mount, Biden struggles to prove he can solve problems.” It is evident that since taking office, Biden has not fulfilled the beautiful vision he painted for the American people during his campaign; for Americans, the outlook remains bleak.

事实上，所谓的“‘中产阶级’外交政策”已经演化为加剧美国人民痛苦的政策。据美国《纽约邮报》2022年10月19日的报道，“当天发布的一项最新民调显示，超过90%的受访者称对美国的通货膨胀问题感到担心，六成受访者认为已飙升至40年来最高水平的通胀正在恶化……75%的美国受访者认为企业哄抬价格是导致通胀的主要原因，还有64%的人认为联邦政府应对此负有一定责任。”即使经过美联储2023年连续加息，看似通胀有所缓和，但是这并不意味着普通美国民众痛苦和生存危机的减轻。据根据美联社-NORC公共事务研究中心2023年10月的一项民意调查，约四分之三的受访者认为经济状况不佳。三分之二的受访者表示他们的开支有所增加。“尽管过去一年通胀稳步降温，但许多商品和服务的价格仍远高于三年前。”据美国全国公共广播电台（NPR）2023年10月26日报道的美国农业部的报告，2022年，美国有4420万人生活在难以获得足够食物养活所有人的家庭中，与2021年相比增加超1000万人（2021年为3380万人），这些家庭中包括1300多万名粮食不安全的儿童，年增幅近45%。2022年6月4日美国《波士顿环球报》网站即刊登了题为《人们质疑他能不能胜任：随着危机加剧，拜登难以证明他能解决问题》的文章。可见，自执政以来，拜登并没有兑现他从竞选时向美国民众描绘的美好愿景，对于美国人而言，前景依然暗淡。

III. The Essence of the Biden Administration’s “Middle-Class” Foreign Policy

三、拜登政府“中产阶级”外交政策的实质

First, the “‘middle-class’ foreign policy” advocates rebuilding the American “middle-class society,” proposes “bringing manufacturing back to America,” and driving the return of so-called “middle-class” jobs to America, attempting to redraw the world economic landscape. Its essence is a manifestation of American economic nationalism and national egoism.

第一，“‘中产阶级’外交政策”倡导重建美国“中产社会”，提出“制造业回归美国”，带动所谓“中产阶级”工作岗位回归美国，妄图重新划分世界经济格局，其实质是美国经济民族主义与国家利己主义的体现。

The United States’ “inward-looking tendency” has brought headwinds to economic globalization. The U.S. “‘middle-class’ foreign policy” serves the needs of the shift in U.S. domestic policy, adheres to taking the United States as the center, and demands that the world economic and political system also serve a U.S.-centered global layout of productive forces and world political system, with the aim of maintaining U.S. unipolar hegemony. Whether it was Biden’s first foreign trip after assuming the U.S. presidency to attend the G7 summit, where he orchestrated Western core allies to launch the policy proposition of reshaping the global layout of productive forces—the “Build Back Better World” (B3W), packaging it as “an ambitious initiative that will meet the immense infrastructure needs of low- and middle-income countries”—or his first trip to Asia proposing the so-called Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), the essence is to form a core inner circle of the global layout of productive forces centered on the United States, with the outer core layer being Western countries, extending outward to the vast developing countries targeted by the “Build Back Better World” policy. The policy entry point is the U.S. “‘middle-class’ foreign policy,” which extends U.S. domestic plans for infrastructure and strengthening innovation to the international economic level, forming a comprehensive U.S. economic strength and reshaping the global economic landscape. Through this approach, U.S. manufacturing, U.S. industrial chains, U.S. jobs, Americans’ incomes, U.S. infrastructure, and so on can all return to a “better era”; the U.S. “middle class” can expand, a “middle-class” society can be rebuilt, and the “good life” will reappear; U.S. allies can also once again form a relationship of dependency on the United States in both political and economic aspects, as during the “Marshall Plan” period. It can be seen that “recreating the good life” and “rebuilding a better world” are of the same lineage, exerting substantive influence on the international economy and politics. Thus, “in its essence, a foreign policy serving the ‘middle class’ can be said to be largely a repackaging of populism by the Democratic Party establishment, a revamped re-emergence of the ‘America First’ principle.” [15]15 This is a quotation from a Chinese analysis of U.S. foreign policy, likely from a Chinese academic or policy source, criticizing the Biden administration’s approach as a repackaged form of Trump’s “America First” populism.

美国的“内顾倾向”给经济全球化带来逆风。美国“‘中产阶级’外交政策”服务于美国内政政策转向的需求，坚持以美国为中心，世界经济与政治体系也要服务于以美国为中心的全球生产力布局与世界政治体系布局，目的在于维护美国的单极霸权。无论是拜登就任美国总统后首次外访参加G7峰会即策动西方核心盟友推出的重塑全球生产力布局的政策主张——“重建美好世界”（Build Back Better World），并将其包装为“一个满足中低收入国家巨大基础设施需求的积极倡议”，还是其首次出访亚洲提出的所谓印太经济框架（IPEF），其实质是以美国为中心形成全球生产力布局的内核圈层，外核核心层是西方国家，往外延伸是“重建美好世界”政策所指向的广大发展中国家，政策切入点是美国“‘中产阶级’外交政策”，将美国国内的基础设施、加强创新等计划推广到国际经济层面，形成美国全方位的经济实力，重塑全球经济格局。通过这种方式，美国的制造业、美国的产业链、美国的工作岗位、美国人的收入、美国的基础设施等都可以重回“美好时代”；美国“中产阶级”可以扩大，“中产阶级”社会可以重建，“美好生活”也将重现；美国的盟友也可以再度形成“马歇尔计划”时期在政治、经济两个方面对美国的附庸关系。可以看到，“重现美好生活”与“重建美好世界”一脉相承，对国际经济与政治产生实质性的影响。可见，“就其本质而言，服务‘中产阶级’的外交较大程度上可以说是民主党建制派对民粹主义的再包装，是改头换面的‘美国优先’原则的再出场”。

Second, the “‘middle-class’ foreign policy” focuses on the U.S. “middle class,” but its essence is to shift domestic contradictions, possessing a policy orientation of “treating external ills for internal diseases.”

第二，“‘中产阶级’外交政策”重在美国“中产阶级”，实质是转移国内矛盾，具有“内病外治”的政策指向。

In fact, as early as 2013, Richard N. Haass, who had long served as President of the Council on Foreign Relations and held significant influence in both U.S. foreign policy and academic circles, profoundly analyzed the relationship between U.S. domestic affairs and foreign policy in his book *Foreign Policy Begins at Home*, proposing that the United States should still focus on solving its own domestic problems, and only then can U.S. foreign policy be truly powerful. He argued that climate change, terrorism, Iran’s nuclear activities, turmoil in the Middle East, and the North Korean issue all pose serious challenges to U.S. national security. The key to addressing these issues lies not elsewhere, but depends more on whether the United States can more quickly solve its own domestic problems, such as rapidly growing deficits, debt, crumbling infrastructure, second-rate schools, and an outdated immigration system. Although there is currently no powerful competitor that can directly threaten the United States, how long this strategic breathing space can last will largely depend on whether the United States resolves its own domestic problems. He hoped the United States could limit its participation in selected overseas wars and humanitarian interventions. Richard Haass’s views represent the deep reflections of the U.S. elite class on the actual domestic situation in the United States and the changes in the world the United States faces.

实际上，早在2013年，长期担任美国外交关系委员会主席，并在美国外交政学两界有着重要影响的理查德·哈斯（Richard N. Haass）,即以《外交政策始于国内》一书，深刻剖析了美国内政与外交之间关系，提出美国还是要重点解决好自己国内的问题，这样的美国外交才能是真正有实力的。他认为：气候变化、恐怖主义、伊朗核活动、中东动荡和朝鲜问题等都对美国国家安全构成严重挑战。应对这些问题的关键，不在于其他方面，而更依赖于美国是不是能够更迅速地解决其自身迅速增长的赤字、债务、摇摇欲坠的基础设施、二流学校和过时的移民制度等内政问题。虽然目前没有强大的竞争对手能直接威胁美国，但这种战略喘息能持续多久，将在很大程度上取决于美国是否解决了自己的内政问题。他希望美国可以限制其参与选择的海外战争和人道主义干预。理查德·哈斯的观点代表了美国精英阶层对美国国内现实境况以及美国所面对的世界发生变化的深刻思考。

In fact, the Biden administration’s hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, creating the shocking “Kabul moment,” was also a reflection of the shift in U.S. foreign policy. The original intention of Biden’s “‘middle-class’ foreign policy” is closely linked to the reflections of the U.S. policy elite nearly a decade ago. The Trump administration’s adherence to the “America First” policy was actually a mixture of neoliberalism and economic nationalism. It adopted a series of measures such as deregulation, tax cuts, weakening unions, restricting illegal immigration, and wielding the tariff weapon, and brought this policy to the international arena in the form of “withdrawing from groups” and “tearing up agreements.” This was actually a product of the convergence of populism, racism, and protectionist ideologies. The “‘middle-class’ foreign policy” is a continuation of this policy, with no essential difference between the two. Both utilize the United States’ existing international status and strength to prioritize serving U.S. domestic interests and obtain international benefits, not only artificially creating division between the nation and society within the United States to secure their own support base, but also creating chaos internationally to “fish in troubled waters.” Facing the current U.S. crisis, Biden cannot fundamentally reverse the development trend of polarization in American society, nor can he fundamentally implement structural reforms of substantive significance. For the U.S. ruling class, turning domestic affairs outward is the simplest and easiest way to alleviate domestic contradictions. Given the reality of the relative decline of U.S. power, and based on the need to resolve the U.S. domestic political predicament and shift domestic contradictions, the United States needs to establish a competitor. First, this serves to bridge the reality of elite division within the United States and promote the Biden administration’s domestic and foreign policies that lack support and welcome from conservatives represented by the Republican Party. Second, it promotes the acceleration of the U.S. “return,” revitalizes U.S. dominance over allies and world affairs, accelerates the contraction of the scope of U.S. overextension, and redirects the U.S. foreign national strategy back to the category of great-power competition, returning to a Western-led, in fact U.S.-led, bloc-based “multilateralist” diplomatic and political landscape.

事实上，2021年拜登政府仓皇撤离阿富汗，制造了震惊世界的“喀布尔时刻”，实际上也是美国外交政策转向的一种反应。而拜登“‘中产阶级’外交政策”的初衷与近十年前美国政策精英界的反思是紧密相连的。特朗普时期的坚持“美国优先”政策，实际上是新自由主义与经济民族主义的混合体，他采取放松管制、减税、削弱工会、限制非法移民、祭起关税武器等一系列措施，并以“退群”“毁约”的形式将这一政策带到国际上，实际上是民粹主义、种族主义、保护主义思潮裹挟的产物。“‘中产阶级’外交政策”是这一政策的延续，二者没有本质的不同。都是利用美国既有的国际地位和实力，以服务美国国内利益优先，获取国际利益，不但在美国国内人为制造国家和社会的分裂，以获取自身的支持来源，而且在国际上制造混乱，以期“浑水摸鱼”。面对当前的美国危局，拜登不可能从本质上扭转美国社会两极分化格局的发展态势，不可能从本质上推行有实质意义的结构性改革，对于美国统治阶级来说，内政外转是缓解国内矛盾最简单易行的方式。鉴于美国实力相对衰落的现实，基于破解美国国内内政困境，转移国内矛盾的需要，美国需要树立一个竞争对手。一是借此弥合美国内部精英分裂的现实，推进拜登政府不受以共和党为代表的保守主义者支持和欢迎的内外政策；二是促进美国“回归”加速，重振美国对盟友和世界事务的主导权，加快收缩美国过度扩张的范围，重新将美国对外国家战略拉回到大国竞争的范畴，回到以西方为主导，实际上是美国主导的集团化“多边主义”外交政治格局层面。

The United States, still in a state of national division, inevitably has its foreign policy colored by domestic political struggle and national division. The Biden administration’s approach of returning to multilateral mechanisms and agreements appears on the surface to be very different from Trump. However, this “multilateralism” mechanism is not the true multilateralism centered on the United Nations, but a narrow multilateralism of small circles and small groups centered on “family rules” and “gang regulations.” In fact, against the backdrop where “America First” has already become a kind of “political correctness” within the United States, the Biden administration not only cannot break free from it, but can only implement it even more aggressively than Trump did during his tenure, in order to prove that it can better “protect America and American interests.” Within just a few days of taking office, it implemented some “America First” policies, such as the policy it signed to strengthen U.S. manufacturing and have Americans buy American goods. It can be seen that the United States and the world after Trump are no longer the same United States and world as before. The so-called “middle-class” foreign policy, given that the structural problems within the United States cannot be fundamentally resolved, will not only fail to truly serve the reconstruction of ordinary American people and a “middle-class” society, but will instead create international division, making U.S. diplomacy more uncertain.

依然处于国家分裂状态的美国，其对外政策必然带有国内政治斗争和国家分裂的色彩，拜登政府重返多边机制和协议的做法，表面看跟特朗普有很大的不同。但是，这个“多边主义”机制不是以联合国为核心的真正的多边主义，而是以“家法”“帮规”为核心的小圈子、小团体的狭隘多边主义。实际上，在“美国优先”已然成为美国国内一种“政治正确”的背景下，拜登政府不仅不能摆脱，而且只能比特朗普在任时更加加码实施，才能证明自己更能“保护美国和美国人的利益”。在其上任仅几天的时间内，即实施一些“美国优先”的政策，例如其所签署的加强美国制造业和美国人买美国货的政策。可见，特朗普之后的美国和世界，已经不再是之前的那个美国和世界了。所谓的“中产阶级”外交在美国国内结构性问题无法根本解决的情况下，不但无法真正服务于美国普通民众和“中产阶级”社会的重建，反而会制造国际社会分裂，美国外交将更具有不确定性。

Third, the “‘middle-class’ foreign policy” is of the same lineage as the diplomatic tradition of putting U.S. interests first.

第三，“‘中产阶级’外交政策”与美国利益至上的外交传统一脉相承。

“Although Trump lost the election, American politics has not returned to a ‘normal’ state.” The Biden administration has continued the “America First” strategy of the Trump administration, and has even gone a step further. The Biden administration’s aggressive plan to expand public fiscal spending, compounded by the aftereffects of Trump’s “America First” policy, has caused serious concerns for the world economy. In its approach to China, the United States is also walking down a wrong path. Former German Vice Chancellor and Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer believes that the Western idea of isolating China is absurd, and that drawing an analogy between Western-China relations and the US-Soviet relations of the Cold War era is misleading and dangerous. He is highly skeptical that the US, in alliance with its Western partners, can succeed in reversing the historical trend of “the East rising and the West declining.” [16]16 “The East rising and the West declining” (东升西降) is a phrase used in Chinese political discourse to describe the perceived shift in global power from the West to the East, particularly China. He argues that in the 21st century, amid multiple global crises such as pandemics, climate change, and ecological degradation, international leadership is no longer determined by traditional great-power political games, but by which countries can step forward to provide the leadership and professional capacity needed to address these crises. Clearly, the Biden administration remains mired in Cold War thinking, constantly forming cliques and factions, artificially creating divisions in the international community, and clinging to the international order of global hegemony that the US has built. The Biden administration appears to have put forward many plans to help other countries, but “rather than truly helping the rest of the world, it is more about dealing with China.” “As long as this continues, there is little hope for the urgently needed international cooperation essential to meeting human needs.” Creating confrontation and manufacturing new “economic risks” is the true international face of Biden’s policies.

“尽管特朗普在选举中失利，但美国政治并没有恢复到‘正常’状态”。拜登政府延续了特朗普政府时期“美国优先”的策略，甚至更进一步。拜登政府激进的扩大公共财政支出的计划，叠加特朗普“美国优先”后遗症的影响，给世界经济造成严重隐忧。在对待中国的问题上，美国也走在一条错误的道路上。德国前副总理兼外交部长约施卡·菲舍尔（Joschka Fischer）认为，西方要孤立中国的想法是荒谬的，将西方和中国的关系类比为冷战时期的美苏关系，具有误导性，而且很危险。他高度怀疑美国联合西方盟友试图扭转“东升西降”的历史趋势能否奏效。他认为，21世纪在全球面临疫情、气候、生态等多重危机的背景下，国际主导权不再由传统的大国政治博弈所决定，而是取决于哪些国家能够挺身而出，提供应对危机所需的领导力和专业能力。显然，拜登政府还沉浸在冷战思维中，不断地在拉帮结派，人为制造国际社会的分裂，固守美国所缔造的全球霸权的国际秩序。拜登政府看似提出了很多帮助其他国家的计划，但是“与其说是在真正帮助世界其他国家，不如说是要对付中国”，“只要这种情况继续下去，对满足人类需要至关重要的急需的国际合作就没有什么希望了”。制造对立、制造新的“经济风险”，才是拜登政策在国际上的真实写照。

On the one hand, the Biden administration is busy repairing relations with its allies and forming “cliques and factions”; on the other hand, it seeks to defend the international rules and order established by the West over decades and to compete with other countries to win the 21st century. Sino-US relations also seem to have entered an era of what the US defines as “comprehensive competition.” This framing of the relationship is undoubtedly harmful to both international politics and Sino-US relations. “The current stalemate and serious difficulties in Sino-US relations are fundamentally due to some people in the US treating China as an ‘imaginary enemy,’ attempting to demonize China to divert the American public’s dissatisfaction with domestic politics, the economy, and society, and to shift the blame for America’s deep-seated structural contradictions onto China.” Using China as a talking point seems to have become the main purpose of the Biden administration in promoting “unity” within the US and with its allies. China has perhaps unwittingly become a tool for bridging America’s domestic political divisions and mending its alliances. China has become the central topic at forums ranging from the G7 to the US-EU summit to the NATO summit. When speaking about China in Rome, Blinken did not shy away from this: “I think in recent weeks, particularly at the G7, NATO, and the US-EU summits, the United States and our European partners and allies have increasingly converged in their views on China.” He believes that the US relationship with China is complex, as reflected in what he summarized as the aspects of confrontation, competition, and cooperation. And today, the common ground is that the US and its allies jointly address these challenges, whether confrontational, competitive, or cooperative.

拜登政府一方面忙着修复与盟友的关系，搞“团团伙伙”；另一方面要捍卫西方几十年以来建立的国际规则与秩序，要与其他国家竞争以赢得21世纪。中美之间也似乎进入了美国所认定的“全面竞争”关系的时代。这种关系的设定无疑对国际政治和中美关系都是有害的。“中美关系目前陷入僵局，面临严重困难，根本原因在于美国一些人把中国当作‘假想敌’，企图通过妖魔化中国，转移美民众对国内政治、经济、社会的不满，把美国内深层次结构性矛盾甩锅到中国身上。”拿中国说事儿，似乎成了拜登政府促进美国国内“团结”以及与盟友“团结”的主要目的。中国或许不自觉地成了弥合美国国内政治分裂与修补美国盟友关系的工具。中国成了从G7到欧美峰会再到北约峰会的中心议题。布林肯在罗马谈到中国时，毫不避讳这一点：“我认为最近几周，特别是在七国集团、北约、美欧峰会上，美国和我们的欧洲伙伴和盟国对中国的看法越来越趋同”。他认为，美国与中国的关系具有复杂性，体现在他所总结的对抗性、竞争性和合作方面。而今天，共同点是美国与盟友共同应对这些挑战，无论是对抗性、竞争性，还是合作性的。

US policy toward China suffers from serious misjudgment, misalignment, and cognitive fallacies. The US believes that China poses the most serious long-term challenge to the international order and is undermining it. The US claims to defend international law, agreements, principles, and institutions to maintain world peace and security and to protect the rights of individuals and nations. The truth, however, is that the international order the US constantly speaks of is actually an order that serves US interests and maintains US hegemonic status. The US is the biggest source of chaos in the world order.

美国对华政策存在严重的误判、错位和认知谬误。美国认为，中国对国际秩序构成最严峻的长期挑战，正在破坏国际秩序。美国将捍卫国际法、协议、原则和机构以维护世界和平与安全，保护个人和国家的权利。而事实真相是，美国口口声声讲的国际秩序，实际上是服务美国自身利益、维护美国霸权地位的秩序。美国是世界秩序的最大乱源。

If the US wants to enhance its competitive strength, it should focus on solving its domestic problems and undertaking major reforms of its internal affairs, rather than, from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party, constantly thinking about externalizing domestic contradictions and shifting blame onto other countries. Former US House Speaker and Republican Newt Gingrich, in his article “The Giant Panda and the Infrastructure Bill,” clearly stated: “Without partisan politics, internal bickering over funding, and the narrowness of the current system, how many airports do you think we could build by 2035? How many high-speed rail lines? Anyone who thinks we can compete with China without major domestic reforms is delusional. American politicians, interest groups, lobbyists, unions, and bureaucrats should all take a ride on China’s high-speed rail.” Competition exists between any countries, but it should be healthy. Competition between countries, each striving for a better life for its own people, is understandable, but it should be based on mutual respect, equality, and mutual benefit, not on unilateral gain.

美国如果要想增强其竞争实力，应该着力解决好其国内问题，对内政进行重大改革，而不是从民主党到共和党，每天想的都是把国内矛盾外移，转嫁到他国身上。美国众议院前议长、共和党出身的纽特·金里奇（Newt Gingrich）在发表的《大熊猫与基础设施法案》一文中就明确指出：“美国如果没有党派政治、拨款内斗和现行体制的狭隘，你认为我们到2035年能建好多少机场？多少高铁？凡是认为我们不必进行国内重大改革就能与中国竞争的人都是在痴心妄想。美国政治人物、利益集团、游说者、工会及官僚们都该去乘坐一次中国高铁。”任何国家之间都会存在竞争，但是竞争应该是良性的，各自为本国人民追求美好生活而进行的竞争本是无可厚非的，但是这应该是建立在相互尊重、平等互利基础之上的，而不是单方获益的。

Fourth, the “‘middle-class’ foreign policy” is the inevitable product of the long-term adjustment of US foreign policy to maintain world hegemony.

第四，“‘中产阶级’外交政策”是美国长期外交政策调整，维持世界霸权的必然产物。

The “‘middle-class’ foreign policy” is in fact the inevitable product of maintaining US world hegemony. After the Cold War, the US stood alone as a superpower, and it seemed that the world had become a US-unipolar world, as if the “end of history” [17]17 “The end of history” refers to Francis Fukuyama’s 1992 thesis that the end of the Cold War marked the endpoint of humanity’s sociocultural evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy. had revealed the most perfect system for human society—the US capitalist system. At that time, the US economy was enjoying the continuous profits brought by the capitalist globalization promoted by the US. Therefore, starting with the Gulf War, the central focus of US foreign policy was no longer traditional diplomacy but the military. For the US, in the 30 years after the Cold War, on the one hand, the gap between rich and poor in American society has widened, causing serious social problems and an institutional and systemic crisis; on the other hand, defense spending has increased day by day. A foreign policy centered on the military and defense, in promoting American or Western-style democracy and values, has brought severe humanitarian disasters and laid the groundwork for US fiscal bankruptcy and the depletion of social wealth. The Biden administration’s “middle-class” foreign policy is not only an adjustment of US domestic affairs but also an adjustment of the long-dominant military-centered foreign policy; the two are closely linked.

“‘中产阶级’外交政策”实际上是维持美国世界霸权的必然产物。冷战后美国一超独强，似乎世界已经成为一个美国单极主导的世界，似乎在“历史终结论”中已经出现了人类社会最完美的制度，那就是美国资本主义的制度体系。彼时，美国经济正在享受美国推动的资本主义全球化给其带来的源源不断的利润。因此，从海湾战争开始，居于美国外交政策中心位置的不再是传统的外交，而是军事。对于美国来说，冷战后的30年，一方面美国社会贫富分化越来越严重，引发严重的社会问题，存在制度性、系统性的危机；另一方面国防开支日渐增多，以军事和国防为中心的外交，在推广美式或西式民主、价值模式过程中，带来的是严重的人道主义灾难，也给美国财政破产、社会财富损耗埋下了伏笔。拜登政府“中产阶级”外交不但是对美国内政的一次调整，也是对长期军事外交占主导地位的一次调整，二者是紧密相连的。

This trend of adjustment has existed since the Obama administration. The result of fighting two local wars simultaneously during the Bush administration was a massive drain on US national power. While the military-industrial complex profited, most Americans faced increasingly severe and difficult living burdens against the backdrop of expanded military spending and tax cuts for the rich. However, the Obama administration’s adjustment was not completed. By the time Trump took office, this change became more extreme. Trump used an even more extreme approach, making US foreign policy entirely subservient to domestic needs, or rather, there was no foreign policy at all, only transactions and exchanges of interests under “America First.” Trump’s approach was destructive to the interests of the US and its people. After taking office, Biden quickly achieved the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, actually completing the strategic task that neither the Obama nor the Trump administrations had finished, and accelerated the shift of the US strategic center back to US domestic affairs.

自奥巴马政府开始，即存在这样的调整趋势了。小布什政府时期同时打两场局部战争的结果是极大地消耗了美国国力，在军工复合体获利的同时，大多数美国民众在军事支出扩大、富人减税的背景下，面对着更为严峻和艰辛的生活负担。但是，奥巴马政府的调整并没有完成，到特朗普执政时，这种变化表现得更为极端。特朗普用一种更为极端的方式，让美国的外交完全服务于内政的需要，或者说压根就没有外交，只有美国优先的利益交易与交换。特朗普的做法对美国和美国人的利益是破坏性的。拜登上台后，快速实现从阿富汗撤军，实际上是完成奥巴马和特朗普时期都没有完成的战略任务，并加速将美国的战略中心回归到美国内政方面。

In fact, a policy oriented toward enhancing the United States’ own strength and solving domestic problems is unobjectionable in itself, and if the United States were to resolve its own severe inequality and political polarization, that would also have a certain positive significance for promoting a balanced global economy. After all, the United States bears greater responsibility and obligation for the stability of the global order and strategic balance. However, the development and changes in this world have made the United States feel increasingly unfamiliar; an “unfamiliar world” will become an international reality that the United States must face over the long term. And in fact, in an “era of disorder,” even if the United States does its utmost, it cannot forcibly impose order. This reflects a basic structural reality of the world: no single country can alone confront challenges of different natures on a global scale. If it still insists on a Cold War-style mode of thinking, adopting an approach that divides the international community, splitting the large-circle system of economic globalization into a small-circle system of itself and its allies to conduct so-called diplomacy, and vainly attempts to form a US-led political and economic grand cycle system with the US at the center, the US-UK relationship as the core, Anglo-Saxon civilization as the inner circle, transatlantic relations as the outer circle, and other allied relations as the shell, such a practice will undoubtedly only cause greater opposition and division in the international community, and global strategic stability will also be eroded.

实际上，美国以增强自身实力，解决国内问题为方向的政策本无可非议，而且美国解决好自身的严重不平等、政治极化问题，对于推动实现全球经济平衡也有一定的积极意义。毕竟，美国对全球秩序的稳定和战略平衡承担着更重要的责任和义务。但是，这个世界的发展变化，让美国也觉得越来越不熟悉，一个“不再熟悉的世界”将成为美国需要长期面对的国际现实。而事实上，在一个“失序时代”，美国即使尽其所能也不能强推秩序。这反映了一个基本的世界结构性现实，任何一个国家都无法独自面对全球范围内不同性质的挑战。如果依然坚持一种冷战式的思维方式，采取分割国际社会，以将经济全球化的大圈子体系分割成自身和盟友的小圈子体系的方式搞所谓的外交，妄图形成一种以美国为中心，美英关系为内核，盎格鲁-撒克逊文明为内圈层，跨大西洋关系为外圈层，其他盟友关系为外壳的美国主导的政治经济大循环体系，这样的做法无疑只会造成国际社会更大的对立和分裂，全球战略稳定也会受到侵蚀。

Fifth, the “‘middle-class’ foreign policy” is in fact creating new opposition in the international community. The emergence and evolution of the Ukraine crisis prove this: it is precisely the US and the West that are fanning the flames, pouring oil on the fire, and using coercive diplomacy to force countries around the world to choose sides.

第五，“‘中产阶级’外交政策”实际上是在国际社会制造新的对立，乌克兰危机的出现和演化证明了这一点，恰恰是美西方在拱火、浇油，采用胁迫外交的方式，逼迫世界各国选边站队。

As soon as the Biden administration took office, it put on a diplomatic face completely different from the Trump era’s style of “withdrawing from groups.” On the international stage, it linked its allied relationships in the name of “unity,” loudly proclaiming that “America is back, America is back.” In essence, this is a “multilateral diplomacy” of small circles and bloc formation, patching up the rifts caused by the Trump era, rebuilding transatlantic relations, and, starting from the starting point of defending so-called democratic institutions and common values, jointly responding to external challenges and threats. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken believes that “we” democratic countries face serious threats from external adversaries who seek to undermine the liberal and open rules-based order that has long underpinned “our” common security and prosperity.

拜登政府一上台就摆出与特朗普时期“退群”风格迥异的外交面目。在国际场合以“团结”为名联结其盟友关系，高调宣示“美国回来了，美国回来了”。实质上是稿小圈子、集团化的“多边外交”。修补特朗普时期造成的隔阂，重建跨大西洋关系，以维护所谓的民主制度与共同价值观为出发点，一致应对来自外部的挑战与威胁。美国国务卿布林肯认为：“我们”这些民主国家正面临着来自外部对手的严重威胁，他们试图破坏长期以来为“我们”共同的安全和繁荣奠定基础的自由和开放的规则秩序。

The Biden administration, by taking the repair of relations with allies as its starting point, promotes the US “values diplomacy” to achieve goals such as defending so-called freedom and universal rights and to meet the so-called “new authoritarian moment” advancing globally. These policy declarations become the best interpretation of the “‘middle-class’ foreign policy” using the means of creating opposition and forming small circles at the operational level. The “‘middle-class’ foreign policy” is, in the final analysis, merely a trick of the US monopoly bourgeoisie to change its mode of rule.

拜登政府以修复与盟友的关系为抓手，推行美国的“价值观外交”，以达到捍卫所谓自由和普世权利等目的，迎接所谓全球正在推进的“威权主义新时刻”。这些政策宣示成为“中产阶级”外交政策在具体操作层面以制造对立、搞小圈子为手段的最佳诠释。“中产阶级”外交政策归根到底也只不过是美国垄断资产阶级变换统治模式的花招。

Conclusion

结语

US elites represented by Richard Haass believe that if everyone sees “America’s success,” they will respect the United States as a country and its political, social, and economic model more, and their desire to imitate it will also increase. As long as it can maintain US unipolar world hegemony, as long as it can maintain this set of orders by which the US controls the world, and as long as it can maintain the existing ruling order of the upper class within the US, it makes no difference what form or policy guise is adopted. They are all merely tools used to deceive the world. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken publicly declared that “we” spent decades building, investing in, and jointly establishing a free and open rules-based international order, and “if this order is challenged by anyone, we will stand up to defend it.” And the massive fanning of the flames of the Ukraine crisis is a case they directly operated. A country cannot on the one hand squander national wealth through war abroad while on the other hand drastically cutting taxes, especially for the wealthy, without inevitably leading to overall national fiscal bankruptcy and the loss of social wealth. The ratio of wealth creation to wealth holding in a country has a certain range; investing large amounts of social wealth and resources in hard power such as military forces will inevitably squeeze resources for people’s livelihoods, making the intensification of social inequality inevitable. Today, US foreign policy is, in a sense, in a situation lacking appeal. The US is overly confident in its own strength, pursues hegemonic policies, repeatedly interferes in other countries’ internal affairs, and fails to solve its domestic problems, making it utterly impossible to form an image of a beneficial participant in the international community. The US no longer occupies a “beautified” position in international morality; the mask of the US and the West has been torn off before the eyes of the world.

以理查德·哈斯为代表的美国精英认为，大家看到“美国的成功”，才会更加尊重美国这个国家以及美国的政治、社会和经济模式，模仿它的愿望也会增强。只要能够维护美国的单极世界霸权，只要能够维护美国掌控世界的这一套秩序，只要能够维持美国国内既有的上层社会的统治秩序，变换什么的形式或政策外衣都是一样的。它们都只不过是用来哄骗世人的工具。美国国务卿布林肯公开宣称，“我们”花了几十年时间建立、投资、共同建立的自由和开放的基于规则的国际秩序，“如果这个秩序受到任何人的任何挑战，我们将站出来捍卫它”。而大肆拱火乌克兰危机，就是他们直接操作的案例。一个国家不可能一边在国外通过战争大肆挥霍国家财富，另一边又大幅减税，特别是向富人群体大幅减税，这必然导致国家总体的财政破产和社会财富的流失。一个国家创造财富和持有财富的比例是有一定范围的，大量的社会财富和资源投入军事力量等硬实力，必然导致民生方面资源的挤压，社会不平等的加剧就会成为必然。今天，美国外交某种意义上处于没有感召力的景况。美国过度迷信自己的实力，推行霸权政策，一再干涉别国内政，国内问题解决不好，根本无法对国际社会形成一个有益参与者的形象。美国在国际道义上不再占有被“美化”的位置，美西方的画皮在世人面前被戳破了。

(Author: Ma Feng, Associate Researcher at the Institute of Social Development Strategy, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Associate Professor at the School of Sociology and Ethnology, University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)

（作者：马峰，中国社会科学院社会发展战略研究院副研究员、中国社会科学院大学社会与民族学院副教授）

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心