川普革命性的時間感正改變政治

英國《金融時報》特約編輯、自由策略中心主席，亦為維也納人文科學研究院研究員伊凡·克拉斯特夫（Ivan Krastev）認為川普革命性的時間感正改變政治，核心論點是：

川普的政治行為不基於長期戰略或歷史傳承，而是被一種獨特的「截止期限」思維所驅動，這從根本上改變了傳統政治對時間的認知。具體歸納如下：

1. 時間感的「內爆」：過去與未來的消失

   · 無視歷史與未來：川普對前任領袖（如過去的總統）的提及，只是為了強調自己比他們都偉大。他既不依賴前人的智慧，也不關心後代。這與普丁（與彼得大帝對話）或艾爾多安（活在凱末爾陰影下）等領導人形成對比。

   · 歷史在他之後停止：他表現得彷彿自己離開政治舞台時，歷史也會隨之戛然而止。因此，他不在乎自己行為的長期後果。

2. 以「截止期限」而非「戰略」思考

   · 追求快速結束：他認為所有戰爭都應在數週甚至數日內停止。他關心的不是俄烏戰爭的結果本身，而是戰爭「何時」能結束。這就像一個負債的商人與債權人談判，只求當下解決，不顧長遠影響。

   · 只拍預告片，不拍電影：作者用這個比喻說明，川普擅長提出戲劇性的、充滿時效壓力的「協議」或行動（如同引人入勝的預告片），但缺乏真正能持久的完整計畫（電影本身）。

3. 創造一種全新的政治「時間體制」

   · 「沒有時間了」的工具化：川普利用公眾普遍的急迫感與存在性焦慮（「沒有時間了！」），讓人們來不及思考「時間要用來做什麼？」，從而推動他的議程。

   · 協議無法持久：他提出的交易條件極端到讓對手「既無法拒絕也無法接受」，且所有人都明白這樣的協議很可能無法持久。這造成了政治上的不穩定與持續的壓力。

4. 力量與脆弱性的來源

   · 力量：這種革命性的時間感讓對手陷入「川普式時間陷阱」，被迫在他的截止期限內做出反應，無法進行從容的長期佈局（例如：歐洲能否逃脫這種壓力？中國該與他談判還是等待？）。

   · 脆弱性：由於他的行為從設計上就不是為了持久，這也意味著他所推動的一切可能在他離開後迅速瓦解。

總結來說，川普改變政治的方式，不是提出一套宏大的未來藍圖，而是通過摧毀傳統的時間連續感（過去、現在、未來），將政治變成一場又一場、以「截止期限」為核心的即時交易與壓力測試。他的方法是讓人們相信他會永遠在場，同時卻又讓人無法為一個沒有他的未來做任何可靠的打算。

Opinion Donald Trump

Trump’s revolutionary sense of time is changing politics

The US president doesn’t think in terms of long-term strategy but rather in terms of deadlines

Ivan Krastev

評論：唐納·川普

川普革命性的時間感正改變政治

這位美國總統的思考方式不是長期戰略，而是截止期限

作者：伊凡·克拉斯特夫

發布時間：5小時前

本文作者為英國《金融時報》特約編輯、自由策略中心主席，亦為維也納人文科學研究院研究員。

當代民主危機可用一個簡單事實來最好地概括：當今世界上許多大國的領導人之所以在位，是因為他們成功修改了本國憲法，讓自己掌權的時間比預期更長。

俄羅斯總統普丁和土耳其總統艾爾多安皆是如此（中國的習近平亦然，儘管中國從一開始就不是民主國家）。很快地，所有人的目光都將聚焦於美國總統唐納·川普。他能達成憲法上不可能實現的壯舉——競選第三任期嗎？成為「戰爭總統」是否是他延長執政時間的前奏？

民主政治已經過渡到一個不同的時間體制。過去與現在某種程度上相互塌陷。現任美國總統最不尋常的一點在於，他表現得像是自己的父親，同時又是自己的兒子。普丁與早已作古的前輩彼得大帝、凱薩琳大帝「祕密協商」規劃對烏克蘭的戰爭；艾爾多安的政治選擇也籠罩在現代土耳其國父凱末爾的陰影下。相比之下，川普提起過去的美國領袖，只是為了重複他比所有人都偉大。他對逝者的漠不關心，正如他對尚未出生之人的漠不關心。

或許，川普認為依賴前幾代人的智慧是徒勞的，或者他認同矽谷同路人的末日劇本。結果是一樣的。總統將自己的名字鐫刻在建築物和機構上的做法，正是一個人準備在自己的葬禮上致悼詞的證據。

革命，通常不僅關乎權力結構的改變，它們也重新定位我們對時間的概念。

法國大革命啟用了一套新曆法。俄國革命承諾未來將重新改寫過去。但川普式革命的本質更為奇特：時間本身的內爆。川普對發生在他之前的任何事都不感興趣，也不關心他之後會發生什麼。他的行為舉止就像在暗示：當他離開舞台時，歷史也必須戛然而止。這有助於解釋為何他認為所有戰爭都應在數週甚至數日內停止。

川普對時間的體驗是他政治行為的核心。這位總統的思考方式不是長期戰略，而是截止期限。他就像一個導演，不拍電影，只拍那些永遠不會被製作出來的電影的預告片。

他並不真正關心俄烏戰爭的結果。對他而言重要的是戰爭何時結束。他以負債累累的商人與債權人談判的方式來創造歷史。

在沒有任何革命計畫的情況下，川普這種革命性的時間感，既是力量的來源，也是弱點的所在。他將大眾日益增長的急迫感武器化。「沒有時間了」這種存在性的焦慮，擋住了「時間用來做什麼？」這個問題。他攻擊伊朗的意願，與他認為自己無需為該國未來承擔任何責任的態度是分不開的。

這種從根本上全新的時間本體論，其核心主張是：他所做的任何事情都不是為了持久。川普提出的協議，讓其他人既無法拒絕也無法接受。克里姆林宮是否該與他達成協議，因為他提出了其他美國總統不太可能提出的條件？還是俄國人該擔心這樣的好協議可能無法持久？如果川普本人告訴烏克蘭人不應相信任何人，那麼烏克蘭人還能相信他的安全保證嗎？中國應該與川普談判，還是等待他的任期結束？歐洲能否逃脫川普式革命性時間壓力的陷阱？

將過去與現在壓縮到單一領導人的生命週期之中，是川普對當代政治的獨特貢獻。他所定義的這一刻，其特點在於我們對過去的理解和對未來的夢想都發生了劇烈變化。列寧逝世時，布爾什維克將其遺體製成木乃伊，安置在紅場的陵墓中，向世界宣告：儘管偉大領袖已逝，但他將永生。對永生的渴望在政治領袖中並不罕見。川普的新意，在於他有能力讓我們相信，他永遠都會在那裡。

Published5 hours ago

86

Print this page

The writer is an FT contributing editor, chair of the Centre for Liberal Strategies, and fellow at IWM Vienna

The contemporary crisis of democracy is best captured by a simple fact: many of the leaders of the world’s great powers today are in office because they have successfully changed the constitutions of their countries to hang around longer than envisioned.

This is true of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the president of Turkey. (It is true, too, of Xi Jinping, although China was never a democracy in the first place.) Soon enough, all eyes will be on US President Donald Trump. Will he achieve the constitutionally impossible feat of running for a third term? Is becoming a war president the prelude to an extended stay in power?

Democratic politics has transitioned to a different temporal regime. Past and present have somehow collapsed into each other. The most extraordinary thing about the current American president is that he acts as if he is his own father and his own son. While Putin planned his war in Ukraine in “secret consultation” with his long-deceased predecessors, Peter the Great and Catherine the Great, and while Erdoğan’s political choices have been conceived in the shadow of modern Turkey’s founder Mustafa Atatürk, Trump namechecks erstwhile American leaders only to repeat how he is greater than all of them. His indifference towards the dead is matched only by his indifference towards those not yet born.

Perhaps Trump believes that it is useless to rely on the wisdom of past generations, or maybe he subscribes to the apocalyptic script of his Silicon Valley fellow travellers? The result is the same. The president’s practice of emblazoning his name on buildings and institutions is evidence of someone preparing to deliver a eulogy at his own funeral.

As a rule, revolutions are not only about a change in the power structure. They also reorient our conception of time.

The French Revolution inaugurated a new calendar. The Russian Revolution promised that the future would reorder the past. But the essence of the Trumpian revolution is something stranger: the implosion of time itself. Trump shows no interest in anything that has happened before him and is unconcerned with what will transpire after him. He acts as if history must come to a screeching halt when he exits the stage. This helps explain why he believes that all wars should be stopped in weeks, if not days.

Trump’s experience of time is central to his political behaviour. The president doesn’t think in terms of long-term strategy but rather in terms of deadlines. He’s like a director who does not shoot films but only trailers for movies that will never be made.

He is not really concerned with the outcome of the Russia-Ukraine war. What matters to him is when it will end. He makes history in the way an indebted businessman negotiates with his creditors.

Trump’s revolutionary sense of time, in the absence of any revolutionary project, is a source of both strength and vulnerability. He weaponises the public’s growing sense of urgency. The existential anxiety that “there is no time” forestalls the question: “Time for what?” His willingness to attack Iran is divorced from any sense that he might bear responsibility for the future of that country.

The essence of this radically new temporal ontology is the assertion that nothing he does is meant to last. Trump offers deals that others could neither refuse nor accept. Should the Kremlin cut a deal with him because he offers them something no other American president would be likely to propose? Or should the Russians be worried that such a good deal will probably never last? Should Ukrainians trust his security guarantees if he himself is telling them that nobody should be trusted? Should the Chinese negotiate with Trump or wait him out? Can Europeans evade the Trumpian trap of revolutionary time pressure?

The shrinking of past and present in the lifetime of a single leader is Trump’s peculiar gift to contemporary politics. His moment is defined by the fact that both our understanding of the past and our dreams of the future are dramatically changed. When Lenin died, the Bolsheviks mummified his body and deposited him in a mausoleum on Red Square, explaining to the world that, although the great leader was gone, he would live forever. The desire for eternal life is not unusual in political leaders. What is new about Trump is his ability to make us believe that he will always be there.