圣诞快乐呀！

在西方传统中，圣诞节庆祝耶稣基督的降生，事关喜悦和平安、救赎与真理；基督徒数算旧一年大大小小的恩典，祈祷新一年深深浅浅的盼望。

在世俗化的现代社会里，圣诞节是欢庆的假期：礼物，团聚和温暖的心。各地都发展出不同的食物和风俗，比如在中欧，圣诞节是雪花、糖果和热红酒。

转到东亚，圣诞作为“洋节”，摆脱了传统文化秩序与仪式的束缚。它事关“个体之自由”，个体自由地选择自己的庆祝方式和庆祝缘由，可以庆祝信仰、也可以庆祝陪伴，更要庆祝内心深处的自我存在。

一个国家如果反对圣诞节，它在反对什么？它在反对基督徒的信仰自由，也在反对普世的文化交流，更是在反对个体心中所萌发的尊严和权利意识。

人不是牛，不是马，不是螺丝钉。

人是人，是平等的造物，是自由的造物。

这一思想起源于宗教，却逐渐汇入现代人权理念，得以超出单一的文化和宗教背景，成为普世价值。

我们认为下列真理不言而喻 : 人人生而平等，造物者赋予其若干不可剥夺的权利，包括生命权、自由权和追求幸福的权利。

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

人有内在的尊严，就有追求幸福的权利。

圣诞节事关喜悦和平安，欢庆和风俗，同样也事关人的尊严与自由。

至少在这个节日里，我们忘却生活烦忧、时代严苛，给疲惫的心放一个小小的假，欢庆个体自由和人之为人的尊严。

Merry Christmas!

Happy Holidays!

大家好，本期放学以后信号塔由西班牙的霸王花木兰轮值。

首先和大家预告一下，放学以后年末系列播客《不包饺子包真心：这世界仍有什么值得我们赞美和感恩》将于12月31日下周三，也是2025年的最后一天全网上线，敬请期待！

接下来和大家分享年末这期播客录制结束后的惊人故事。

上周五我们先开了游荡者月度例会，接着连续录制了8个多小时的播客。我在播客录制的前半程状态萎靡，强撑精神，金钟罩从下班后一直录到凌晨5点多，在后半程困倦到萎靡。而莫不谷全程很high，像是打了肾上腺素一样气血十足。由于这期录制主题是赞美和感恩，本身想要传达的是明亮的基调和氛围，所以随着录制进入到后半程，我的精神状态终于从萎靡中恢复了不少。

于是在播客录制结束后，我鼓起勇气和莫不谷坦诚了压在我心里让我惶惶不可终日甚至快要把我逼死的事情。

我和莫不谷说：“我有一件难以启齿的事情和你说。”

莫不谷看我扭扭捏捏的样子猜测说：“什么事，你谈恋爱了吗?”

！！！

听完莫不谷离谱的猜测我连忙否认，那怎么可能，我平时都不爱跟人聊天，怎么可能去找对象。

在和莫不谷坦白的前两天，我又因为实在太痛苦，特别需要找到一个我认为即使我坦白真实情况，把自己最糟糕讨厌的一面展现出来也不会抛弃我嫌弃我的人倾诉。这个人就是和我世界观人生观价值观严重不合，比我大一岁的姐姐。那天下午我在西班牙的咖啡馆外面给她拨通电话，为了避免成为那种没良心只顾自己倾诉不管姐姐死活的人，我还先客套关心了几句，接着就进入正题说：“姐，我现在状况很不好，我遇到了一个很大的危机。”

我姐：“什么？是经济危机吗？”

！！！

听到错误答案的我无语地说：“啊那咋可能，完全不是。”

其实在给我姐打电话的前几天，我已经被危机集中困住了好些日子。为了解决这个事情，我想了很多办法。

首先是不能呆在家里，因为我是呆在家里就会变成无所事事的无脊椎动物，非常容易陷入刷手机和沉迷睡觉的惯性循环，于是我就背着电脑去楼下咖啡馆尝试面对。我咔咔剪辑视频发布小红书，又整理完年末听友投稿，还尝试剪辑莫不谷用AI写的新歌MV，干了各种各样的事情，唯独没干这件快要把我逼疯的事情。

接着因为逃避带来的隐忧和心理压力，我又去搜集心理学书籍。我发现，情绪崩溃时我更有动力阅读心理书籍，说如饥似渴也不为过，我把这当成速效救心丸，试图找到比我还痛苦糟糕的人，以及她们的希望和可能解救之法。等到状况好一点的时候，我阅读心理学书籍的动力就没有那么强。然而搜索一堆和我病状相同甚至病的更重的人能带给我的只有当下情绪的纾解和托住，让我觉得自己不是最没救的，却无法给我带来面对并解决危机的行动力。

后来我又想，可能吃饱喝足身体好有助于精神恢复，所以借着这个正大光明的理由我又推迟了危机的解决，先是去找了重庆武汉卤味店，一个人吃一大盘酸菜鱼还打包红油卤鸭翅，用美食喂饱身体提振下情绪，又去逛本地超市，买当下想吃能立刻舒缓情绪的零食，结果买完以后我不是回咖啡馆解决问题，反而打道回府回家躺着了。

由于知道自己该做必须做，再不做就不行的现实情况，可自己又下意识想要逃避，这种强烈的情绪冲动和念头令人几近崩溃，于是我脑子里想的已经不是怎么解决危机了，而是怎么能结束无尽的痛苦。这时我看到一位博主分享的视频，她在里面说到：

“好转是一个非常危险的时刻，很多病人都在病情明显好转的情况下，突然就自杀了。”

这句话不就是说我吗？！看着外表好好的，人好像也有进步，但我的精神像是在万丈悬崖上走钢丝，稍有不懈，就是危险时刻。我火速找到了这句话的出处，加拿大心理学家写的5位来访者的咨询回忆录《早安，怪物》，一口气连着白天和夜晚看完了整本书。可是我的问题依旧，没有任何进展。

这时候我的身体已经支撑不住了，焦虑抑郁再次诱发了我的中耳炎，耳朵又红又痒，又因为情绪是身体健康的关键因素，我又开始怀疑担心自己早晚因为情绪得癌症或是其它绝症。此时我也没有心力再转移注意力，也无法分心去做别的事情，不仅没有心情做事，连室友提议一起去吃火锅，我也是先答应后来因为忧虑找借口临时取消了。就像鸟鸟说的那句：

“我真正学到的是，如何既压抑自己真正的冲动，又不做该做的事情，我学会了在压力极大的情况下，无所事事。”

无所事事不仅是我的常态，我还一边忧心一边死猪不怕开水烫，同时进入了熟悉的逃避状态，不看手机，不回消息，手机设置静音，沉迷看故事情节极强能让我投入的各种视频讲解，电视剧，甚至通宵看了一个古早复仇韩剧，这样就不用费心解决我的现实危机了。

在我的脑子已经因为尝试失败，又陷入逃避恶性循环时，我终于决定给姐姐打电话纾解下快要溢出来的情绪怪兽。姐姐和我说了一堆我不咋认同姑且听听以及道理我都懂，但是做不到的话，比如体力活干少了，所以精神容易疲惫，红肉吃少了，所以精神不好，面对就能解决，先去做再说。

我原本还答应说，我会尝试推进的，结果因为持续的拖延导致的大脑被各种灾难性和悲剧结局占满，过往我所有失败，退却，逃避，把自己逼到绝境的回忆袭来，我确定自己会一遍遍重复痛苦的轮回，我简直完全没救了，即使这次解决了挺过来，未来还有困难，还有相同的危机，那我当下面对和解决的意义何在？我为什么还要过有可能痛苦的未来生活？

于是我想了下怎么自杀。要不要割个腕，或者我住在海边，干脆去投海？可是我的尸身还要处理，麻烦我的房东室友不好，折腾朋友们也不好。难道就没有什么不惊动别人，死的干脆利索的方法吗？我又开始畅想，要是这世界上能有什么药品，让人吃了可以无痛死亡还能让尸体消失多好，那我会立刻同意服药。去死的话遗产怎么办，想到这我又给我姐发了消息，让她记住我对于遗产的分配，父母一份，弟弟一份，姐姐两份，放学以后一份，备份再留一份，其中父母的那份交由姐姐代为管理。接着又和姐姐交待了我还来不及领取的退休金，企业年金以及住房公积金和其它社保。

想这些其实没有什么用，因为虽然我很想死，但是我又很怕痛，每次抽血针还没扎到就嗷嗷吓哭，只能以一种生不如死的精神状态逃避。由于上周五确定了要开游荡者例会，还要录制新一期播客，我失联一整天后起了个大早做开会准备。又为了缓解情绪好录制播客，在notion里写下来所有困扰我的想法。

这次逃避我在恐惧什么？录制播客前的梳理和记录（2025年12月19日）

我脑海里的怪物：

1、我曾经吐槽我的室友和身边的人，活得混乱又糊涂，但我正在滑向比她们更糟糕的处境。

2、我又一次逃避耍手机，不守诺言。

3、再一次让朋友失望，让朋友着急担心，让其此前的努力付诸东流。

4、外在展现的挺好，但实际自己的状态并不稳定，并不总是好。

5、西班牙非盈利签证申请迟迟没有提交。

6、朋友过来玩，我很想好好招待，因为自己的事情没搞定我无法分心，崩溃。

7、签证延迟导致接下来米兰游荡者线下聚会无法参加。

8、签证延迟导致我无法安排接下来的行程。

9、我感觉自己会黑在西班牙，最终。

10、我觉得自己糟糕，总是容易放弃，服输，无力拯救自己。

11、我找不到自己没有工具价值的地方，我也把自己活成了工具，有作用的时候上线，无法发挥工具价值的时候下线并且隐藏自己，什么都不想干。

12、我感觉没有意义，没有奔头，看不到自己的希望和变好的可能。

13、我感觉改变了也没用，对于未来还有类似的困难我感觉到疲惫。

14、我想死，但是又不想给别人添麻烦，如果有什么毒药可以让别人不用帮我收尸我就能离开，我会选择这个药。

15、我想了一下割腕，去海边溺水两种死法，想了下遗产如何安排。

16、失联一天后，到现在我还没打开手机看消息，我不知道如何承受。

17、失联期间，我的中耳炎犯了，耳朵发红发痒，因为焦虑和抑郁。

18、失联期间，我刷手机看心理学的书籍能让我逃避现实，获得暂时的平静。

19、我的食欲变差，没有动力和耐心做饭，没有胃口吃饭，如果煮饭需要多一会的时间，我都无法忍受下去。

20、我的精神和体力变差，没有劲头收拾衣服，没有力气走路，没有劲头干事情，虽然外表看起来还不错。

21、我不知道为什么自己活成了这样，为什么自己这么脆弱，怯懦，这么糟糕。我努力不让脑子里的这些想法干扰自己，但又有强烈的情绪冲动这样思考。

22、明明我知道解决方法是什么，和朋友坦白就能解决问题，但我好像重蹈覆辙，再次困在里面了。说实话，我不想和朋友们说我的困境，我也不希望被朋友发现，因为我做不了交待，我只想悄无声息逃离。这是不是《早安，怪物》书里说的那样：“难以建立亲密关系”——“既不让人靠近，也不让人同情。因为那会带来这本书里说的亲密感——不管那到底是什么意思。”

23、我感觉我的情况不严重，是自己过度反应了，我又觉得我的情况严重，这样能让我对自己搞砸的一切心理舒服一些。

24、如果我是抑郁，抑郁并不是心理感冒，过一个阶段就会恢复变好，抑郁是一场顽疾。我去看了《虽然想死，但还是想吃辣炒年糕》作者白世熙的演讲，她说她的抑郁症还没有好。在书籍出版的好几年后，她在35岁离开人世并捐献了自己的身体器官。我很想知道她最终为什么离开，又是如何离开的，但是搜索不到。我也在想，是不是自己也提前签署捐赠器官的协议，但我很怕痛。

25、我在这打了一堆文字，主要原因是马上要开会了（游荡者月度例会和播客录制会议），而我到现在还没敢打开手机查看消息。

26、我不知道自己是不是解离，但我情况正常和不好的时候方差太大，以至于我不知道哪一面是真实的自己，难道我在两面都是表演和伪装？我很混淆，不确定。

27、感觉自己好糟糕。没什么力气做伏地挺身，仰卧起坐我也做不起来。

28、说了这么多情绪的内容，还是为了给怯懦逃避的自己开解，这并不会让我觉得舒缓。

29、到底为什么我会有这些问题，脑壳痛，头痛，耳朵痛。西藏的算命师傅曾说我37岁有劫难，我感觉32岁我已经活够了。我不想承受有希望的生活里还有痛苦，折磨和后退了。

30、好了，人不会死，先打开手机微信看消息吧……虽然我真的不想……

31、我好难

32、我累了

33、我也太不禁一击了

34、可怕的是，当我恢复的时候，我会完全变成和文字里写的完全不一样的人，我自己也会忘记这些。我好像做了大脑切割术。

打开消息，处理未回复的信息，一切好荒唐，仿佛梦一场。

人心里有大石头，是怎么掩饰也藏不住的，直到播客录制后半程我的状态被播客点燃后，我鼓起勇气和莫不谷说了这件难以启齿的事情：我的西班牙续签申请还没提交，不仅是没有提交，而且啥都没有准备，这项关乎我是否能在西班牙合法生活的重要事情，我的进度条是0。

为啥我会因为这件事崩溃，实际上今年1月登陆西班牙后我就研究了签证续签还在游荡者专门写了一篇指南，今年10月我从荷兰回来西班牙，就和莫不谷还有身边人口口声声说要回来准备签证材料，因为签证到期前两个月就可以开始申请续签，算上审批各种流程耗时，越早提交申请越方便。结果直到快12月底，我这边迟迟没有动静。在疯狂的逃避中，我的脑海里充斥了怪物的声音。

而莫不谷最初设想我是被最值得羞耻的事情困住，还问出了口，结果是签证没有提交这件巨微小的事情。听完后她说，我真服了，播客录制的时候我就看出来了，你不正常，当时就想问你到底咋了，没想到是这事。你这不为自己当下这个困境想办法，你为解决身体哐咔想想办法，我要是在西班牙我就要捶你。

“这样，你现在就在电脑屏幕上写下来，遇到问题先想办法，遇到问题先求助，把死亡排在第三步。让你完全忘记死亡这件事，不合理也不可能，那你第一步，就先想办法，第二步就去求助，把死亡放在第三步，记住这个口诀。”

接着莫不谷说，“我跟你说，你需要搭子，你干所有启动困难的事情，就必须干的事情，你就给自己找搭子，你就永恒记住这点。比如，你可能羞于对我或者亲近的人说这些事情，但是你找一个搭子，两个人一起做，那你就可以充分利用表演型人格，咔咔整老快了。”

“比如说，你可能羞于对我说，对你亲近的人说这些事情。但是你找一个搭子，ta不认识你，那你在ta面前你能咔咔表演，你整得老快了。”

听到莫不谷和我咔咔分享解决思路，我接着立刻坦诚此前我还在塞维利亚游荡时，被她问到签证问题，我就一直拖延没能坦白回答和求助的事情：

“当时你给我发消息的时候，我脑海里面一直想的是真诚是最好的策略，坦白是最好的策略，真诚是最好策略，但是我还是会想说，我拖延续签这件事做的也太不靠谱了，就是我给自己下的这个评判，就会导致我没办法跟你说实话。

我就想说，天呐，我就不应该出来游荡，我应该先把签证这个事搞了再出门，接着又觉得自己主次不分，生活很混乱，太多的情绪在我的脑子里面，我就觉得，天呐，我就马上要变成我吐槽，我最讨厌的生活方式和生活状态了，我就会变得很糟糕，生活捡不起来，然后一片灰暗，就是很多的这些情绪和想法都在我的脑子里。”

莫不谷说：“我觉得咱俩有核心的不同，因为我每次都是贷款焦虑，我很怕我自己成为那个最慢的那个人，后来我发现，我人生的所有的焦虑是不必要的，所以我就以后能越来越减少焦虑。这样，你签证哪天到期，我给你算算，你现在就开始搞签证材料，趁着飞书视频开着，我帮你一起看，有啥要弄的现在就弄。”

接着莫不谷忍不住吐槽，“你这故事简直太荒谬了，大家经常会说杀鸡焉用宰牛刀，你一个破签证你想着要割腕，跳海，我真是服了，你要是遇到真正的生存危机跟各种各样的东西，咱还能说安慰一下，悲伤共情一下，你这关键还铺垫了一下，你说我有个特别难以启齿的事，我以为啥事呢？你这个挺会管理预期的。”

我：“你觉得我说的难以启齿的事情会很严重？签证这个事情对我就是难以启齿的事情啊。我也要管理下我的形象，我不想当一个说话不算话，总是拖延不靠谱的人啊。”

莫不谷听完哈哈大笑，接着说，“其实我是觉得你求助了，你的形象才会好，而不是说像你现在这样。

我觉得真的，你要是哪一天给我发消息，说这个事情我实在干不成，我也想不到什么办法，你有什么办法或者建议给我吗？我才觉得你的人设好起来，这才是我心目中的好人设。你看你想的是啥破玩意。其实你了解我心中的好人设是啥样的，但是你想维护的是社会主流价值里的好人设。”

和莫不谷聊完，我心中一块大石头终于落下，由于莫不谷想到边开视频边督导我搞签证材料，没有了情绪困扰和障碍，这个拖延了两个月的事情，折磨我折磨的想死的事情，我在当晚花了几个小时就把我以为至少需要准备一个月的签证材料搞完了，现在也顺利提交了续签申请，接下来只要等待批复就可以了。

搞完了一切的我，又恢复了状态，回首那个被折磨到绝望的时候，简直离谱。

莫不谷说，你看，如何应对和解决你觉得难以启齿的事情呢？张嘴。

同时因为我心里压着大石头，不可能轻松上阵搞创作，对于播客录制的情绪和基调也会有影响，为了能更轻盈纯净地创作，莫不谷又想到了解决方法，同时把这个方法作为2026年放学以后的重心和focus之一，放在了微信群公告：

“建立和保持创作者的自觉：保持自己的纯净和轻盈，每次在创作前清空自己的大石头（我们每次录播客前都问问彼此，最近心里有什么大石头吗？一起来讨论一下移走它的方式，再开启录制）”

成为放学以后Newsletter月度会员，可以解锁既往所有付费内容，解锁完记得在权益期及时查看所有付费内容，以最大化享受权益。如下月不再继续付费订阅，也记得及时解除，以防发生计划外扣费；爱发电支持购买单期付费播客或文章。大家可根据自身情况选择最适合的方式，苹果用户请不要下载appstore的爱发电app，是诈骗。

放学以后爱发电“电铺”：https://afdian.com/a/afterschool?tab=shop

《创作者手册：从播客开始说起》（小册子）系列https://afdian.com/item/ffcd59481b9411ee882652540025c377

run&rebel系列1《朋友们，Run and Rebel：快逃以及反抗！》https://afdian.com/item/2b3a33acfd3311ecb4d852540025c377

run&rebel系列2《在这个时代，做个反派》https://afdian.com/item/b9c74240bcff11ed86fe5254001e7c00

run&rebel系列3《爹和爹味，吐槽大会》https://afdian.com/item/6529d622092011ee8a1352540025c377

run&rebel系列4《活在历史的垃圾时间，我们如何度过时代的乱纪元？》https://afdian.com/item/90682ea4c68611ef8e645254001e7c00

run&rebel系列5《让我们不吐不快：各行各业，各个工种，各色牛马，吐槽齐发》https://afdian.com/item/87b95f1ac32111f0b10552540025c377

放学以后《莫路狂花今夜不设防：人如何不糊弄和痛恨自己，并找到自己的渴望呢？》https://afdian.com/item/e4b68686a67911ef8f2f5254001e7c00

放学以后《莫路狂花2：如何对自己充满爱意和敬意，免于混乱逃避低活力？》https://afdian.com/item/3572eaba3a6d11f0ac9052540025c377

放学以后《终身学习1：学会面对真问题，不逃避，下决心和谈分离》https://afdian.com/item/e96a78d4619c11f09e8552540025c377

游荡者平台：www.youdangzhe.com 或者www.youdangzhewander.com

这期节目盘点一下德国跟中国的关系，怎么样从合作共赢，走到今天面临崩塌。我们从《华尔街日报》的一篇报导讲起。这篇报导的标题是“Why Germany Wants a Divorce With China”——“为什么德国想跟中国离婚？”

中国的改革开放，可以说是跟德国企业进入中国市场同步。大家最熟悉的可能就是大众汽车。在差不多40年时间，德国跟中国的经贸是全球化成功的典范，两个国家的市场可以说是天作之合，你中有我，我中有你，甜蜜的像一对新婚夫妻一样。

德国拥有中国工业化需要的高端技术和设备，比如汽车生产线、高铁设计制造工艺、精密机床和支撑现代工业的各种化工产品。中国有取之不尽、用之不竭的廉价劳动力，还有迅速扩张的国内市场。德国需要中国这个潜力巨大的市场，来消化它的工业产出；而中国则像一块干瘪的海绵，疯狂吸收德国的技术、设备和管理经验。

《华尔街日报》的文章说，那时候的德国政客是全球自由贸易最坚定的传教士。他们相信，通过自由贸易，中国可以实现和平转型。这就是所谓的“以商促变”。当年，大众汽车在中国占据了半壁江山，西门子的设备遍布中国的工厂，巴斯夫的化工产品定义了中国制造业的底色，无数德国小企业也跟着进入中国市场。

那可以说是德国跟中国经贸关系的蜜月期。这段蜜月期持续了几十年。几十年间，在德国企业的利润表上，中国市场的贡献不仅份额巨大，而且看起来生死攸关。换句话说，就是德国企业严重依赖中国市场。

任何间方面的依赖都潜伏着危机。这几年，德国跟中国的甜蜜婚姻在不知不觉中悄然变质。从幕后摩擦，逐渐发展到要撕破脸离婚。它们是怎么走到今天这个地步的呢？

原因其实是显而易见的：中国企业通过合资、收购和强制技术转让，获得德国的核心技术以后，开始借助中国的国家主义模式消灭德国竞争对手。这种模式的核心，不是德国人习惯的市场竞争和质量驱动，而是用国家权力操纵市场，利用国家力量毁灭性压制对方，把竞争对手挤出市场。

这跟德国企业熟悉的基于规则的市场竞争，完全是两码事。具体来说，中国企业成功逆袭 有三大原因，每个原因都离不开极权政治对市场的操控：

第一个原因，就是国家对企业的巨额补贴。《华尔街日报》在报导中提到德国的隧道挖掘机巨头海瑞克。中国先是进口海瑞克的盾构机，在获得制造技术之后，中国政府通过巨额补贴、贷款优惠、税收优惠，甚至直接注资，让中国产的盾构机以低于成本的价格在全球抢单，把德国企业挤出市场。

第二个原因，就是中国的半奴工制度。中国的极权制度确保中国工人低工资、低福利，在劳动力成本方面，有着无可匹敌的优势。这几年，中国人常说的内卷，实质就是极度压榨本国劳动力。以前，只是对农民工这样，这几年经济下行，各行业都纷纷农民工化。中国企业依靠极权制度保障的极限压榨模式，把劳动力成本压缩到了极致。

第三个原因，就是中国企业之间相互挖墙角，不计成本倾销。因为国家补贴，中国制造业畸形发展，产能严重过剩；与此同时，因为极权制度保障对工人极限压榨，在财富分配中，国家拿绝对大头，国民拿绝对小头，普通中国人没有消费能力，中国市场无法消化自己的产品，只剩下向海外倾销一条路。为了生存，中国企业之间竞相压价，把利润压到最低，甚至赔本赚吆喝，寄希望于在自己倒下之前，对手先撑不住，死掉。

《华尔街日报》也提到德国的化学工业。化工业是德国的支柱产业之一，，近年正在遭受中国产品的重创。以PA6塑料为例，这是汽车制造和电器制造离不开的工业材料。在莱比锡附近的洛伊纳（Leuna）化工园区，中国产PA6塑料的市场份额在短短一年内从5%暴涨到20%。为什么会这样？因为中国产品的价格比德国本地生产的便宜20%。

问题在于，中国产品之所以能卖低价，并不是因为正常市场竞争带来的生产效率提升，而是因为中国政府的补贴、中国极权制度保障的对本国工人的极限压榨。这是中国产品低价的奥秘。德国企业不是在跟中国企业竞争，而是在跟中国政府竞争。

近十年，中国的廉价商品像海啸一样涌入发达国家市场。最初，这些产品的目的地主要是美国。今年，川普政府的贸易战为中国商业设置了很多障碍。很多中国企业和卖家转向了欧洲。

《华尔街日报》报导了中国企业如何在欧洲化整为零，打快销游击战，形成影子物流。在英国，一位中国大妈在自家后院建了一座320平方尺的简易棚屋，专门为中国卖家提供影子物流服务。中国卖家不再仅仅依赖传统的国际物流，而是通过这些散布在欧洲各角落的中国移民，建立起了一个不孔不入的仓储和发货网络。

这种做法成为绕过监管的捷径。中国海关的数据显示，欧盟在2025年首次超越美国，成为中国廉价小包裹的最大市场。一年内，从中国发往匈牙利和丹麦的货物量翻了四倍。对于欧洲零售商来说，这已经不是正常市场竞争，这是一场把市场规则漏洞钻到极致的超限战。

显然，德国跟其他一些欧洲国家一样，本国企业和本国商家面临生存危机。德国政客反应迟缓，但面临本国企业的生存危机，跟移民危机等问题叠加，选民做出了选择。今年5月，德国政坛变天，默茨当选总理。默茨政府开始全面调整经贸、国防和移民政策。在经贸方面，可以说启动了一场德国企业的生存保卫战。

Read more

有政策的地方就有对策，有压迫的地方就有反抗。“没有了运动，就没有生命。”

——第九位受访者，宝洁抵制者

亲爱的媎妹：

见字如面！

这次想跟大家分享我最近发表的论文：《激进的抵制者和温和的购买者：中国社交媒体上的消费主义女权行动》。这篇文章是我和香港中文大学的副教授、也是我大学本科的导师方可成合作完成的。他是新闻实验室项目的发起人，最近又在香港建立了过滤气泡工作室，我们第一次线下见面会就是在那里办的。

这篇文章发表的过程极其漫长，22年暑假就写完了，到今年秋天才发表。我们研究的两个案例——抵制宝洁（boycott）和支持韩束（buycott）——在当时还相当热门，但现在已经是古早事件了。

先帮大家回忆一下这两件事：2021年，宝洁邀请杨笠在京东推广卫生巾，但活动开始前就遭到很多男性抵制，于是宝洁就把杨笠的照片从宣传海报里撤掉了。此举激怒了许多女性，并引发抵制行动。结果是杨笠还是参加了直播，宝洁中国也在3月25日在微博公开道歉。

第二个案例和吴亦凡性侵事件有关。美妆品牌韩束在吴被正式批捕之前就终止了和他的合作，因此得到了大量支持。解约当晚有132万人涌入韩束直播间，很多支持者在号召她人参与时说，“你花的每一分钱都是在为你理想中的社会投票。”

虽然事情已经过去很久，但我们的结论并没有过时，因为类似的抵制/购买事件如今依然层出不穷。例如去年大家抵制京东（也是因为杨笠），还有前段时间支持盼盼（因为其抖音旗舰店的直播委婉批评政府在Maskpark偷拍女性事件中不作为）。

这些事件都表明，消费者的力量已成为中国当代女权运动不可或缺的一部分。在威权体制下，女性消费者正在用创造性的方式推动社会变革。为了深入了解消费和女性主义的关系，我们采访了27位曾参与抵制宝洁/支持韩束的女性，并分析了3500条豆瓣/微博帖子和回复。接下来，我会介绍研究的主要发现，即中国消费主义女权的动机、组织方式以及参与者复杂的的政治立场。

一、把品牌变成盟友：女权主义应是“政治正确”

我们发现很多女性参与消费主义女权行动主要是为了争取更多盟友，从而改变公众对女权主义的看法。中国女性在制度和文化层面均处于弱势地位，且女权主义面临污名化和严格的审查。在这种艰难的处境下，很多受访者开始想和各种力量合作，希望能让女权成为新的社会规范。

具体来说，参与者主要有三重战略考量。首先，在中国开展线下公共活动的风险太大，而通过网络参与抵制或支持品牌要安全很多。线上消费行动还能帮一些人避免冲突。例如有受访者说：“我不擅长和男权群体争论，那样太累了。我更喜欢通过购物表达支持”。

其次，很多参与者希望品牌能看到女性消费者的购买力，从而更关注性别问题，因为“以女性为目标客户的品牌必须要满足女性的需求才能生存”。她们希望品牌尊重女性消费者、停止厌女营销、和女性代言人合作等等。

然而，对于企业是否需要真心支持女权，参与者们看法不一。一些受访者发现她们的行动对企业的影响有限，所以以后也不太想再参加了。例如韩束直播里的产品有很多是清仓货，包装上甚至还印着吴亦凡的照片，这说明品牌其实主要只是想趁势大捞一笔。不过，大多数受访者认为品牌的真实意图不重要，只要能让大家知道“尊重女性消费者才能盈利”就行了。例如有受访者说，“品牌如果想骗女性的钱，就必须从头到尾包装自己。Fake it until you make it。”

最后，受访者希望消费行动能让大家正视性别不平等的问题，吸引原本不关心女性权益的人也加入女权运动。

总之，在保守主义抬头的背景下，大多数参与者的目的在于塑造公众舆论、尽可能争取更多盟友，为未来作准备。制度改革不是她们的首要目标。

二、“人人都可以是领导者”：草根行动者的跨平台合作

有趣的是，参与者们运用各种平台的独特功能展开了跨平台的女权行动。她们的行动主要分为三个阶段，在三种类型的平台上进行：豆瓣、微博以及京东、淘宝、抖音等直播平台。豆瓣是用来制定策略和遣送“部队”的总部；微博是和反女权主义阵营对抗的核心战场；微博和各种直播平台是参与者和品牌互动的地方。

在第一阶段，参与者的目标是增加事件的热度。很多人利用豆瓣吸引第一批参与者，这是因为豆瓣有很多去中心化的小组，而且很多组由女性管理。管理员会将重要帖子标记为“星标内容”以吸引更多关注，小组成员也会通过回复顶帖，所以就算一个人本身没多少粉丝，她的帖子也可能被很多人看到。

接下来，她们会利用微博话题扩大影响力，因为微博是“舆论战场”，且经常通过推广和性别或明星有关的争议性新闻来吸引流量。一些人甚至在豆瓣组织抽奖活动，将三支Ukiss口红作为奖品，送给三位发帖抵制宝洁的女性。

（P.s. Ukiss是中国美妆品牌，曾批评哔哩哔哩传播厌女内容，并于2021年终止了与哔哩哔哩的合作）。

在微博和豆瓣，参与者都会运用民族主义话语刺激大家加入消费行动。例如，有抵制者说，女性无论如何都应该抵制宝洁，因为它来自“西方资本主义国家”。有支持韩束的人说购买韩束的产品既能促进性别平等，又能帮助国产品牌。

在微博和豆瓣，参与者都会运用民族主义话语刺激大家加入消费行动。例如，有抵制者说，女性无论如何都应该抵制宝洁，因为它来自“西方资本主义国家”。有支持韩束的人说购买韩束的产品既能促进性别平等，又能帮助国产品牌。

在第二阶段，参与者在豆瓣制定和完善行动指南，这样才能让大批女性立刻行动起来。一些帖子汇总了宝洁的所有产品，方便大家抵制。她们呼吁大家申请退款或索取发票、在微博/领英联系宝洁的公关经理、在京东上联系客服、在宝洁直播间刷一样的评论。为了鼓励更多人参与，抵制者会写好各种话术，其她人可以直接复制粘贴，不用自己编辑消息。支持韩束的人则会介绍各种产品，方便其她人快速下单。

在最后阶段，参与者在微博及直播平台和品牌互动。21年3月，宝洁中国为其客服回复时的不当言论道歉。此外，她们涌入直播平台留言以寻求即时的回应。很多人开始剪辑韩束直播的切片，两个主播的CP向视频在抖音迅速走红。

值得注意的是，虽然跨平台的女权行动看起来轰轰烈烈，但个人和平台间的权力差注定了这类草根行动会面临巨大的阻碍。平台以盈利为先，因此“品牌的公关部门可以轻易贿赂平台来压制抵制活动、减少负面影响。”此外，网络审查日益严格，删帖和禁言越来越普遍。有受访者表示，女权主义者常常讨论转移到其她平台，但“这不现实，因为人们可能会分散，很难重新组织起来。没有人能投入那么多时间和精力。”总之，中国女权运动受到政治和技术方面的重重限制。

三、参与者光谱：激进的抵制者和温和的购买者

消费女权主义的参与者之间存在立场的差异，并非铁板一块。她们大体上可以被分为三类：只参与抵制品牌的人、只购买支持品牌的人，还有同时参与抵制和购买的中间派。

其中，只参与抵制的女性更加激进，对当局持批判态度；而只参与支持活动的女性则较为温和，很少和政府对抗。她们对消费主义的态度也截然不同：只参与抵制的人认为资本主义建立在父权制上，因此拒绝通过拥抱消费主义推动女权发展。例如一位受访者说：“女权反对粉红税，反对消费主义陷阱，激进女权从来没有提倡购买某种商品维护女权...商业可以向女权靠拢但女权不能向商业靠拢，女权要守着自己的高地不放松自己的标准。”

相较之下，只参与支持行动的人鼓励大家“为缩小性别差距买单”。

此外，只参与抵制的人往往更具有反叛精神。她们反对审查、反对建制，认为“权力来自破坏而非购买”。我们采访的所有强硬抵制者都自认为是激进女权主义者。她们总是强调“抵抗”、“反叛”、“斗争”，且不相信与国家力量合作，不愿因为现状艰难而妥协。

相比之下，只参与购买的人大多不了解审查制度，或是认为有些女性过于反叛，因此支持审查。她们很少认同自己是女权主义者。例如有受访者说：“审查制度是合理的，因为有些观点是不可接受的。我支持女性争取权利，但反对极端女权。现在女性的状况已经比上一辈完善很多了。”不管有意还是无意，只参与购买行动的人也可能和当局一起压制女权主义。

最后，中间派主张在两者之间找到平衡，在一定程度上承认并抵制审查，但容易妥协。例如，有受访者认为应该和政府合作保障女性基本权利，例如为农村地区的女孩提供卫生用品。同时，她们拒绝接受单一定义的女权，希望拥抱多元化的观点。她们也更担心因为支持女权主义而遭受污名化。

抵制和支持女权主义之间的鲜明区别可能源于以下两个因素。其一、在威权国家，抵制商品的成本要比“买爆”某商品更高，这是因为抵制者通常会激烈地批判性别压迫，鼓励人们反抗，其情绪是“负面”的。她们更常和男权群体发生冲突，更容易面临审查。所以有抵制者提醒其她女性在联系宝洁公关时使用小号、避免暴露隐私。而参与购买的人是在奖励某些品牌，其情绪是积极正向的。因此抵制商品的帖子会被删除，支持购买的则不会。

其二、一些只参与购买行动/中间派的女性在体制内工作/学习，更容易受到审查，参与抵制的风险也更高。例如有受访者曾因发布女权内容遭到处分，于是不再做太激进的事情。这表明参与者的立场受其与国家权力距离的影响。一个人和权力的距离越远，就越容易持更激进的立场。

四、消费女权的两大问题：阶级主义和新自由主义

消费女权的实际效果有限。这类行动主要围绕明星和直播八卦展开，而品牌的回应往往只是危机公关策略。企业优先考虑的是吸引流量快速获利，而非倡导女权主义事业。其实，很多参与者也意识到了消费主义女权效率不高、作用间接且短暂，但它确是威权体制下难得可行的反抗方式。我们发现中国社会对女权主义的污名已经深入人心，有受访者在收到采访问题之后问我“你是外国人吗？”，暗指女权和境外势力有关。也有还在上学的受访者说她的大学会监控学生在网上的发言，女权被视为“错误观点”。在这种环境下，女权行动派的选择不多。

此外，消费主义女权深受新自由主义和阶级主义影响。参与者强调卫生巾/美妆品牌必须尊重女性，因为女性是购买这些产品的主力军。然而这种说法的潜台词是“少数群体只有有钱才能获得尊重”。而且，它忽略了女性在父权社会的资源分配中本就处于弱势，整体的经济能力低于男性。同时保守派也可以用抵制/支持品牌的方式反女权，例如宝洁事件的导火索就是男性因为杨笠抵制宝洁。

其次，大多数受访者对女权的看法暗含等级观念。例如大家普遍认为，只有更多女性努力“往上爬”，女权主义才能实现。所以，她们也试图通过贬低男性的经济资本来赋予女性权力。例如，一位抵制者发帖称：“抵制杨笠的都是一个月只赚3000的厂工屌丝，成功人士哪有时间做这种事。品牌居然会关心这种loser，真是荒谬。” 这种论调完全忽视了女性的脆弱性。如果低收入男性理应被品牌抛弃，那处于更加弱势地位的工厂女工呢？

而且，我们发现消费主义女权的实践者大多来自发达地区、有一定特权的女性。研究中所有受访者都是受过良好教育（均为本科或研究生）的中产阶级，主要居住在中国南方沿海城市和省会，其中一些人有海外背景。因此，中国消费主义女权的纲领与欧美白人中产阶级女权主义相似：某种程度上以特权阶级为核心、忽视经济资本匮乏的女性的利益。

结语

中国消费主义女权的兴起反映了威权体制下女权运动的机遇与挑战。一方面，作为一种集体行动，社交媒体上的消费主义女权为女性提供了新的政治参与途径。参与者通过抵制或支持品牌来提高公众对性别问题的认知，同时以较低的风险争取更多盟友、为未来做准备。她们相互配合、利用不同平台的功能推进自己的议程。当然了，这类行动的局限性也很明显：它们常常流于表面，缺乏对制度改革的推动。而且，在阶级主义和新自由主义的影响下，其进步性亦有限。

然而无论如何，我依然认为这是一种非常宝贵的实践。虽然已经过去了很久，一位受访者说的话依然时时在我耳畔回响，“有政策的地方就有对策，有压迫的地方就有反抗。‘没有了运动，就没有生命。’”

我觉得这也是中国消费主义女权行动最生动的写照。

就此搁笔，期待下一次和大家见面！

陌生女人1号 兔姐*

二〇二五年十二月二十二日

P.s. 本文由陌生女人1号主笔，陌生女人2号编辑。

这些年，经常听到中文世界有人讲“平庸的恶”或“恶的平庸”。这是汉娜·阿伦特的说法，用老百姓的话来说，就是随波逐流干坏事，像希特勒时代的纳粹官员、像文革时代的红卫兵，像现在中国体制内的一些大大小小官员。

阿伦特对纳粹德国的说法有一定道理，但她不是个有深度观察能力和深度思考能力的人，对很多事务的评论，都流于表面。在恶的问题上，也是这样。她有本书，名叫《艾希曼在耶路撒冷》。艾希曼是纳粹德国的犹太事务主管，组织杀害了很多无辜的犹太人。德国投降后，他逃到阿根廷，被以色列特工绑架到以色列受审。

阿伦特旁听了审判，写了几篇文章，后来结集成书。她把艾希曼描绘成一个不善言辞、平凡普通，没有思考能力的人，说他组织杀犹太人，完全是执行纳粹德国的政策，在当时并不违法。

从后来披露的一些有关艾希曼的材料看，也从我个人对邪恶现象的观察来看，没有思考能力的不是艾希曼，而是阿伦特。她的整个叙事完全被艾希曼牵着鼻子走，所谓“平庸的恶”或“恶的平庸”，成了她为艾希曼总结的辩护词。

任何一位有经验的律师，都能识破被告这种把戏：假装无辜，假装头脑简单，假装体制的受害者，干坏事的是体制，不是他——他只是体制大机器上一颗小小的螺丝钉。阿伦特掉进艾希曼这种自我辩护的套路中，对艾希曼的表演和伪装照单全收，成了艾希曼玩弄于股掌之间的useful idiot。“平庸的恶”或“恶的平庸”就是阿伦特这么“思考”出来的。当然，这里的“思考”是加引号的。

更奇特的是，不少人把这当成深刻。中文世界一些知识分子这样做，尤其令人不解。中国这两代人经历了文革，现在又经历文革2.0版，体制内外各色人等，作恶都是争先恐后，一点都不平庸。在现实中，尤其是在中国的现实中，恶不但不平庸，而且相当积极，十分乖巧。很多看似平庸的人作恶，不是因为随波逐流，而是因为不甘平庸，想通过作恶的捷径往上爬。

在以前的节目中，我曾经给大家讲过“短语的奴隶”——slave of phrases。这是教育普及后出现的一个观察力萎缩现象。人们从书上看到一个词，一个短语，像“平庸的恶”“恶的平庸”之类，就被这个词，这个短语牵着鼻子走，成了短语的奴隶，不再观察，不再思考，不再用现实来矫正概念的偏颇。明明现实中的恶，一点都不平庸，但不少人一看到阿伦特说“平庸的恶”“恶的平庸”，就觉深刻，就放弃了自己的眼睛和头脑。

这些年，我在观察历史和现实时，越来越感到一种不安。用阿伦特“平庸的恶”来解释纳粹德国，解释毛时代的文革，解释土皇帝的文革2.0，解释无差别杀人的恐怖分子，虽然方便，但太轻描淡写，太虚假了。“平庸的恶”成了一块遮羞布，不但遮蔽了现实中令人毛骨悚然的恶，也掩盖了作恶者主动作恶的冲动和意图。

阿伦特去耶路撒冷看审判艾希曼。她看到被告席上是个唯唯诺诺、满口套话的中年男人。从这种浮皮潦草的观察，她得出结论，说艾希曼不是恶魔，他只是不思考，他只是盲目服从命令。阿伦特不知道，大部分有头脑的被告，在法庭上都是看起来唯唯诺诺、满口律师教的套话。这是被告席上的常态。何况艾希曼曾经是纳粹德国负责犹太事务的官员。他的头脑显然比阿伦特的要复杂一些。

一个人在放手作恶时的行为方式，跟他在被告席上的行为方式，完全就是两码事。就像一个杀人越货的劫匪，被抓获归案后，上了被告席，跟他端着枪抢银行的时候，会判若两人。这本来应该是观察人的基本常识，但阿伦特缺少这种常识。她用艾希曼在被告席上的言行，来推断他作为纳粹官员，组织灭绝犹太人时的行为方式和心理状态。没有比这更荒唐的思路了。

在纳粹体制中，艾希曼相当精明，在作恶方面极度乖巧。在执行灭绝犹太人的国策时，他 不是机械地服从，而是创造性地发挥。为了提高运输犹太人的效率，他主动设计方案，协调铁路，克服物流困难。甚至在战争后期资源紧张的时候，他仍然超额完成杀人指标。说这是“平庸的恶”，简直跟精神错乱差不多。

所谓“平庸”，不过是艾希曼在成为阶下囚之后，为了保命而精心设计的一张面具。他把自己伪装成一颗没有灵魂的螺丝钉。但他不是螺丝钉，他是作恶者。恶都是人主动作出来的。人不主动去作恶，世界上就不会有恶。这是能撬动“恶”这个问题的阿基米德支点。阿伦特的头脑中，没有这个支点。

在中国的现实中，我们看到的更多的是“乖巧的恶”，就是为了乖巧地迎合上意，积极主动地去作恶。在文革中，他们发明出各种折磨人、羞辱人的方式方法；在新冠封城清零中，他们不断加码，像对待牲口一样对待居民；在文革2.0中，他们主动出击，小题大做、无中生有，攻击文明的声音。他们不甘平庸，乖巧地作恶，从意图、出发点到结果，都是损人利己，甚至毁人利己。

Read more

Rahm Emanuel returns to ChinaTalk with a characteristically blunt assessment of U.S.-China relations and verdict on year one of Trump 2.0.

We discuss:

• The “Fear Factor” in Asia: Why Japan and South Korea are ramping up defense spending not because of Trump’s strength, but because his unpredictability and isolationism have forced them to buy “insurance policies” against a U.S. exit,

• Corruption and “Own Goals”: How “draining the swamp” has turned into institutional degradation — and why the Trump family’s entanglement of personal business interests with foreign policy damages U.S. credibility and strategic leverage,

• Adversary, Not Competitor: Why the U.S. needs to stop viewing China as a strategic competitor and start treating it as a strategic adversary — one whose win-lose economic model is designed to hollow out global industrial bases,

• Education as National Security: Why tariffs are a distraction and the only real way to beat China is a massive domestic push for workforce training,

• AI and Inequality: Rahm’s evolving thinking on artificial intelligence — why he’s still learning and why a technology that boosts productivity but widens inequality is a political and social risk.

Plus: why Ari Emanuel’s UFC US-China robot rumble is sound policy, Rahm’s case that he’s now the real free-market capitalist in the room, and rapid-fire takes on J.D. Vance, Marco Rubio, and the 2028 Republican field.

Have a listen in your favorite podcast app.

On Playing Into China’s Hands

Jordan Schneider: Rahm Emanuel, welcome back to ChinaTalk. What a year for US-Asia policy it has been.

Rahm Emanuel: That is the understatement of the year.

Jordan Schneider: In our 2024 show we started out with me asking you questions about, “Oh, look at all this nice stuff you guys did. Rebuilding alliances. Japan and South Korea are friends again.” And now we’ve got all this.

Rahm Emanuel: How did we go downhill so quickly? Is that what you’re asking?

Jordan Schneider: We now have a year-long sample size of “Trump II” taking a very different take from both Biden and Trump I. Really, it’s a departure from the past 70-plus years of US foreign policy when it comes to relations with our treaty allies. What has it been like watching this, Rahm?

Rahm Emanuel: It’s depressing. It’s infuriating. There are a lot of other emotions. Look, it starts from a premise. China’s view is that they are the rising power. America is receding. Their message is, “Either get in line, or we will give you our full China coercion policy.”

Our message is that we’re a permanent Pacific power and presence and you can bet long on the United States. Unfortunately, everything President Trump’s doing is underscoring China’s message with a bunch of exclamation points because of the way we’re behaving.

When President Biden and his team walked in in 2020, China was on their front foot. When we left, they were on their back heel. They were angry at being isolated and it took a strategy of flipping the script. Rather than them isolating Japan or the Philippines, we isolated the isolator through the United States, Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, and India. They knew it on a political, military, and strategic level.

All our military exercises were multinational. Japan was the number one foreign direct investor in the United States and is a long pole of our policy there. We built an alliance that China thought could never be done — and part of their strategy relied on it not being done — between the United States, Japan, and Korea. This culminated in what we accomplished at Camp David. That was, and remains, China’s worst nightmare. Trump basically took it off the page.

We then extended it to Japan, the United States, and the Philippines. If you look at where the Philippine islands are and where the Okinawa islands are, China’s strategy to quarantine Taiwan becomes much more difficult to achieve.

It had a strategic, political, and military level that was unprecedented. Then we had the Quad. We doubled down on the Quad, which Trump had actually pushed along in his first term to his credit. But now he has taken a 35-year project of bringing India into our orbit and totally expelled them for Pakistan’s vanity. It looks like it was done for Pakistan’s economic gifts to the Trump family, the Witkoff family, and the Lutnick family. Specifically to the Trump boys. That’s what it looks like.

China has been trying to force Japan into submission through economic coercion — which they haven’t done since 2010. It took the United States almost two weeks from the get-go to finally do a B-52 air surveillance run with Japan’s F-35s. Crazy. We should have been there immediately to send a direct message, but we didn’t.

At every level, this administration has made America weaker and more vulnerable. It has actually played into China’s message to all the countries we were attempting to pull into the US gravitational pull.

Jordan Schneider: The MAGA retort would be, “Look, we said some mean things, and defense spending in all these countries is going up. What’s not to like about that?”

Rahm Emanuel: First of all, not Japan. Let’s just deal with that. Japan increased their defense budget from the ninth largest to the third largest when I was there. To their credit — I don’t deserve it, and the Biden administration doesn’t deserve it — they did it early on, even before I got there. That wasn’t due to President Trump. They committed to 2% and did it in five years. They were well on their way before President Trump ever put his right hand on the Bible. So that’s calling offsides for what was not true.

Second, they have done things in that defense budget regarding counterstrike capability that pre-date Donald Trump. They just concluded a sale of ships to Australia. They did things they were constitutionally prohibited from doing, also pre-Trump. If anything, their willingness to go above 2% of GDP in defense spending is probably more out of fear of Donald Trump’s failure to show up than it is because of prodding by the Trump administration.

That has also been true to the credit of the new Korean president. His first set of conversations were with the Japanese because of their fear that the United States is AWOL. The facts just don’t bear out.

Plus, I’m right about India. The Trump administration totally punted on a bipartisan project that was succeeding in making China very nervous. Go look at what they were doing in the Himalayas. They haven’t shown up as it relates to the Philippines and the South China Sea islands.

Then last week, the Trump administration validated the AUKUS submarine project between the United States, Great Britain, and Australia. That all predates them as well. If that’s their argument, they better get some facts to back it up because nothing across six different countries adds up to that argument.

Jordan Schneider: There is a part of this that is downstream of this MAGA worldview that America just isn’t up for it anymore. What do you think about this whole idea of defining down what America can accomplish on the global stage?

Rahm Emanuel: I don’t buy it. A superpower doesn’t pick geographies, which is what they’re trying to do. They failed with Canada, they failed with Panama, they failed with Greenland. We’ll see what happens in Venezuela. The only place you could say they had a success was a $40 billion pledge to Argentina in the middle of cutting healthcare for the United States. I don’t think it should be hemispheric.

As a superpower, does that mean they are going to pull up stakes on the Middle East where Russia has now been kicked out and China is a bit player? That is an important geographic, strategic, and resource-rich area. Dumbing down or strategically pulling back only makes the world more dangerous.

Now, there are reforms that should be made to the alliances. But as you and I are talking about this, for 40 years the United States was telling Europe, “Don’t get economically energy-dependent on Russia.” Now the President of the United States is begging Europe to become more of a vassal energy-wise to Russia. This is in direct competition with our own energy policy and interests.

I’m a former ballet dancer, so I’m proud of being flexible. But these guys redefine flexibility. Here you are saying maybe we should dumb down or restrict ourselves, yet you’re telling Europe to get more dependent on Russia — and less dependent on Texas, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Wyoming, and Colorado. I can’t think of anything more stupid than that.

Also, in the Mideast, Russia has been kicked out of Syria. China has no play. It’s a major geographic area strategically. It’s a major purchaser of defense weapons. It’s a major investor in America’s economy. We have an ally both in Israel and in the Gulf countries, and also in the immediate Arab world. That is to our strategic advantage. Pulling back from that would make America more vulnerable politically, economically, and strategically. It’s foolish without even touching the rest of the world.

Would I say that Latin America and Central America in American foreign policy over the years have been stepchildren? 100%. Focusing on it is the right thing to do, but not at the expense of other regions. America can walk, chew gum, and be a superpower that brings a strategic presence to our policies in the Indo-Pacific, as an example.

Flooding the Swamp

Jordan Schneider: When I was reading that national strategy document, I was trying to make sense of it. You try to get in their worldview and think about how serious it is. But at the same time, you got everyone’s children making billions of dollars on the side. I really think this is a new thing in American history. It makes it very hard to take this new grand vision of how they want America to play in the world all that seriously.

Rahm Emanuel: Well look, I saw this today — it’s a pivot. When they had the big signing in the Sinai and around this ceasefire in Gaza, the Indonesian president says to Trump, “I need to talk to Donald.” The two boys are very upfront about it — they got caught on tape. In the midst of a tariff negotiation, we are mixing our strategic vision with President Trump’s checkbook. They’re not one and the same.

When I got to Congress, I set up a blind trust. First member to do it. Kept it as Chief of Staff. I had to re-up it and change it to meet the executive branch requirements. As Mayor, I filled out massive financial forms. In fact, I got an email about four months after I left saying, “You have to do your exit financial form.” I said, “You guys must be really lonely because you’re chasing me after I’ve left where I have no conflict.”

Meanwhile, you got a bunch of people who just left prison and are now investors. Crazy. Okay? I don’t know if you noticed, but they just left prison.

But you can go through the country. There was an announcement the other day. A startup company on one of the private equity funds from — I’m not sure which of the sons of Donald Trump — won a $700 million contract out of the Pentagon. A startup.

I wrote about this in the Wall Street Journal. The theory of “Broken Windows”is that small crimes create conditions for big crimes. That’s exactly what’s been happening. It’s not just about streets — it’s also about the corporate suite. The kids of Lutnick, Secretary of Commerce Witkoff, the special advisor for everything and anything, and Donald Trump’s kids — their checkbook is bigger today and yours is smaller today because they’re conducting themselves to enrich themselves.

The only envy Donald Trump has of Putin is that that is their business model, and he would like it to be America’s model. He has to work around some legal boundaries, of which the Supreme Court continues to remove for him. It is unbelievable to me what goes on here, having spent a lot of money with lawyers and accountants.

One of the things I’m proud about, starting from Bill Clinton forward, is that I’ve never hired a lawyer for anything I did when I was in public service. What these guys are doing makes me feel like I was a schmuck. I’ve never seen anything like this, and nor has America in American history. We have a lot of competition — and I’m from the city of Chicago — for corruption. But they have not only corrupted in the sense of the money they’re making in public policy, but they’ve corrupted the process of doing it.

Jordan Schneider: There’s big 17th or 18th-century European aristocracy energy here — like the princes marrying each other and doing deals on the side. [Neo-royalism!]

Rahm Emanuel: Here’s the thing. In the last 48 hours, two people were caught — ethics reports for not selling stock or whatever. Who’s going to investigate them? The FTC? The SEC? The Antitrust Division of the Justice Department? The Supreme Court — John Roberts and the rest of those hacks — gave him a carte blanche to go steal.

You basically can appoint members, fire all the Inspector Generals, and appoint or fire whoever you want at these independent agencies. You have a Justice Department and FBI which is a bunch of Keystone Kops. So of course people are going to break the law. You told them they get to write the law for themselves and nobody will enforce it. That’s what John Roberts did — the genius that he isn’t.

Jordan Schneider: I’m old enough to remember, “Drain the swamp”. And it won an election.

Rahm Emanuel: And what they decided was just to make the swamp a little bigger. Take India and Pakistan and the strategic point here, because there are other things relating to the American family’s checkbook being smaller than the Trump family’s. One is getting bigger and one is shrinking.

We have had a project from George Herbert Walker Bush to Bill Clinton to George Bush to Barack Obama to Donald Trump One to Joe Biden — bring India into a closer strategic alliance. Because Modi did not want to play stooge to Donald Trump, he made peace. Trump gets angry. Pakistan waves a bunch of contracts. The Financial Times has a great story about this regarding crypto and mining for the Trump kids.

We’ve abandoned a 35-plus-year project of America’s strategic interest just so the two Trump boys can have a little gold coin. That is what happened. And I stand by it.

Jordan Schneider: I would be remiss not to bring up Hunter’s pardon.

Rahm Emanuel: Bring it up. It was wrong.

Jordan Schneider: I thought it was really gross. It was really disappointing. I actually thought he wouldn’t do it.

Rahm Emanuel: If you want me to live in a glass house before I throw a stone, I ain’t doing it. But I’m going to say this, I never hired a lawyer for something I did. I believe in what Kennedy said about public service. That is not the virtue of this White House. They are stealing in broad daylight and getting away with it because John Roberts gave him a “get out of jail” card.

Who’s the Socialist?

Jordan Schneider: Let’s talk US-China. We had Liberation Day, we had Liberation Day v2. We had rare earths thrown on the table twice. Then the Trump administration backing off. What’s your read on all this, Rahm?

Rahm Emanuel: The whole “Tariffs and Liberation Day” was about drugs one day, then manufacturing the next — whatever the moving target was based on the day. I don’t disagree with the desire to build America’s industrial capacity, but three points of fact illustrate the issue.

When the President walked in, there were 50,000 manufacturing jobs with “Help Wanted” signs that nobody could fill. We would be 50,000 manufacturing jobs ahead today if we had focused on the training side — getting Americans ready to do those jobs. Instead, we’ve lost jobs under Trump.

Number two — this went unnoticed, but two weeks ago, the CEO of Ford said he has thousands of empty jobs today paying six figures because people don’t have the skills — mechanics, electricians, etc. These are not in the corporate suite. They’re on the shop floor, and he cannot fill them. He says it’s only going to grow.

There was a story about China being ahead of us on energy production. One of the big problems for us to compete with China on AI and transmission is that we are short 200,000 electricians. Every one of those is a six-figure job with healthcare and retirement. The Merchant Marines — which are key to building up both economic and security capacity — are short 200,000 jobs over the next decade.

If we had focused on the problem analysis — that you need industrial capacity and a base in the United States to compete — that part is true. But tariffs and looking weak? Of the top five choices, that was number ten. We have Americans looking for work, the ability to buy a home, and a way toward economic independence. We have jobs that would give you a start on that independence — six figures — and every one of those companies is short workers.

Nobody covered what the CEO of Ford said. It was treated like a little thing that happened on the side. If the President had dropped 50,000 “Help Wanted” signs on manufacturing the day he walked in, we’d be a hell of a lot farther ahead on manufacturing than with tariffs — which he calls “the most beautiful word in the English language.”

The President continues to do this. He analyzes a problem not entirely wrong — not always right, but not wrong — but then his solution is far worse than the problem he started to try to solve. It didn’t work against China, it made us look weaker, it divided us from our allies, and he is telling Europe to buy oil and gas from Russia, not from us.

In fact, the oil and gas industry in America has fewer wells today — which means fewer people working, drilling, and transporting — than when he walked in. Even his “drill baby drill” strategy is failing. I find this immensely frustrating from an economic renaissance perspective because we have a challenge that is actually an opportunity and our politics, and specifically how this administration is failing America and Americans, is the issue.

Jordan Schneider: So, forward-looking — we’ve had this rare earths saga. It is clear that big parts of the US economy have — and probably will for the foreseeable future — large dependencies. The economic coercion playbook that China has is significant. What is the international strategy to handle them? And also, how do you spend that money to start to ameliorate those vulnerabilities at home?

Rahm Emanuel: Having been Ambassador to Japan, I recall the first critical minerals economic coercion playbook China started was in 2010 against Japan around the Senkaku Islands. We knew about the old playbook and didn’t do squat — both parties. Then, when it came to COVID, they withheld basic medical gloves, masks, etc. That was economic coercion up front, though more for their own self-preservation than just for punishing everyone else. This has been part of their playbook.

You have to look across the system. I wrote a piece in the Washington Post about how we’ve had five helter-skelter national industrial policies. The auto bailout was a national industrial policy. What we did on CHIPS and the IRA under Biden was a national industrial policy. What we did during Warp Speed and COVID was an industrial policy. Some elements of policy are successful and others aren’t.

You quoted the National Security Council producing the NSS. I would have the National Economic Council produce an economic blueprint at the beginning of every administration — that looks out over the horizon. Here are our strengths, here are our weaknesses, here are our vulnerabilities. Today, it’s obviously critical minerals and magnet production. Four years ago it was — and still is — semiconductors and the production of chips, which was the impetus for the CHIPS Act and IRA coming out of the chip wars. Look through the strengths, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities, and then develop a strategy around that.

China has decided that on quantum, AI, life sciences, fusion, and alternative energy, they’re going to kick our ass. They’re not going to compete with America; they’re going to try to beat it. You saw after COVID their vaccine was a debacle. They made a decision that would be the last time. Now, five years later, they are competing, if not superseding us in certain areas, on life sciences and new drugs. You can look at what they did on chips and what they’re doing on alternative energy.

This attack on America’s research foundation, the university system, is an “own goal” of the worst kind. You won’t see the pain today — you’ll see the pain for the next decade. Donald Trump is leaving America far worse off. We should not concede any one of those areas. I spent time as an ambassador helping on quantum computing for America’s competitiveness between the University of Tokyo and the University of Chicago, bringing IBM and Google in to fund that at $150 million.

Pick the areas, compete, and win. Our scientists and our funding mechanism, while not great, keep us at the top of the game. We should not be trying to strangle MIT, Harvard, Stanford, the University of Michigan, or the University of Illinois in competing and winning the innovation war against China. That’s number one.

Number two, the brawn behind the brains. We should be in a massive education push, whether it’s electricians, mechanics, or in jets, so we have the capacity to compete. China’s AI is getting more competitive not because of innovation, but because their electricity is 50% cheaper than ours — because our transmission and energy production are way behind.

Third, related to regulatory reform, there is a place for consensus on legal immigration. We should be very clear about bringing the best scientists, the best engineers, and the best-educated to the United States of America. Each one requires drilling down deeper, but at 10,000 feet, that’s what I would do.

Jordan Schneider: At a principle level, it’s been very interesting to watch. In 2009 and 2010, you guys got screamed at for being socialists for saving GM and Ford. Now we have a Republican administration taking equity bites. We’re doing “national champions” now, I guess. What’s your read on that? And broadly, how far should the government go to mess with these private sector dynamics?

Rahm Emanuel: You have golden shares in Nippon buying US Steel as an example. You have the Intel 10%. I disagreed with Senator Romney on this — then a presidential candidate. He talked about GM and Chrysler going bankrupt. We spent political and financial capital saving the auto industry for a reason. Yes, we were called socialists. We were also called socialists on healthcare. It’s a normal card. I suppose, if you keep playing it, one day you may be right.

Jordan Schneider: We’ll see how many companies Zohran ends up buying.

Rahm Emanuel: What China has done is outright intellectual property theft — some of it explicit, some corrupt. But they invest in certain new technologies and they refuse to let those companies raise money so they can bankrupt them, and then steal all the patents or take them back to China. That is their national strategy. They can’t replicate the beauty of America’s research, innovation, and entrepreneurship, so they steal it through the front door, the back door, and the kitchen window. That’s what’s going on right now.

To me, that’s where we’ve got to sharpen up. To your point about socialism — Solyndra. We invested in this new solar firm and everyone’s like, “Oh my God, oh my God!”, and here are these guys investing in and putting public money in companies with zero operating capacity.

I believe I’m more of a capitalist and a free marketer than the Trump administration and the Republican Party. The Democrats would never take economic stakes in a company. Let me say this — we did bail out GM and Chrysler to save the jobs and the communities that depend on them. We got our money back, plus profit. But the goal was to get out, not to stay in and increase ownership. We did it with AIG, got out, and made a profit.

The goal was not to get in, stay in, and increase your stake. The Secretary of Commerce says we want royalties for our public dollar investments now. I think there’s a way you could pay a system that funds greater research, but what he’s thinking about is ownership — which is the last thing you need. I love politics, but that’s not the type of politics I want.

Jordan Schneider: Here’s a blast from the past. I was a press office intern in the Biden administration. It was during Solyndra, I think it was summer 2012. And what you guys ended up doing was letting journalists see every single email that was sent about it. I had to sit in a room minding all these Politico journalists. We’ve gone from that level of transparency to, like, if Sasha and Malia were on the board of Solyndra or something.

Rahm Emanuel: Let me just be really clear. You had us investing in a startup to jumpstart a technology in America and that was called socialism. Today, you have the United States investing and owning pieces of companies. Back then you had journalists who actually cared about what was going on. Today, if you did that, you’d get fired from your corporate leadership because you were “offensive” to the President. So the world’s gone full circle. You’re not crazy. It’s just gone upside down.

“We’re Now Adversaries”

Jordan Schneider: So let’s do the US-China piece a little bit. This idea of America losing escalation dominance — we had a Biden administration that was able to slowly start to boil the frog when it came to a lot of these technology controls without necessarily having China snap back in an aggressive fashion that would affect America’s economy. And now that dynamic has shifted. So what happens next, Rahm? What’s the smart play here?

Rahm Emanuel: Look, I’d just be forthright and honest. I would tell China: “You wanted to be strategic competitors, but you have decided you want to be a strategic adversary. You have decided to go into our entire infrastructure — our utilities, our waters, and our systems. You’re also in our software, in our government agencies. That’s not a competitor — that’s an adversary. So if you want to go back to the competitive era, I’m ready. Everything you’ve done to endanger America — get out of here. We’ll compete, but we’re gonna go to a different level if you want to be adversaries.”

In this challenge, we don’t have an American to waste or a community to overlook. We made a mistake in 2012 thinking that Battle Creek can battle Beijing on their own. It’s going to take an all-country effort. I’m talking about what Ford said. I talked to you about other industries that have job openings and nobody there to fill them. We have thousands of young men and women looking for purpose and looking for economic independence, and every one of these jobs they can do. So I would go on a massive training push.

And I would be clear both on a technological level and a strategic level to our allies — “We have a certain period of time we have to buy. Our allies can play a bigger role in that effort so we can get to a point of competitiveness and a point of making China as deterred as they have done to us under President Trump.”

Don’t lose sight of Liberation Day and how we backed off. How much degradation to our deterrence posture was created when the President — after his talk with Xi, which he does first—then calls the Prime Minister of Japan (our number one ally) and never mentions Taiwan? And then for two weeks, while China is intimidating Japan, we don’t do anything. How much does that deterrence get degraded?

And while it’s being done to Japan, if you’re in the Blue House in Korea, you’re in Melbourne in Australia, you’re in New Delhi in India, you’re in Manila in the Philippines — you’re looking at what the United States doesn’t do with Japan and you’re saying, “There I go but for the grace of God.” So you bet you start to buy your insurance policy. You start to say — “Okay, the United States can’t be trusted. So what do I do?” That’s what’s dangerous here.

Jordan Schneider: The nuclear proliferation arc, which we haven’t quite seen yet, but I mean it’s coming, right?

Rahm Emanuel: When I got back early in February, I wrote this — if you think non-proliferation was expensive, wait till you see the bill for proliferation.

We spent a good time — not me directly, but in the region — convincing South Korea not to go independent on a nuclear weapon. We made a lot of assurances, too. You look at what’s happening now; it’s going to be hard to convince South Korea, given North Korea and China, to stay nuclear-free much longer. Not saying it’s not possible, but they’re going to look around. Part of their strategic overview is a nuclear and military guarantee and support from the United States. You look at what’s been going on in the last year, you’re going to sit there in the Blue House in Seoul and say, “Well, we can’t keep it like this now.”

If South Korea were to go nuclear, other countries like Japan would sit there and go, “Wait a second.” You have China building up nuclear capacity massively. North Korea, we know. And India and Pakistan. What if you add in South Korea and Japan? What could go wrong with six nations in a small geographic space — all who have 800 years of history and animosities — what could possibly go wrong? This is insane at every level.

Jordan Schneider: Well, we haven’t even talked about Iran, Saudi, UAE...

Rahm Emanuel: Can I say one thing that’s underappreciated in the strategic world and doesn’t get a lot of coverage unless you’re like a weirdo like me and read it? Iran is going through one of the biggest social-cultural revolutions since the Ayatollah walked into Tehran in 1979. They’re allowing concerts because they can’t control the youth. Women are openly totally disregarding the cultural norms of the ruling government. Because of a water shortage and corruption, they’re thinking of moving the capital out of Tehran.

I get Tehran has a strategic vision of themselves in that Shiite arc from Tehran to Beirut. There is a slow-boil implosion happening in Tehran right now. I don’t know how it manifests itself, I don’t know where the ball bounces, but there’s a cultural revolution going on — and I use “revolution” with a small ’r,’ not big. Given the demographics of the country — it’s dominated by people aged 30 and younger who so much want to be part of the rest of the world and believe the ruling class is holding them back economically, politically, and culturally.

There’s something going on in Iran and in a year from now, or maybe two —I’m going to look prescient saying what I just said. Something is happening there that we’re not seeing. And one day we’re going to wake up and say, “Who knew?” But you can’t have a ruling class all of a sudden — because of political vulnerability — say to the kids, “Right. You want to have all these concerts and go out and do all this that are not part of the norms? Go ahead.” Once you do that, that genie’s out of the bottle. If that genie’s out of the bottle, there’s going to be another genie out of the bottle. That’s the one thing we know from cultural history.

Subscribe now

Jordan Schneider: One more foreign policy one for you. Let’s do a little bureaucratic reform talk. Someone’s going to have to rebuild the civil service. Say you’re Secretary of State 2029. What do you do with the place?

Rahm Emanuel: You know, it’s interesting you say this. I was down in Austin about three weeks ago, and I grabbed lunch with two very, very good top national security former generals. I don’t want to use their names — I don’t want to get them in any trouble if they’re doing any kind of advisory board for the government. Very smart people that I’ve worked with who rose to the highest levels in their roles out of the national security institution.

And I asked this question, “Okay, you got all this chaos. We all operated in this. If we have the opportunity here — you got a clean legal path — how would you reorganize this?” I was thinking, you know, move this here, move that there, which is the thrust behind your question. Basically, I was in the same kind of zeitgeist you are.

Their response was interesting. I’m not saying they’re right, but it was actually interesting and not what I expected. They said, “You hire good people at the top. It does two things — lifts morale and brings the talent that’s left back in. If you start changing things and moving furniture around, it’s just all this energy on something else, when the immediate thing you have to do for the next couple of years is get the intellectual capacity back in. That means the top of the org chart. No B’s, no B-minuses, no B-pluses. You got to get A’s. They’ll get the morale up, and they’ll get talent to come back in and do public service.”

I gotta be honest, I was surprised because I thought, “Oh God, it’s a clean slate. We could do this.” But they said, from a capacity to run while you’re fixing something in chaos, talent is the number one goal. They said some other things which are true, like the intel operation capacity over the State Department, and the anti-terrorism financial end of the Treasury — both underappreciated in the intelligence world and swinging way above their weight class and they should be at the big boys’ table, not at the kids’ table anymore.

Those were just two observations from the national security side that I thought were persuasive. So I posit that that’s how I would approach it. Go with a talent at the top, get morale up, and make it a magnet for other types of talent to come back in.

Jordan Schneider: All right, rapid fire round. Selling chips to China?.

Rahm Emanuel: No.

He is the worst negotiator. I’m going to give you a story. We’re negotiating a balanced budget. It’s Erskine Bowles, myself, Gene Sperling, Bruce Reed, John Podesta, Sylvia Mathews, and I’m senior advisor. So one day in the morning I go to the Oval Office and I said, “Mr. President, every night Gingrich is calling you and you’re giving away the store. We spend the first three hours clawing back stuff you’ve given away. I’m just going to tell you, if you’re negotiating, Rule One is the other side has to know that you can live with the ‘No.’ You want to get to a ‘Yes.’ Everything you do is to convince the other side you are very comfortable with a ‘No’ as much as you are with a ‘Yes.’” I said, “We cannot have you doing this. We’re going to get to a balanced budget agreement. We have the upper hand here, but we are giving it away and diminishing it.”

Anyway, the lesson here is Donald Trump is so solicitous of trying to get a deal that he’s selling the family jewels to get it, and the Chinese know it. He’s going to run around on some soybean deal — which is his problem — or fentanyl and a couple other things. I’m not disregarding the fentanyl issue, but he’s so hungry for a deal, the Chinese are going to play him. And they’re playing him now — and they haven’t even gotten to a deal yet. And you can see it.

He just gave away the chips for what? What’d you get? He gave away something he could have gotten at the table for something else. What did we get? They just did a military exercise with Russia around Japan, your ally, forcing you to come out of the closet and finally do your B-52 covers with the F-35s. What did you get for that chip deal? Bupkis. As my grandmother used to say, “Bupkis”. The worst negotiators I’ve ever seen.

China’s Win-Lose Model

Jordan Schneider: Where is the Democratic Party on China?

Rahm Emanuel: There’s no uniformity. Having spent some time on this, I’ve come to the conclusion that we have a fundamental problem. They’re not strategic competitors — they’re strategic adversaries. They’re trying to bury us. Your competitors don’t get buried into the infrastructure, technology, and systems to destroy this country. God forbid we ever get to something kinetic. We don’t steal private information from government officials like they do, or steal from Google. We’re not stealing Huawei’s IP.

Second, we believe(d) — until Trump — in the rule of law. As part of their business model, they’re open to economic espionage and intellectual property theft. It’s very hard to have two economic models integrated where one believes in the rules and one believes the law doesn’t apply.

Third, our economy, even with the tariffs and Liberation Day, is integrated. The world is dependent on America. Their economic model is that the world becomes dependent on China, and China becomes independent of the world. That is why they’re exporting and crushing every other country’s industrial base — developed or developing world — whether it’s steel, toys, or EV cars.

It’s very hard to have an integrated model where destroying the other side is the goal. It’s one thing if you want to trade and it’s one thing if you want to compete. It’s another thing if the goal is “I win, you lose.” There has never been a “win-win” in China’s model. I don’t say that because I’m angry at them. That’s a fact.

Now we have to figure out where we’re going to go from here. They just passed a trillion dollars in trade, and their imports from other countries are down. South Korea’s only steel plant closed. Chile’s only steel plant closed — 20,000 jobs. That’s not the United States. That’s China. They’re doing it across the board. If Europe doesn’t protect itself, its auto industry will be destroyed.

We’re on a win-win model. Sometimes we win, sometimes we lose. They’re on a win-lose model based on economic espionage and intellectual property theft. There’s a case where they were stealing AI secrets from Google and from ASML, which is Dutch. They were caught stealing intellectual property.

I have not seen our companies that are into chip manufacturing stealing intellectual property from companies of other countries. I’m willing to stand corrected and say I’m wrong if there are suits on patents, but not outright government-sanctioned, government-sponsored intellectual property theft. As an example, Tokyo Electron, which makes chip manufacturing machinery, competes against ASML. Neither one has been found cheating and stealing IP from the other. China has been caught stealing and cheating from both of those companies.

Jordan Schneider: Rahm, your brother’s got a role to play in all this. Ari pitched the UFC on having an event in China, and they took him to a robot demo. He said this on a podcast — maybe we should have American and Chinese robots fight in a cage. America needs to see our robots getting their asses handed to them because right now, it’s not salient just how good China is getting at all these emerging technologies. You don’t see the cars on the road, you’re not really using the AI models. It just shows up in trade numbers and in factories closing. Having that as a primetime thing on Paramount Plus — there’s something to this, Rahm.

Rahm Emanuel: Let me just say this. Since I usually tell Ari and Zeke at family meals and holidays to just shut up, I’ll let Ari know that you think he has a good policy idea. But it will not come from me complimenting him, because there’s very little space I’ll give Ari in the policy world. The worst thing to do is tell somebody in Hollywood they have a good idea because they think they’re brilliant.

Jordan Schneider: Unless you’re George Clooney.

Rahm Emanuel: Yeah.

AI and Education

Jordan Schneider: Ok, domestic politics of AI. This dog hasn’t really started biting yet. But by 2028, it’s gotta be one of the top three things just from an education, social change, and job displacement perspective alone. You just pitched that we should be banning social media for kids under 16. What’s your take on all this?

Rahm Emanuel: You wanna talk about kids, poverty — I’ve got ideas. I’m learning about AI. I had a lunch today with somebody I consider very, very smart who discussed the confusion between OpenAI and open weights, and how the real challenge is in open weights where there are no firm protocols.

I want to be clear: I don’t have the answer. I know it’s important. I’m learning as we go. I’m trying to figure out who really knows their stuff.

While AI is important to the future and productivity, I have two cautionary notes. One, we have to figure out our energy production in the United States. China adopted the Obama “all of the above” strategy. We walked away from it in 2016 under “Drill Baby Drill.” We’re now paying the price because our electricity costs are two times China’s. They decided to go with an “all-in” approach, and we decided to go with a singular approach. Full stop.

Two, we’re short of the workforce to build out that energy capacity, to build out this chip capacity, and to build out the AI language capacity because we don’t have the workforce we need — from brawn to brain. Energy is going to be essential to the success, not just how small the chip is, but how much energy you produce.

Third, regarding AI, there is a cautionary note from the last 30 years. While globalization and technology worked, they didn’t work across the board. They worked for you, they worked for me, but they didn’t work for everybody. If you want a new technology to benefit society, it has to benefit everybody in the society. If it doesn’t, then you have to figure out ways to ensure there’s a better level playing field.

And we did. That doesn’t mean you could have stopped the clock and said “no Internet, no trade.” The question is, if you’re going to go forward — to quote President Clinton — how does everybody cross the bridge to the 21st century? You don’t have a queue where just some people make it and other people stand in line. That’s my cautionary note about AI — it will have an impact on productivity, and it will also have an impact on the people that lose their jobs because of that productivity.

What’s the strategy behind that technology to keep America competitive while ensuring all Americans are part of that? I don’t have it figured out yet. If I told you I did, I’d be full of crap. I know what the opportunities are. I know what the challenges are. I know how we have to start to think about it. Who has got the best thoughts on it? I don’t know.

Jordan Schneider: Two pitches for you on that. The education adoption side is the piece I’m most worried about. The productivity diffusion — the free market is going to figure out how to make workers more impactful, do their jobs better and faster. But the promise of having the greatest tutor that humanity has ever invented tailored to every single child, exactly where they are in their learning journey, is a world-historic opportunity. You’re talking about the haves and have-nots here. You fought teachers’ unions in the House. There’s going to be a lot of mess, a lot of hesitancy, and a lot of fear.

Rahm Emanuel: There’s a lot of fear. That’s not illegitimate. When I was mayor, we had the shortest school day and the shortest school year in the entire United States of America. I said, “What are we fighting about? You have great teachers. I want more time with the kids with the great teachers.”

We had no kindergarten, no Pre-K, no recess, no lunchtime, no gym time, and no arts class. I said, “What are you talking about here? It’s the shortest school day. Kids are being cheated.” I said to the head of the union, “I can’t believe we’re arguing about this. We have no recess, no arts education, reading is down to 40 minutes a day. We have no money for kindergarten, no money for Pre-K.” All the things that we eventually took care of. I said, “You believe in this? Why are we arguing? This makes no sense to me.”

Jordan Schneider: When we did our first show, my wife was five months pregnant. We now have a one-and-a-half-year-old. We spent this morning at preschool interviews for twos programs. I came out a little nauseated because, you’re right, Rahm, I have resources that not everyone has in this city. Walking through this incredible place — which is, again, a twos program — Pre-K starts for free in the US when your kid is four. They have the paints and ceramics, and literally, the ceramics are from the nicest ceramic store that you’d find in a $10 million apartment. I’m sitting here thinking, “This is gross.” It’s going to be the same for middle and high school, but it’s going to be an even bigger deal because they’re going to have access to $20,000-a-month AI tutors.

Rahm Emanuel: When I became mayor, there was no universal kindergarten and no Pre-K. We made every five-year-old get a full day across the city and every four-year-old get a full day across the city. But the biggest accomplishment was on the other end, in high school.

We did three things in high school that we haven’t changed since we first brought it along.

One, if you get a B average in high school, we made community college free — tuition, books, and transportation.

Two, we brought college into high school. 50% of our kids were graduating with college credit so they didn’t have to pay for it later on, and they got the confidence they could do college-level work.

Three — the most important thing we did — to receive your high school diploma, you had to have shown us a letter of acceptance from a college, community college, a branch of the armed forces, or a vocational school. It was a requirement. 97.8% of our kids met that requirement. When you walked on graduation day, you had to be able to show us where you were walking to.

Not just your child who is young. Mine are all grown up past those years. Two are in the military — one full time, one reserve. They all went to college. They knew where they were going. I don’t really care whether you’re going to Michigan, or to be a bricklayer, an electrician, the Air Force, or Harold Washington Community College. I don’t care. But you are not stopping when you’re 17. And that to me made my time in public life worth it.

Stanford said that the Chicago public school system was the best of the big 100 — the best. When I walked in, William Bennett had called it to the worst. But what Dr. Janice Jackson and I did in reforming the high school years was fundamental to the trajectory of these kids’ lives. 20,000 went to community college for free.

Jordan Schneider: I got one more pitch and then a final question. You talked about banning social media. The other thing to watch is AI companions. Everyone’s saying these AI are going to be better friends than people. That is a whole different thing from what Instagram was.

Rahm Emanuel: I will keep my eye on it, but I’m going to stake my battle on what I know. Chicago, under my tenure, had the most restrictive policies on tobacco sales to teens, and we took teen smoking down to single digits. As I told you, we did the same with Pre-K and kindergarten. When I was Senior Advisor to President Clinton, I negotiated the Children’s Health Insurance Program for 10 million children whose parents worked but didn’t have health care.

If it relates to kids and teens, that’s where I’m going to put my energy. It’s the future. My dad was a pediatrician — that may be my own desire regarding what I think is important. I’m not saying other issues aren’t important, but that’s where I’m going to spend my time. Given what Australia is doing, and given what I think you can do technologically to turn the algorithm into an ally rather than an adversary, that’s where I’m going to spend my time. I’m not saying the issue you raised isn’t important, but I’m not diffusing my energy.

Hot Takes on the GOP Field

Jordan Schneider: Everyone on all these other podcasts asks you if you’re running, and they ask you about all the other Dem candidates. I want to talk about the Republican ones. We’re going to just go down the list. Kalshi has J.D. Vance at 50% to be the Republican nominee. What’s your take?

Rahm Emanuel: Politics is crazy these days, but it is very hard to knock off a sitting Vice President. My guess is it’s probably right.

Jordan Schneider: Aside from electability, what do you think of him as a politician?

Rahm Emanuel: Likability is an important factor, and I think that’s a vulnerability for him. That’s all I’ll say.

Jordan Schneider: Rubio, 9% right now.

Rahm Emanuel: Part of leadership, in my view — and I’ve said this repeatedly — is you got to know why you’re doing what you’re doing and have the strength to get it done. You can infer from that anything you want.

Jordan Schneider: DeSantis, 4%.

Rahm Emanuel: That’s generous.

Jordan Schneider: Tucker, also at 4%.

Rahm Emanuel: That’s overly generous.

Jordan Schneider: And how about Donald Jr. rounding out our top five, also at 3%?

Rahm Emanuel: I can’t wait for him to do the financial disclosure form.

Jordan Schneider: Rahm Emanuel, it’s been an absolute pleasure. Thank you so much for being a part of ChinaTalk.

Rahm Emanuel: Can I say one thing?

Jordan Schneider: Yeah, of course.

Rahm Emanuel: I have three kids — 28, 27, and 25. You’re about to experience the greatest journey of life with a lot of hits and a lot of misses. But you have two parents who are role models. You’re going to be great at it, and it’s going to be a great journey. Mazel Tov. Thank you so much.