美国政府努力试图“把中国改造成一个更像西方的国家”和中方想建立的“新型大国关系”，哪个更容易实现？
我认为美国的这一努力并不只存在于历史，这场和中国的思想、心理战已经打了60年了，现在依然在继续。在诸多问题上，中国需要处理，如西藏、香港、台湾问题，而美国一直都持续参与这些问题。但是我认为，从根本上讲，如果中国继续发展并持续解决好这些问题，中国无论如何都不会变成美国的复制品。
需要提醒的是，美国自己也未必是解决好问题的典范——美国是世界上贫富差距最大的国家，我们的各种基础设施运作都不比从前了。这不是说美国本身的实力弱了，而是美国的生活质量下降了。但美国也没有在解决这些问题上树立榜样，而且我也不怎么相信为他人树立榜样这回事，在一国以自己的方式发展时，你不应该想去复制别国的成功，但是你可以向别国学习，美国却总当自己是楷模。但美国最伟大的历史学家查理斯·比尔德在二战前说过，美国有一点令人震惊，就是你有选举自由，这很重要，但是这种选举自由从来没有帮美国解决贫富差距，也没有满足美国人民各种基础需求。
这应该可以让美国人停下来，谦卑地想一想，不是我们体制里的东西不好，而是我们体制里好的东西没有被实现，大量反思也仍没有让它们实现。所以与其打思想战，传播“西化中国”的思想，不如把这种精力省一省，打消这种念头，把注意力都放在如何改变美国本土上。如何改变美国现状就已经难住我们了，我们更不可能知道如何改变别人。
目前，太多中国人热衷于美国大片和美剧，但这些电影电视剧中无不充斥着“美国梦”， 作为一个美国人，您怎么理解“美国梦”？
我得先来做个区分。有人说，美国梦是单纯的、以个人为中心的，我只需要做我自己的事，从个人利益出发，如果我成功了，那这个成功就属于我自己。我不认为这是真正的美国梦。“美国梦”这个词比较新，它在20世纪30年代被提出来，很多人认为“美国梦”最开始由有清教徒提出，但其实不是，它产生于在经济大萧条时期，由那些对美国商业文明最担忧的人提出。20年代后，“利润”变成了做所有事的第一考量，发展商业成了头等要事，强烈的资本主义文化让那些非商业性的价值离美国人越来越远。在二三十年代，这些人要寻找一个梦想，一个民族梦，而不是世界梦，是一个重塑美国的梦，而不是重塑世界的梦，以便让这个梦变成一种重要的文明，但现在你几乎听不到这种说法了。
但在那些年，当美国人提到美国文明，实际上就是在说理想在多大程度上适配于文明，如何更平等，如何掌控极端财富。富兰克林·罗斯福就是其中一个，因为当你读罗斯福的演讲，你会看到他让大家提防一种信念——只想赚钱并只为自己赚钱会创造出可行的社会和有意义的人生，有这种信念是危险的。
在另一个层面，如果你不了解社会结构，你就会像前人所说的那样，陷入危险。所以，当人们问我美国梦是什么的时候，我会更倾向于马丁·路德·金在“我有一个梦想”演讲中所说的，我的美国梦还没有实现，现在接近于实现了，这是非常积极的，但是它还没有真正实现，因为我们还在为很多事而奋斗，比如更大的公平和满足人民需要。有些人只想追求个人理想，这对很多个人来说可能可行，但对于整个社会来说，这是不够的。所以这点更接近于我所理解的美国梦，我希望美国成长，停止尝试统领全球，并把关注点撤回本土，也许我有生之年是看不到这天了，但是这是我所希望看到的，因为只有这样，美国才能为自己创造有意义的民族文化。
最后一个问题，您对未来中美关系有什么愿景？
尽管实现起来有难度，但我希望，首先，美国人能更受到更好的教育，这很难，但是我希望美国把关注点撤回到本土。就这点而言，美国是有些进步的，因为在我人生当中，第一次看到共和党内部，对美国的全球角色深感担忧的人和麦凯恩以及麦凯恩的支持者，在这点产生意见分歧。所以首先我希望能看到美国聚焦本土。要不就是另一种，美国可以非常积极地保护它的全球角色，它的部分努力也可以继续坚持，但同时，一方面它也得保护中国的权利和利益，另一方面非常精明、小心地对待中国以避免危机。我觉得这种关系是有风险的，中美两国可以避免冲突，但是两国间有危机升级的风险。所以，如果你问“习近平主席和奥巴马总统会更直接地交流吗”，或者“国家安全机构能否更协调”，我认为答案都是积极有利的。但是我认为，想要看到这些变化，你还是需要很多耐心，这些变化可能也产生于美国，并且对于和平世界来说也是必要的。尽管我之前说过，我认为时间站在中国这一边。
[Transcript]
Well, I don’t think the American effort is part of a long history of war of ideas and psychological warfare against China that goes back now 60 years. It’s still ongoing, it’s there in certain ways China is dealt with, it’s there in Tibet, it’s there in Hong Kong, it’s there in Taiwan, these are all parts of ongoing incessant strategies that the US is involved in. But I think that the underlying point in the end is that China, if it is to continue the development and to continue to cope with.
And it’s a reminder the US itself is not exactly a paragon of how to solve certain problems, we have today the greatest extremes of wealth and power the US has ever faced, we have all sorts of basic infrastructure that is not working as it used to. That doesn’t mean the American power is weakening per se, but the quality of life in America is lessening. And the US is not providing any model for how to deal with that, and I don’t believe so much in models for others, people can learn from whatever they wish as a country develops in its own way, you shouldn’t think of I think of the world about copying other people, but you can learn from those people, the US often thinks of itself as the model, and yet one of our greatest historians Charles Beard before WWII, he said you know what the shocking things about the US is, it has its electoral freedoms, and they are important, but those electoral freedoms and it’s more true than ever, have never been to deal with economic inequality, and to ensure that the basic needs of all sorts of Americans are met.
And that should give some humility and pause to Americans, not that there aren’t good things in those systems, but there is certain things they have not accomplished and they are still not accomplishing in a great deal of rethinking that goes on. So rather than propagate such views in a war of ideas about how we are going to quote unquote Westernize China, pull back on all that effort, just stop it, and focus on transforming the US. It’s difficult enough to transform the US; we certainly don’t know how to transform anybody else.
Well, I think I make distinction, there is a very crude, simplistic, individual centric, I’m gonna go out do my own thing, personal interest, that’s what my life is, and if I succeed, great, and its mine. But I don't think that’s what the real American dream was about. The phrase is relatively new, it came in the 1930s, a lot of people think the American dreams goes back to the beginning of the puritans, it doesn’t, it emerged in the great depression, and it emerged among those who were most uneasy about a business civilization in the US after the 1920s, where everything was being reduced to profit, where business seemed to be supreme, where a intensely capitalist culture which of course the US is, had moved further and further away from non-commercial values. The goal of many of these people in the 20s and 30s was to find a dream, a national dream, not a universal dream, not a dream to remake the world but that to remake America, so that it would be a valid civilization, which you don’t hear about much anymore in the US.
But back in those years, we spoke in terms of an American civilization, it was inherently comparative, it was about how the ideals would fit in that civilization, it was how to have greater equality, and how to control extremes of wealth, and in its own way, Franklin Roosevelt was part of that, because when you read Roosevelt’s speeches, part of what he warned against was the dangers of the belief that wealth, simply earning wealth and earning it for yourself, would create a viable society and a meaningful life. While, it’s important to have the personal rights to pursue certain things.
At another level, if you don’t have the textures of society and community around that, then you end up with what the very people who initially articulated the dream warned against, so when people ask me what the American dream is, I’m a little closer to what Martin Luther King said in his I have a dream speech, which is the American dream I want isn’t here yet. There are things to draw on in America that are very positive, but it is not here yet. And that “yet” means the things he struggled for, the greater equality, meeting human needs, focusing in a world where simply pursuing your individual ventures, may be true for a lot of people, but in of itself, for a society as a whole, that was not enough. And so that’s closer to my dream about it, and as part of that, I would like to see America grow up, and stop trying to round the planet, and pull back, I don’t expect to see that in my life time, but that is what I would like because, and until does that, it cannot create a more meaningful national culture it itself.
Well, I would hope, as difficult as the relations are, I think they are difficult, that first, people in the US can be better educated, difficult, but to begin to pull back from the kind of role it has played in the world. There is a sort of an interesting development in the US in this regard, where there is even a divide now, for really first time in my lifetime, and in the Republican Party, between those who are deeply uneasy about American global role and people like McCain and others who favor it. So one element is to see that pull back in the US. The other is, the US can be very fierce about protecting its global role, and part of this effort is going to be to insist, on the one hand, that China’s rights and interest are protected, and on the other hand, that they be very shrewdly and carefully maneuvered so that crises do not get out of hand. And that I think is the risk, it’s nothing inevitable about a conflict between these two countries, but there is always a risk in crises escalating. So when you ask about the way President Xi and President Obama might communicate more directly or how national security would be more coordinated. I think that’s all to the good, but it’s gonna take a certain amount of patience even here, I think, to realize the kinds of changes, that are also gonna have to come from the US, that are necessary for a peaceful world, even though as I said earlier, I do think time is on China’s side.
