在古希臘的神話故事中，宙斯降罪給位階較低的神明阿特拉斯，讓他用肩膀支撐天穹。矗立在紐約第五大街洛克菲勒中心（Rockefeller Center）前面的紀念銅像，刻畫的就是這一形象。在小說家艾茵?蘭德的描繪中，阿特拉斯支撐著整個世界。她筆下的另一個角色問道，如果他不堪重負了，那會怎么樣？答案是：他聳了聳肩。這就是如今許多美國選民的感覺。他們厭倦了讓美國扮演現代的阿特拉斯，已經準備抖落掉世界超級大國這個地位帶來的負擔了。

從伍德羅?威爾遜到富蘭克林?羅斯福、約翰?F?肯尼迪，再到如今，在多任總統的治下，美國一直承擔著很大一部分全球責任。長期以來，美國國會全力支持這一做法，國家摒棄了袖手旁觀的孤立主義，轉而對抗法西斯主義和世界共產主義。同時，為了提高全世界人民的生活水平，美國還建立了世界銀行（World Bank）以及其他一系列發展機構。在二戰后大規模推行馬歇爾計劃（Marshall Plan），重建被戰火摧殘的歐洲的過程中，這種精神體現得淋漓盡致。這不純粹是一種利他行為，而是出于國家利益的考慮。

美國需要保持全球領袖的地位，這種想法曾是美國人的共識，但如今，信念已然黯淡。部分原因在于，美國參與海外事務并未取得滿意的效果。民眾的不滿在某種程度上始于朝鮮戰爭，其后在越南戰爭、海灣戰爭、阿富汗的戰事以及如今中東地區的混亂中，美國公眾形象的破滅又讓這種不滿繼續發酵。

在全球化和科技變革的壓力下，財富分配變得越來越不均衡，這種強烈的感覺進一步增強了美國本土的厭世情緒。得益于《退伍軍人法案》（GI bill）的“最偉大的一代”建立了州際公路，縱情于新發明和優渥的生活中，他們感覺美國無所不能。但如今，他們的孫輩和曾孫輩面臨著沉重的學生貸款、稀缺的高薪崗位和逐漸開始損毀的國家基礎設施。后一點隨處可見，我們的高速公路和大橋年久失修，相比東亞裝潢華麗的機場，許多美國機場看起來是那么寒酸。

情況還不至于太糟糕。從任何角度看，無論是在經濟上還是軍事上，美國仍然是最強盛的國家，有著強大的盟友和親密的貿易伙伴。但國內彌漫著擺脫世界其他國家的強烈情緒：“我們為什么要當世界警察？”不正是因為我們參與了全球經濟，才讓自己陷入了如此不利的處境嗎？今年的總統大選把類似的情緒帶上了臺面，甚至還在助推它蔓延，以至于它已經成為了一種主流的聲音。

唐納德?特朗普和伯尼?桑德斯告訴選民，現行的國際貿易協議——那些要在美國的帶領下創造更好世界的協議——不值得提倡，它們對美國實際上是有害的。

中國有可能取而代之。中國在亞洲投資建設基礎設施，卻并不強硬推行“民主自由理念”，也未曾強求別國開放市場。與此同時，中國正在借助自身的實力，鞏固他們在爭議海域的主權。

美國可以通過更好、更具建設性的方式與亞洲接觸，只需要讓《跨太平洋伙伴關系協定》（Trans-Pacific Partnership）生效。這是20年來的第一個大范圍的貿易協定，它由美國牽頭，有其他11個太平洋沿岸國家加入。想要著手改善世界貿易的不僅有這12個國家，該地區還有另外6個國家也表現出了強烈的加入意愿。它的重要性不僅在于美國適度調低了關稅，海外市場壁壘更是大幅降低，而且它有助于美國在亞洲的積極布局，加強了歷任美國總統相繼提出并執行了一個多世紀的政策，讓這塊地區變得更加安全，更加美好。

但這一計劃陷入了嚴重的麻煩。隨著美國政府遭遇近八年的僵局，國內政治環境前所未有的糟糕，未來國會還可能會更加不作為——甚至是在這次選舉之后。沒有哪個總統候選人支持這個協議，國會憑什么通過它呢？

如今，我們需要在選舉之后新舊總統交接的國會會議上實現突破——孤注一擲地在今年為數不多的日子里通過這一貿易協定。因為情勢十分明顯，2017年以后會是很長的一段間歇期。可以肯定，無論美國人民選擇了哪個新政府，在接下來至少幾年內，他們都難以推行貿易協定。

其他國家不會原地踏步等著美國一起行動。他們也在努力出臺彼此之間的特惠貿易協定，美國的商品和服務會受到排斥。這對美國收入分配不均和經濟發展可不是好事。國內的惰性會深深傷害美國的地緣政治和經濟利益。

我的忠告：不要太靠近第五大道的銅像。阿特拉斯可能要聳肩了。 （財富中文網）

作者艾倫?沃爾夫（Alan Wolf）曾任美國助理貿易代表。他長期從事國際貿易律師的工作，現為美國全國對外貿易委員會主席。

譯者：嚴匡正

In ancient Greek mythology, Zeus condemned a lesser god, Atlas, to hold the heavens on his shoulders, an image captured in a monumental bronze statue standing in front of Rockefeller Center on New York’s Fifth Avenue. As pictured by novelist Ayn Rand, Atlas is holding up the world itself, when one of her characters asks what would happen if the weight became unbearable. The answer: He shrugs. That is what all too many American voters appear to feel today—tired of the United States playing the role of a modern-day Atlas, ready to cast off the burden of having world superpower status.

America has borne a large part of the weight of the world under a series of presidents—from Woodrow Wilson to Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, right up through the present. For a long time, this vision was fully supported by Congress, converted from isolationism to a need to fight fascism and world communism, and by a mission to raise living standards around the world through the creation of the World Bank and a series of other development institutions. It was best manifested on a very large scale with the post-World War II Marshall Plan—the rebuilding of a war-ravaged Europe. It was not done solely out of altruism, but national interest.

What was once a common vision of the need for America’s world leadership has dimmed. In part, this is due to unsatisfactory foreign engagements, starting with the Korean War to some extent, but with a growing sense of public disillusionment building up through the Vietnam War, the second Gulf War, the war in Afghanistan, and the current chaos in the Middle East.

This world-weariness has been compounded by a strong feeling at home that prosperity is increasingly less evenly shared under the pressures of globalization and technological change. The “Greatest Generation” benefitted from the GI bill, created the interstate highway system, reveled in new inventions and a better life, and therefore felt that the United States could do it all. Now their grandchildren and great-grandchildren see a mountain of student debt, less well-paying jobs, and a crumbling national infrastructure. This is visible in absolute terms, with our highways and bridges in bad repair, and many of America’s aging airports looking shabby as compared with East Asia’s spectacular ones.

The picture is not that dark. The United States is still the most well off of any country by any measure—whether economic or military. It has strong alliances and close trading partners. But there is a strong mood in the country of moving toward disengagement from the rest of the world: “Why do we have to be the world’s policeman?” Isn’t our international economic engagement leaving us holding the wrong end of the stick? This year’s presidential election has brought those feelings to the surface, and even encouraged them, so much so that they’re now a dominant theme.

Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders tell voters that current international trade agreements—the instruments that with America’s leadership will help create a better world—are not worth having, but are in fact harmful.

China is presenting an alternative. It offers investment in infrastructure to Asia without pressing the ideals of democratic freedom or providing an opportunity for individuals to improve their economic well being through freer markets. At the same time, China is using its power to solidify its claims over large areas of disputed ocean.

America has at hand a far better and more constructive approach to Asia—putting into place the Trans-Pacific Partnership. TPP is the first major broad trade agreement negotiated in 20 years, led by the United States and joined in by 11 other Pacific-Rim countries. It is more than a start toward improving world trade among these 12—a half dozen other economies in the region have expressed a strong interest in joining. Its importance transcends modest reductions in U.S. tariffs more than matched by larger reductions in foreign market barriers. It maintains the positive presence of America in Asia. By doing so, it fosters the policies begun and carried on by American presidents for well over a century of making that part of the world a more secure and better place.

This enterprise is in very serious trouble. With the U.S. government characterized by nearly eight years of gridlock, and with domestic politics far more poisonous than ever before, the expectation is of yet more congressional inaction—even after this election has come and gone. Why should Congress act to approve this agreement when no presidential candidate has embraced it?

What is needed is a breakthrough in the lame duck session of Congress meeting after the election—a “Hail Mary” pass, approving this trade pact during the few days remaining this year. For what follows in 2017 is all too clear—a long pause. It is certain that any new administration that the American people choose will find it difficult to act on any trade agreement, at least for a few years.

Other countries are not going to stand around waiting for America to get its act together. They are working on preferential trade agreements among themselves that will discriminate against American goods and services. That will not help with America’s income inequality or economic growth. National inertia is deeply harmful to America’s geopolitical and economic interests.

A word of advice: Don’t stand too close to that statue on Fifth Avenue. Atlas may be about to shrug.