你對(duì)2012年的大選不抱什么希望,？

????我希望媒體嚴(yán)肅起來(lái),，不要再把老太太被推下懸崖（奧巴馬攻擊共和黨當(dāng)政會(huì)損害老年人利益——譯注）作為競(jìng)選廣告的噱頭,。要我說(shuō),，就是奧巴馬自己把那13個(gè)老太太推下懸崖的,。沒(méi)人想聽(tīng)到壞消息,，說(shuō)某些人再也享受不到福利了，但我們必須要削減政府的社會(huì)職能,。最高法院批準(zhǔn)了奧巴馬的健保方案,，迫使人們購(gòu)買(mǎi)保險(xiǎn)，他們其實(shí)就在批準(zhǔn)國(guó)家資本主義,。

那你又說(shuō)中國(guó)強(qiáng)制要求公司購(gòu)買(mǎi)再生性能源,，還取得了成功。

????中國(guó)人確實(shí)成功了,。他們的政府由技術(shù)專(zhuān)家來(lái)領(lǐng)導(dǎo),。他們的政治體制更像是精英政治,。他們有長(zhǎng)期的計(jì)劃。而在我們的體系里,，唯一的政治信條就是“只要再多活一天,。”我們應(yīng)該認(rèn)識(shí)到我們其實(shí)已經(jīng)有工業(yè)政策了,，只需把政客踢到一邊就好,。我支持建立一個(gè)新的政府機(jī)構(gòu)：聯(lián)邦工業(yè)政策委員會(huì)，職責(zé)就是和中國(guó)展開(kāi)戰(zhàn)略競(jìng)爭(zhēng),。這個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)將包含商業(yè)部,、美國(guó)貿(mào)易代表處、專(zhuān)門(mén)行業(yè)監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu),、環(huán)保署,、職業(yè)安全和健康署以及其它相關(guān)部門(mén)。這樣一來(lái),，企業(yè)在尋求批準(zhǔn),、授權(quán)或其它政府許可時(shí)，就能及時(shí)獲得一站式的服務(wù),。

你好像并不支持任何一個(gè)黨派,。

????我不站隊(duì)。作為一個(gè)商學(xué)院教授,，你會(huì)以為我完全支持自由放任,。但我會(huì)從戰(zhàn)略角度看問(wèn)題。我是一個(gè)戰(zhàn)略家,，我在想：我們可能在教育領(lǐng)域超過(guò)13億中國(guó)人嗎,？還別提他們擁有尊師重教的儒家傳統(tǒng)。羅姆尼和瑞安在他們拯救美國(guó)的計(jì)劃中提到改善教育,，我覺(jué)得那純粹是裝腔作勢(shì),。就算我們能夠把每個(gè)人都培訓(xùn)成軟件工程師，他們的每項(xiàng)創(chuàng)新發(fā)明都會(huì)在幾分鐘之內(nèi)遭遇中國(guó)人的盜版,。兩黨都在兜售他們的教育方案,，只是為了迎合大眾的口味。如果你相信我們憑著3億左右的人口,，就能在教育領(lǐng)域超過(guò)13億中國(guó)人,，那簡(jiǎn)直就是種族主義的想法。他們1%最聰明的人必然比我們最好的1%要聰明得多,，這就是（自然界的）平均法則。

You don't have a whole lot of hope for the 2012 election cycle?

????I'm hoping that the press will get serious and not allow these ads where they're pushing grandmothers over the cliff. Instead, say, let's look at what should be the Obama ad where he's pushing 13 grandmothers over the cliff. Nobody wants to hear the bad news that some people aren't going to get their benefits any more, but we really need to downsize the social side of our government. When the Supreme Court approved Obamacare, forcing people to buy things, they essentially approved state capitalism.

But you mention that China forces companies to buy renewables with good results.

????The Chinese make it work. Their government is run by technocrats. Their political system is more of a meritocracy. They have a long-term plan. In our system, the mantra in politics is, "Just survive one more day." We should recognize that we already have industrial policy and take politicians out of it. I'm arguing for a new agency, a Federal Industrial Policy Board, that would be responsible for a more strategic approach to competing with China. It would encompass the Commerce Department, the U.S. Trade Representative, industry-specific regulatory agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and others to create a one-stop-shop for businesses seeking approvals, licenses, and other government permissions in a timely manner.

Your views don't seem to line up with either party.

????I don't fall into the party line. You'd expect me as a business professor to completely be laissez-faire. But I'm looking at it as a strategist. And as a strategist I'm thinking: Can we out-educate 1.3 billion people? Especially people who have Confucian values that put honor on education and respect educators? Romney and Ryan talk about improving education in their plan for the United States, and I believe that's a lot of hokey. Let's suppose we can train everybody to be software engineers. Every innovation they make is going to be copied within minutes by the Chinese. Both parties tout education because it sounds great to people, but it's almost a racist thought to think that we have 300 or so million Americans, and we're going to out-educate the Chinese when they have 1.3 billion people. Their top 1% of smart people are going to be a lot smarter than our top 1%, just by the law of averages.