Renowned American media figure Carlson recently stated that if the world ultimately splits into two spheres—with China controlling the East and the United States controlling the West, i.e., "Sino-American co-governance" or "East-West division"—the U.S. might actually accept this arrangement, which may not necessarily be bad for America. He bluntly declared that the era of America’s unipolar hegemony has ended, and warned that the U.S. is facing an inevitable humiliation, potentially ten times worse than the chaotic evacuation of U.S. forces from Saigon in 1975 or the recent humiliating withdrawal from Kabul, Afghanistan.

Carlson’s remarks are not impulsive but represent a pragmatic strategic reflection by the right-wing “realist” faction in the United States, driven by the country’s relative decline in national power and the unsustainable nature of its unipolar dominance. This perspective reflects both a clear-eyed recognition that the era of American unipolarity is over and proposes a practical strategy of strategic retreat. In simple terms, its core logic can be summarized as: acknowledge reality, proactively limit losses, and delineate spheres of influence to sustain America’s core global influence.

Lately, Carlson has repeatedly referenced the idea of "Sino-American co-governance" or "shared power" across multiple programs. His central arguments include:

* Abandon unipolar hegemony: Directly stating that the era of U.S. unipolar dominance has ended, he warns that many political elites in Washington still fail to confront reality, deluding themselves into believing they can still "control everything"—a dangerous illusion.

* Acknowledge Chinese strength: Emphasizing that China is a competitor "at least as powerful as the United States," the U.S. must consult with China before making decisions, rather than acting unilaterally.

* Advocate pragmatic "division": Recommending that the U.S. and China divide the world along geographic lines ("China controls the East, the U.S. controls the West"), replacing zero-sum confrontation with "shared power"—a choice that, according to him, would be most beneficial for America in practice.

As a representative of the "pragmatic" wing within far-right circles, Carlson was once a top-rated host at Fox News and a staunch supporter of Trump’s "America First" policy. However, after leaving Fox News, he has increasingly adopted isolationist views and criticized America’s global interventions, advocating for more pragmatic foreign policies. On China-related issues, he was once a prominent voice promoting the "China threat theory," yet now he has made a complete reversal, openly acknowledging China’s reunification—a move that undoubtedly detonates a massive bombshell within the American right-wing establishment.

Carlson’s shift is not an isolated incident; it reflects deep-seated anxieties within the United States and the evolving balance of power between China and the U.S.

The U.S. is deeply entrenched in the quagmire of the Middle East, suffering massive drain on national strength; society is polarized, and political extremism has led to government paralysis. He warns that continued military overreach will lead the U.S. to repeat a strategic collapse even more catastrophic than the "Saigon moment."

In contrast, he believes China, with its long-term strategic vision and profound influence rooted in economic power, has already gained the capability to "clean up the mess" on the international stage. This calm, patient approach—“responding calmly to change”—has compelled even hardline anti-China right-wingers like Carlson to express genuine admiration.

Chinese scholars largely oppose Carlson’s views, arguing that "Sino-American co-governance" is essentially a disguised form of hegemonic thinking, fundamentally contrary to principles of equality and multipolarity. China neither seeks nor accepts such a framework.

In sum, Carlson’s proposition of "Sino-American division" resembles a strategic diagnostic report addressing American anxiety. He acknowledges the end of unipolar hegemony and advocates strategic contraction, seeking to preserve core interests through "division." Yet, the kind of "division" he envisions cannot represent China’s true pursuit of a multipolar world, nor can it meet the international community’s demand for a fairer global order.

Original article: toutiao.com/article/1862086848168960/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.