Now hold on right here, 'merica.
IS superior? WTF?! Oh and then you are going to explain WHY it IS, not if it is, or might be, no no no no no, you go on and explain in simple enough terms so that my dumb 'merican brain kin figure it out. IS??? I'll tell you what IS, Mr. Eric X. Li of Shanghai, venture capitalist and writer of this blood boiling insult, China IS a corrupt government system that lives and dies on cronyism. It cannot and does not survive on its merits but upon the forced military suppression of other groups, political, religious or otherwise. Now, it may be that as a man from another country you might see certain similar elements in our American government since those Bush assholes took over this country, but I promise you sir, that 'merica is greater than that and we will one day reclaim our "A" once we do away with this bullshit terror war, the Patriot Act, spying on our own people, demilitarize our police forces, um... okay, so we have similarities in our current government styles, but America is always able to right herself and always has. The corruption of today won't stand because we the people won't let it. If you don't see the groundswell, the backlash by the common folks of this land against the totalitarian oppression imposed upon us by George Bush's incompetence and furthered by the Obama people, then you are not paying attention! What's more, this won't ever happen in China while the system you tell me IS superior remains in place. It can't. You have no room for dissent. That gives our system the edge. THIS week the Obama administration is playing host to Xi Jinping, China’s vice president and heir apparent. The world’s most powerful electoral democracy and its largest one-party state are meeting at a time of political transition for both.
Many have characterized the competition between these two giants as a clash between democracy and authoritarianism. But this is false. America and China view their political systems in fundamentally different ways: whereas America sees democratic government as an end in itself, China sees its current form of government, or any political system for that matter, merely as a means to achieving larger national ends.
In the history of human governance, spanning thousands of years, there have been two major experiments in democracy. The first was Athens, which lasted a century and a half; the second is the modern West. If one defines democracy as one citizen one vote, American democracy is only 92 years old. In practice it is only 47 years old, if one begins counting after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — far more ephemeral than all but a handful of China’s dynasties.
Why, then, do so many boldly claim they have discovered the ideal political system for all mankind and that its success is forever assured?
The answer lies in the source of the current democratic experiment. It began with the European Enlightenment. Two fundamental ideas were at its core: the individual is rational, and the individual is endowed with inalienable rights. These two beliefs formed the basis of a secular faith in modernity, of which the ultimate political manifestation is democracy.
In its early days, democratic ideas in political governance facilitated the industrial revolution and ushered in a period of unprecedented economic prosperity and military power in the Western world. Yet at the very beginning, some of those who led this drive were aware of the fatal flaw embedded in this experiment and sought to contain it.
The American Federalists made it clear they were establishing a republic, not a democracy, and designed myriad means to constrain the popular will. But as in any religion, faith would prove stronger than rules.
The political franchise expanded, resulting in a greater number of people participating in more and more decisions. As they say in America, “California is the future.” And the future means endless referendums, paralysis and insolvency.
In Athens, ever-increasing popular participation in politics led to rule by demagogy. And in today’s America, money is now the great enabler of demagogy. As the Nobel-winning economist A. Michael Spence has put it, America has gone from “one propertied man, one vote; to one man, one vote; to one person, one vote; trending to one dollar, one vote.” By any measure, the United States is a constitutional republic in name only. Elected representatives have no minds of their own and respond only to the whims of public opinion as they seek re-election; special interests manipulate the people into voting for ever-lower taxes and higher government spending, sometimes even supporting self-destructive wars.
The West’s current competition with China is therefore not a face-off between democracy and authoritarianism, but rather the clash of two fundamentally different political outlooks. The modern West sees democracy and human rights as the pinnacle of human development. It is a belief premised on an absolute faith.
China is on a different path. Its leaders are prepared to allow greater popular participation in political decisions if and when it is conducive to economic development and favorable to the country’s national interests, as they have done in the past 10 years.
However, China’s leaders would not hesitate to curtail those freedoms if the conditions and the needs of the nation changed. The 1980s were a time of expanding popular participation in the country’s politics that helped loosen the ideological shackles of the destructive Cultural Revolution. But it went too far and led to a vast rebellion at Tiananmen Square.
That uprising was decisively put down on June 4, 1989. The Chinese nation paid a heavy price for that violent event, but the alternatives would have been far worse.
The resulting stability ushered in a generation of growth and prosperity that propelled China’s economy to its position as the second largest in the world.
The fundamental difference between Washington’s view and Beijing’s is whether political rights are considered God-given and therefore absolute or whether they should be seen as privileges to be negotiated based on the needs and conditions of the nation.
The West seems incapable of becoming less democratic even when its survival may depend on such a shift. In this sense, America today is similar to the old Soviet Union, which also viewed its political system as the ultimate end.
History does not bode well for the American way. Indeed, faith-based ideological hubris may soon drive democracy over the cliff.
Okay, 'merica, I highlighted a bunch of stuff but I found this last bit revealing because the author presumes all us 'mericans are religious nut jobs like he sees on the TV or deals with in his business. We ain't thank goodness! It is this diversity that keeps our nation great. Mr. Li misses all that. And, for a person opposed to our Republic and who really nails home many of our disparate nation's current, unfortunate similarities, he, in fine gospel preacher style, closes his fire and brimstone elucidation of why his Chinese government IS so much better than our Yankee Doodle Dandy one by assuring us that violent government suppression is just tits. Perhaps for you sir, but not for me and not for this country.
And a really sincere American "Fuck you," to your face for suggesting it ought be otherwise.