6 ms·

I think comparisons like this ignore something fundamental, which is the values that both countries champion. The USA is a democracy and has by and large champ

I think comparisons like this ignore something fundamental, which is the values that both countries champion. The USA is a democracy and has by and large championed democracy around the world. China is ruled by a 1974 style dictatorship, a country ruled by a single Party not the rule of law. Comparisons between the US and the CCP conveniently ignore this, yet it is what really matters. Law enforcement will always exist in a nation of laws, yet the simple fact that law enforcement exists both in a dictatorship and in a democracy does not lead us to conclude democracy and dictatorship exist on an equal moral footing. The underlying values matter.

Miner49er 7y ago
If you look at China's constitution they value the same stuff as the United States. They are a democracy by their values, just like the U.S. Words are meaningless if not backed up by action.
- CharlesColeman 7y ago
  > If you look at China's constitution they value the same stuff as the United States. They are a democracy by their values, just like the U.S. > Words are meaningless if not backed up by action. Exactly: the PRC's constitution forbids gender discrimination, but even government job postings will frequently ask for men only. That shows how significant the words are, in this case.
- readbeard 7y ago
  Interesting! As I was completely unfamiliar with China's constitution, I pulled up the Wikipedia article and the source document. Supporting your point, here is a particularly surprising (to me) article: > Article 35. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration. [0] Also, from the introduction section of the Wikipedia article: > Though technically the "supreme legal authority" and "fundamental law of the state", the ruling Chinese Communist Party has a documented history of violating many of the constitution's provisions and censoring calls for greater adherence to it. Furthermore, claims of violations of constitutional rights cannot be used in Chinese courts, and the National People's Congress Constitution and Law Committee, the legislative committee responsible for constitutional review, has never ruled a law or regulation unconstitutional. [1] [0] http://en.people.cn/constitution/constitution.html http://en.people.cn/constitution/constitution.html [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_People%27s...
  - whoevercares 7y ago
    The Constitution of China changes every few years. There’s no enforcement or practical meaning at all
thereare5lights 7y ago
> has by and large championed democracy around the world. Have we though? As far as I can tell we've only done that to our enemies. Our "allies" such as Saudi Arabia receive no such "championing". From other people's point of view, democracy might as well be weaponized regime change.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
throw476543 7y ago
It took the US over 200 years to fully embrace its values. It’ll take time for opposing groups inside China to change it. Remember that Xi was sent to a re-education camp in his youth and was initially considered to be an average politician. If he was able to rise to power, there’s no telling what changes can happen in the decades to come.
- radicsge 7y ago
  Are you referring to the cultural revolution? That is not a re-education camp. Although you were out in the middle of nowhere for an extended period, you could freely talk with others (many groups still meet up to today, and/or married somebody there). That was more like an exile not a prison with forced agenda.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
braythwayt 7y ago
> The USA is a democracy and has by and large championed democracy around the world. Citation needed. The counter-argument is that USA has subverted democracies in its sphere of influence and backed harsh, authoritarian regimes when it suited its interests, just like all other Superpowers to date. It’s not even clear that the US champions democracies within its own borders these days, what with all the gerrymandering, voter suppression, laws prohibiting “felons” or prisoners from voting, the electoral college, and so on. Was 2016 a democratic election? America seems divided on whether there was interference from Russia, and if so, whether America condemns it or actually supports it. After all, your current President actually asked Russia to find dirt on his opponent during the election in a “HaHaOnlySerious” way, and the country now seems divided on whether he exerted pressure on the Ukraine to subvert American democracy, and if he did, whether that is a bad thing or not. I’m not saying that the USA is a harsh authoritarian state in 2019, but please understand that once you leave the echo chamber of people chanting “USA! USA!,’ it isn’t always crystal clear to the rest of the world that America walks its talk.
- JPKab 7y ago
  A lot of the aspects of American law that are viewed as non-democratic were put in place specifically because of the balance between the power of the central US government vs. the governments of the individual member states. Something most Americans, let alone non-Americans, don't understand is that the Federal government was a creation of the member states, not vice versa. Perhaps the best example of this aspect driving what currently appears to be non-democratic traits is the composition of the US Senate. Every single member state, no matter how big or large its population, gets 2 senators. Most American voters (it happens to be left of center voters right now, but if it favored left-wing candidates, right of center voters would flip out) feel like this is unfair, and question why it was put in place. The reasons hearken back to the creation of the Federal government. The individual states that had to cede their own power for a federal government refused to join the union unless the Senate was created, with equal representation for all member states, regardless of population. Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, and other states which are now ironically all left leaning politically, were concerned that the states with large populations, such as Virginia and Pennsylvania, would obliterate the concerns of their citizens in a purely democratic system. Hence the Senate, and as a side-effect, the electoral college system. Think of them as a geographic weighting, where each member state's power by population is limited or expanded to create a more balanced power structure. Regarding the "USA has subverted democracies in its sphere of influence", while this has been true with certain nations (Shah in Iran, Saudi, Guatamala, etc) it has also not been the case with others, such as all of Western Europe post WW2. Nations liberated by the Soviets weren't actually allowed to dictate their own futures, unlike those liberated by the US.

Miner49er 7y ago

If you look at China's constitution they value the same stuff as the United States. They are a democracy by their values, just like the U.S. Words are meaningless if not backed up by action.

CharlesColeman 7y ago
> If you look at China's constitution they value the same stuff as the United States. They are a democracy by their values, just like the U.S. > Words are meaningless if not backed up by action. Exactly: the PRC's constitution forbids gender discrimination, but even government job postings will frequently ask for men only. That shows how significant the words are, in this case.
readbeard 7y ago
Interesting! As I was completely unfamiliar with China's constitution, I pulled up the Wikipedia article and the source document. Supporting your point, here is a particularly surprising (to me) article: > Article 35. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration. [0] Also, from the introduction section of the Wikipedia article: > Though technically the "supreme legal authority" and "fundamental law of the state", the ruling Chinese Communist Party has a documented history of violating many of the constitution's provisions and censoring calls for greater adherence to it. Furthermore, claims of violations of constitutional rights cannot be used in Chinese courts, and the National People's Congress Constitution and Law Committee, the legislative committee responsible for constitutional review, has never ruled a law or regulation unconstitutional. [1] [0] http://en.people.cn/constitution/constitution.html http://en.people.cn/constitution/constitution.html [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_People%27s...
- whoevercares 7y ago
  The Constitution of China changes every few years. There’s no enforcement or practical meaning at all

thereare5lights 7y ago

> has by and large championed democracy around the world. Have we though? As far as I can tell we've only done that to our enemies. Our "allies" such as Saudi Arabia receive no such "championing". From other people's point of view, democracy might as well be weaponized regime change.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

throw476543 7y ago

It took the US over 200 years to fully embrace its values. It’ll take time for opposing groups inside China to change it. Remember that Xi was sent to a re-education camp in his youth and was initially considered to be an average politician. If he was able to rise to power, there’s no telling what changes can happen in the decades to come.

radicsge 7y ago
Are you referring to the cultural revolution? That is not a re-education camp. Although you were out in the middle of nowhere for an extended period, you could freely talk with others (many groups still meet up to today, and/or married somebody there). That was more like an exile not a prison with forced agenda.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

braythwayt 7y ago

> The USA is a democracy and has by and large championed democracy around the world. Citation needed. The counter-argument is that USA has subverted democracies in its sphere of influence and backed harsh, authoritarian regimes when it suited its interests, just like all other Superpowers to date. It’s not even clear that the US champions democracies within its own borders these days, what with all the gerrymandering, voter suppression, laws prohibiting “felons” or prisoners from voting, the electoral college, and so on. Was 2016 a democratic election? America seems divided on whether there was interference from Russia, and if so, whether America condemns it or actually supports it. After all, your current President actually asked Russia to find dirt on his opponent during the election in a “HaHaOnlySerious” way, and the country now seems divided on whether he exerted pressure on the Ukraine to subvert American democracy, and if he did, whether that is a bad thing or not. I’m not saying that the USA is a harsh authoritarian state in 2019, but please understand that once you leave the echo chamber of people chanting “USA! USA!,’ it isn’t always crystal clear to the rest of the world that America walks its talk.

JPKab 7y ago
A lot of the aspects of American law that are viewed as non-democratic were put in place specifically because of the balance between the power of the central US government vs. the governments of the individual member states. Something most Americans, let alone non-Americans, don't understand is that the Federal government was a creation of the member states, not vice versa. Perhaps the best example of this aspect driving what currently appears to be non-democratic traits is the composition of the US Senate. Every single member state, no matter how big or large its population, gets 2 senators. Most American voters (it happens to be left of center voters right now, but if it favored left-wing candidates, right of center voters would flip out) feel like this is unfair, and question why it was put in place. The reasons hearken back to the creation of the Federal government. The individual states that had to cede their own power for a federal government refused to join the union unless the Senate was created, with equal representation for all member states, regardless of population. Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, and other states which are now ironically all left leaning politically, were concerned that the states with large populations, such as Virginia and Pennsylvania, would obliterate the concerns of their citizens in a purely democratic system. Hence the Senate, and as a side-effect, the electoral college system. Think of them as a geographic weighting, where each member state's power by population is limited or expanded to create a more balanced power structure. Regarding the "USA has subverted democracies in its sphere of influence", while this has been true with certain nations (Shah in Iran, Saudi, Guatamala, etc) it has also not been the case with others, such as all of Western Europe post WW2. Nations liberated by the Soviets weren't actually allowed to dictate their own futures, unlike those liberated by the US.