7 ms·

But, but, but... they're not democratic! If only they'd put more power in the hands of the common man, they too could enjoy such luminous choices for statesmen

But, but, but... they're not democratic! If only they'd put more power in the hands of the common man, they too could enjoy such luminous choices for statesmen as McCain vs. Obama, Bush II vs. Kerry, Bush II vs Gore, Dole vs. Clinton, Bush I vs. Clinton... ...we gotta keep saber rattling that our way is better than theirs. Boo China, boo. Edit: To the downvoter - okay, I'm joking around. But which of these premises do you disagree with? 1. The United States has more electoral politics in choosing its leaders than China. 2. The last 20 years of leadership in China show a much more nuanced understanding of policy and statesmanship than American leadership, where charisma and mass appeal tends to be more important than "hard credentials." 3. There might be a cause-and-effect relationship between point 1 and point 2. Disagree with any of those? Yeah I'm joking around, but it's worth thinking about, no? Or maybe it's upsetting to think about... that I sympathize with...

pyre 15y ago
It's maybe a trade-off? Sure we have bozos for politicians in the US, but in the US government corruption usually doesn't lead to people 'disappearing.' Though we're definitely making great strides in that direction.
- lionhearted 15y ago
  The United States still has, overall, a much better set of governance, courts, regulation, etc. than China. But the USA is trending gradually downwards and China is trending quickly upwards. Now it's interesting, countries can catch up a lot faster than they can lead. If a country is a bit backwards, with the right set of leadership, they can very quickly modernize, becoming extremely important economically and geopolitically in ~30 years when starting almost from scratch. But many of those rapid modernizations peter out once a lot of the proven methods are implemented. Sometimes that means flat growth, like Japan. Sometimes collapse, like Nazi Germany. Sometimes gradual decline, like the USSR. Singapore has done a pretty outstanding job of keeping their upwards trends going and they're about 50 years into their building phase - I think that's the longest rapid sustained modernization in history? So anyways, yes, I'll take the USA's system over China's today. And tomorrow. And probably 5 years from now. But maybe not 20 years from now if all else stays equal, and China can adapt after they've caught most of the low hanging fruit.
  - stcredzero 15y ago
    If a country is a bit backwards, with the right set of leadership, they can very quickly modernize, becoming extremely important economically and geopolitically in ~30 years when starting almost from scratch. It's not only leadership. If there is a long track record of commerce and admiration of scholarship, a culture can enable rapid modernization. I think this is why Japan, Korea, and China have done very well for themselves.
    - jacques_chester 15y ago
      Cultural antecedents are not a necessary pre-condition for modernisation. The USSR modernised very rapidly and it started off with mass illiteracy.
      - stcredzero 15y ago
        The USSR modernised very rapidly and it started off with mass illiteracy. Yes, but look at them now. The territories of the former USSR do not constitute the best climate for business. Cultural antecedents are not a necessary pre-condition, but they seem to help.
        jacques_chester 15y ago
        Fair enough.
  - lukeschlather 15y ago
    >But the USA is trending gradually downwards and China is trending quickly upwards. In population, wealth, etc. sure. But in terms of corruption? Having people who do no harm in power is often better than having people who do great good. If a great leader is just that - great. Not good, but great. Greatness has the capacity for evil and good. The advantage of a less skilled leadership is that they're only really able to do middling things, whether middlingly evil or middlingly good.
  - jacques_chester 15y ago
- potatolicious 15y ago
  You're right, but the trend in the US is towards more repression, while the trend in China is towards less. We are destroying our middle class, they are creating and growing theirs at an incredible rate. The attitude that I get from a lot of Chinese is that they feel the present government is a necessary evil - i.e., in exchange for many political and religious freedoms, they get progress, and an immense improvement to the quality of life of hundreds of millions... where before there was only starvation and misery. And progress they have gotten, which is more than I can say for us in the last decade or so.
  - Unseelie 15y ago
    The Chineese exchange students, that is, the ones who are not nationalized in America, the off the boat people, at my school think rather differently. They consider the government of China, for the most part, simply the nature of china. It isn't a necessary evil, its just the way things are.
    - stcredzero 15y ago
      They consider the government of China, for the most part, simply the nature of china. It isn't a necessary evil, its just the way things are. This is exactly what is meant by the Chinese "Civilization State." http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/u-s-needs-to-deepen-its-understanding-149449.aspx http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/u-s-needs-to-deepen-its-unde... I've had Chinese coworkers openly feel sorry for me because I have asian features and I don't know how to read/write Chinese characters, and I'm not even Chinese!
  - westiseast 15y ago
    We've all got different friends, but I'd offer a different perspective. Most Chinese I know dislike their government, but are apathetic towards it, or too busy trying to live their own lives. And China is recently tending towards more sophisticated repression, rather than less of it in general. Perhaps the US and China will end up in the same place!
    - stcredzero 15y ago
- jstevens85 15y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imam_Rapito_affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imam_Rapito_affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_El-Masri http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_El-Masri
lotusleaf1987 15y ago
Chomsky has a great quote about this: In the U.S. there is basically one party - The Business Party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations of the same policies. By and large, I am opposed to those policies, as is most of the population. I'm not against business, but it shouldn't be our singular goal as a society.
- lionhearted 15y ago
  You know, I think I get where you're coming from because I felt the same way until I (1) opened up a business, and (2) spent significant time outside the USA. Honestly, the business/commerce in the USA is one of the best things about it. As for Chomsky - well, he's completely discredited to me after comparing his writings about Southeast Asia to spending significant amounts of time in SE Asia. Also the ex-Communist countries. He's a relic from a dead age, who played for the wrong team, and hasn't woken up from it. I've gone into depth on this before, but long story short - North Korea is much worse than South Korea, Taiwan drastically outperformed pre-Deng Xiaoping China, West Germany is still much more developed than East Germany... and it's really obvious that South Vietnam is much worse because it was conquered by North Vietnam. Also, the Khmer Rouge genocide started the same year after American forces withdrew - the Khmer Rouge were emboldened by the American withdrawal. Little known fact - the last recognized battle of the Vietnam War was USA vs. Khmer Rouge, the only military engagement between the two parties before South Asia went from "bad" to "much much worse." Anyway - I know this kind of not an easy to do overnight, but I'd really suggest comparing Chomsky's writings on SE Asia to what happened in SE Asia firsthand if you get the chance. Also, try to engage with a full-time entrepreneur while he's building the early stage of a company. Guaranteed perspective-changer.
  - kentrado 15y ago
    >As for Chomsky - well, he's completely discredited to me after comparing his writings about Southeast Asia to spending significant amounts of time in SE Asia. Also the ex-Communist countries. He's a relic from a dead age. Ad Hominem circumstantial. >Guaranteed perspective-changer. If I was a BP CEO I would have a different perspective on the oil spill, and If I was a Goldman&Sachs CEO I would have a different perspective on the economic crash. Perspectives are not arguments.
Duff 15y ago
Communist governments have usually attracted intellectuals to higher levels of power -- the results so far haven't been uplifting. I don't think that a comparison of the US system vs. China is going to produce a clear "winner", only a list of pros/cons whose weighting will be shaped by your perceptions and bias. The explosive growth of China hides most of the warts of the system. When you have economic growth so fast that new, uninhabited cities get built, there's obviously some excess and policy issues at play. The US is an imperial power, and the conduct of policy and statesmanship changes in that role. While the President is the front-man and sets the agenda, the work is done and policy is made by anonymous officials in the sprawling bureaucracy. And I betcha if you analyzed a Chinese and American bureaucrat, you would find that they look, act and think alike.
- lionhearted 15y ago
  Nuanced comment here, good analysis. I agree with a lot, but two nitpicks about the first point - 1. I'd say Communist movements attract intellectuals. Communist governments usually do not employ those intellectuals for very long after taking power. 2. Despite the name and symbols, I don't think China is actually Communist any more. I don't know what to call them. If they remain a world power and continue to thrive, I'd bet quite a lot that a new word will be coined for their precise political/economic/geographical/military mix - there's quite literally no comps in history for what they're doing right now.
  - Duff 15y ago
    I agree that China no longer fits the traditional definition of "Communist". Then again, Maoism didn't quite fit the mold either. China has a strong societal tradition that is different than the west. While they may not be ideologically communist, China does continue to practice the governance style of communist governments. Think about the Soviet Union's model -- a major part of the Soviet story was purging the old in favor of the new, "scientific" way. China is doing a similar thing, but through different means. The "science" may have been quakery (witness the Aral Sea), but the central planners saw themselves as guided by logic and science, not petty feelings or popularity.
  - 15y ago
Zaak 15y ago
The reason why democracy is a good thing is not because the general public is good at running a country, or even good at selecting people who are good at running a country. The reason why democracy is a good thing is it forces the people in power to care about the effects their decisions have on the general public.
- podperson 15y ago
  Or to put it another way, it's the system that is most likely to throw complete and utter incompetents out of office in a reasonable period of time. "Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill
- electromagnetic 15y ago
  I think democracy is a good thing because it is generally good at keeping the government in line. Even though 90% of what Republicans and Democrats do are the same, it is that they're eternally afraid of the public reaction that they do keep themselves in line. This is even more true in Westminster style Democracies where Members of Parliament can defect on decisions, or defect entirely to another party or go independent. Potentially at any time. Why? Because your local MP is supposed to act on your behalf, and you elect the one that stands for what you do. I know our present conservative government, and Prime Minister, would love to do nothing more than open the election debate and with their majority get some legislation passed. However, they're so afraid of fracturing their government that the PM has out and out said he will not reopen it. Sadly this isn't always so, as here in Canada the NDP has a dozen or so MP's who were essentially placed as seat fillers (in Quebec), but because of a bizarre turn around those padded seats became their entire election campaign.
- anonymoushn 15y ago
  It prevents the people in power from deciding to enslave all right-handed people, but enslaving all left-handed people is still acceptable.
ajkessler 15y ago
I'm not sure China's leadership has shown a more nuanced understanding of policy and statesmanship than America's leadership. First, America has dominated the world for the last 30 years. We've got a lot of public fingers in a lot of public pies as the world's policeman. China takes no such stance. It wants oil, so it supports Sudan genocide. It wants a buffer zone between it and the West, so it supports North Korea. Just like the honey badger, China doesn't give a shit. It's relatively quiet and has tons of cash and (directly)stays out of other people's foreign affairs, so everybody more or less ignores it. I wouldn't call this a particularly nuanced understanding or implementation of foreign affairs policy. Turning to domestic affairs, I wouldn't call China's policies nuanced either. Maybe draconian? Their one-child-per-family policy, their restrictions on speech and travel, their widespread confiscation and displacement, (I could go on) I would call evil, not nuanced. They are booming, and a 10% growth rate will cover up a lot of poor decisions. Their growth is certainly a function of a few smart guys taking the reins and dragging them into the future, but that had a lot to do with last cadre of "smart" guys shackling them to a failed system for 50 years. And it doesn't mean that's the best way forward, either.
- iskander 15y ago
  >Turning to domestic affairs, I wouldn't call China's policies nuanced either. Maybe draconian? Their one-child-per-family policy, their restrictions on speech and travel, their widespread confiscation and displacement, (I could go on) I would call evil, not nuanced. I used to feel the same way until I visited China last year. Their social restrictions really are nuanced! They allow a lot of freedom to the rich/intelligentsia of appropriate ethnic groups and restrict the "restive" segments of their population. A lot of care has gone into the system by which their government maintains control while simultaneously trying to maximize growth and material comfort. It's not just naked oppression.
jxcole 15y ago
http://www.freekorea.us/2011/05/16/un-report-implicates-china-in-n-korea-iran-missile-transfers-china-tries-to-block-said-report/ http://www.freekorea.us/2011/05/16/un-report-implicates-chin...
ramanujan 15y ago
Right. To add to this, in the US system: -- the vast majority of bureaucrats with power over the average man are not elected or even subject to firing -- we do not truly have a system of one man/one vote. the guy who writes the new york times headlines on election day literally controls at least a million votes. -- the candidates who are dubbed "serious" by the media are not chosen at random. By any quantitative theory of political voice, that up front winnowing from 300 million to ten or so is more substantive than the election itself. -- in the business sector, power is wielded with far more responsibility. there is a CEO and an identifiable company behind a product, which can go out of business if it displeases its customers, and which is subject to feedback on an instantaneous basis through purchases. by contrast most govt projects are products of committees, with permanent funding and diluted accountability only in the form of the 2-4 year election cycle. in short, voting with your wallet or voting with your feet means far greater efficacy and voice than going through the ceremony of voting with a ballot. -- Rule by an elite is inevitable. The process by which that elite is selected is everything. The US used to be much more aware of this, referring to itself as a "republic" rather than a "democracy". -- The Chinese model is a lot easier to understand when comparing it to Apple. Should Steve Jobs choose his successor through a plebiscite in which he ostensibly has the same voice as a retail store employee hired yesterday? Or should he choose a leader who he thinks will follow his path? In the latter case legitimacy among Apple employees ultimately rests on the bottom line success of Apple, with the necessary safety valves being exit (freedom to quit) and market (revenue growth) rather than voice (noisily protesting Jobs' successor). In the same way, most Chinese believe that Deng was the best qualified person in China to choose his successor. And legitimacy comes from continually posting solid bottom line numbers, something the US has not done for a while.
teyc 15y ago
I think you also should add to the list that given a choice, people will chose leaders who they are able to like the most. This means that if China's existing leadership is heavily engineering based, the power structures will form in such way that aspiring politicos study engineering. After all, we are all having this debate because we, being engineers, want to see more engineers in high office.

pyre 15y ago

It's maybe a trade-off? Sure we have bozos for politicians in the US, but in the US government corruption usually doesn't lead to people 'disappearing.' Though we're definitely making great strides in that direction.

lionhearted 15y ago
The United States still has, overall, a much better set of governance, courts, regulation, etc. than China. But the USA is trending gradually downwards and China is trending quickly upwards. Now it's interesting, countries can catch up a lot faster than they can lead. If a country is a bit backwards, with the right set of leadership, they can very quickly modernize, becoming extremely important economically and geopolitically in ~30 years when starting almost from scratch. But many of those rapid modernizations peter out once a lot of the proven methods are implemented. Sometimes that means flat growth, like Japan. Sometimes collapse, like Nazi Germany. Sometimes gradual decline, like the USSR. Singapore has done a pretty outstanding job of keeping their upwards trends going and they're about 50 years into their building phase - I think that's the longest rapid sustained modernization in history? So anyways, yes, I'll take the USA's system over China's today. And tomorrow. And probably 5 years from now. But maybe not 20 years from now if all else stays equal, and China can adapt after they've caught most of the low hanging fruit.
- stcredzero 15y ago
  If a country is a bit backwards, with the right set of leadership, they can very quickly modernize, becoming extremely important economically and geopolitically in ~30 years when starting almost from scratch. It's not only leadership. If there is a long track record of commerce and admiration of scholarship, a culture can enable rapid modernization. I think this is why Japan, Korea, and China have done very well for themselves.
  - jacques_chester 15y ago
    Cultural antecedents are not a necessary pre-condition for modernisation. The USSR modernised very rapidly and it started off with mass illiteracy.
    - stcredzero 15y ago
      The USSR modernised very rapidly and it started off with mass illiteracy. Yes, but look at them now. The territories of the former USSR do not constitute the best climate for business. Cultural antecedents are not a necessary pre-condition, but they seem to help.
      - jacques_chester 15y ago
        Fair enough.
- lukeschlather 15y ago
  >But the USA is trending gradually downwards and China is trending quickly upwards. In population, wealth, etc. sure. But in terms of corruption? Having people who do no harm in power is often better than having people who do great good. If a great leader is just that - great. Not good, but great. Greatness has the capacity for evil and good. The advantage of a less skilled leadership is that they're only really able to do middling things, whether middlingly evil or middlingly good.
- jacques_chester 15y ago
potatolicious 15y ago
You're right, but the trend in the US is towards more repression, while the trend in China is towards less. We are destroying our middle class, they are creating and growing theirs at an incredible rate. The attitude that I get from a lot of Chinese is that they feel the present government is a necessary evil - i.e., in exchange for many political and religious freedoms, they get progress, and an immense improvement to the quality of life of hundreds of millions... where before there was only starvation and misery. And progress they have gotten, which is more than I can say for us in the last decade or so.
- Unseelie 15y ago
  The Chineese exchange students, that is, the ones who are not nationalized in America, the off the boat people, at my school think rather differently. They consider the government of China, for the most part, simply the nature of china. It isn't a necessary evil, its just the way things are.
  - stcredzero 15y ago
    They consider the government of China, for the most part, simply the nature of china. It isn't a necessary evil, its just the way things are. This is exactly what is meant by the Chinese "Civilization State." http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/u-s-needs-to-deepen-its-understanding-149449.aspx http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/u-s-needs-to-deepen-its-unde... I've had Chinese coworkers openly feel sorry for me because I have asian features and I don't know how to read/write Chinese characters, and I'm not even Chinese!
- westiseast 15y ago
  We've all got different friends, but I'd offer a different perspective. Most Chinese I know dislike their government, but are apathetic towards it, or too busy trying to live their own lives. And China is recently tending towards more sophisticated repression, rather than less of it in general. Perhaps the US and China will end up in the same place!
  - stcredzero 15y ago
jstevens85 15y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imam_Rapito_affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imam_Rapito_affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_El-Masri http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_El-Masri

lotusleaf1987 15y ago

Chomsky has a great quote about this: In the U.S. there is basically one party - The Business Party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations of the same policies. By and large, I am opposed to those policies, as is most of the population. I'm not against business, but it shouldn't be our singular goal as a society.

lionhearted 15y ago
You know, I think I get where you're coming from because I felt the same way until I (1) opened up a business, and (2) spent significant time outside the USA. Honestly, the business/commerce in the USA is one of the best things about it. As for Chomsky - well, he's completely discredited to me after comparing his writings about Southeast Asia to spending significant amounts of time in SE Asia. Also the ex-Communist countries. He's a relic from a dead age, who played for the wrong team, and hasn't woken up from it. I've gone into depth on this before, but long story short - North Korea is much worse than South Korea, Taiwan drastically outperformed pre-Deng Xiaoping China, West Germany is still much more developed than East Germany... and it's really obvious that South Vietnam is much worse because it was conquered by North Vietnam. Also, the Khmer Rouge genocide started the same year after American forces withdrew - the Khmer Rouge were emboldened by the American withdrawal. Little known fact - the last recognized battle of the Vietnam War was USA vs. Khmer Rouge, the only military engagement between the two parties before South Asia went from "bad" to "much much worse." Anyway - I know this kind of not an easy to do overnight, but I'd really suggest comparing Chomsky's writings on SE Asia to what happened in SE Asia firsthand if you get the chance. Also, try to engage with a full-time entrepreneur while he's building the early stage of a company. Guaranteed perspective-changer.
- kentrado 15y ago
  >As for Chomsky - well, he's completely discredited to me after comparing his writings about Southeast Asia to spending significant amounts of time in SE Asia. Also the ex-Communist countries. He's a relic from a dead age. Ad Hominem circumstantial. >Guaranteed perspective-changer. If I was a BP CEO I would have a different perspective on the oil spill, and If I was a Goldman&Sachs CEO I would have a different perspective on the economic crash. Perspectives are not arguments.

Duff 15y ago

Communist governments have usually attracted intellectuals to higher levels of power -- the results so far haven't been uplifting. I don't think that a comparison of the US system vs. China is going to produce a clear "winner", only a list of pros/cons whose weighting will be shaped by your perceptions and bias. The explosive growth of China hides most of the warts of the system. When you have economic growth so fast that new, uninhabited cities get built, there's obviously some excess and policy issues at play. The US is an imperial power, and the conduct of policy and statesmanship changes in that role. While the President is the front-man and sets the agenda, the work is done and policy is made by anonymous officials in the sprawling bureaucracy. And I betcha if you analyzed a Chinese and American bureaucrat, you would find that they look, act and think alike.

lionhearted 15y ago
Nuanced comment here, good analysis. I agree with a lot, but two nitpicks about the first point - 1. I'd say Communist movements attract intellectuals. Communist governments usually do not employ those intellectuals for very long after taking power. 2. Despite the name and symbols, I don't think China is actually Communist any more. I don't know what to call them. If they remain a world power and continue to thrive, I'd bet quite a lot that a new word will be coined for their precise political/economic/geographical/military mix - there's quite literally no comps in history for what they're doing right now.
- Duff 15y ago
  I agree that China no longer fits the traditional definition of "Communist". Then again, Maoism didn't quite fit the mold either. China has a strong societal tradition that is different than the west. While they may not be ideologically communist, China does continue to practice the governance style of communist governments. Think about the Soviet Union's model -- a major part of the Soviet story was purging the old in favor of the new, "scientific" way. China is doing a similar thing, but through different means. The "science" may have been quakery (witness the Aral Sea), but the central planners saw themselves as guided by logic and science, not petty feelings or popularity.
- 15y ago

Zaak 15y ago

The reason why democracy is a good thing is not because the general public is good at running a country, or even good at selecting people who are good at running a country. The reason why democracy is a good thing is it forces the people in power to care about the effects their decisions have on the general public.

podperson 15y ago
Or to put it another way, it's the system that is most likely to throw complete and utter incompetents out of office in a reasonable period of time. "Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill
electromagnetic 15y ago
I think democracy is a good thing because it is generally good at keeping the government in line. Even though 90% of what Republicans and Democrats do are the same, it is that they're eternally afraid of the public reaction that they do keep themselves in line. This is even more true in Westminster style Democracies where Members of Parliament can defect on decisions, or defect entirely to another party or go independent. Potentially at any time. Why? Because your local MP is supposed to act on your behalf, and you elect the one that stands for what you do. I know our present conservative government, and Prime Minister, would love to do nothing more than open the election debate and with their majority get some legislation passed. However, they're so afraid of fracturing their government that the PM has out and out said he will not reopen it. Sadly this isn't always so, as here in Canada the NDP has a dozen or so MP's who were essentially placed as seat fillers (in Quebec), but because of a bizarre turn around those padded seats became their entire election campaign.
anonymoushn 15y ago
It prevents the people in power from deciding to enslave all right-handed people, but enslaving all left-handed people is still acceptable.

ajkessler 15y ago

I'm not sure China's leadership has shown a more nuanced understanding of policy and statesmanship than America's leadership. First, America has dominated the world for the last 30 years. We've got a lot of public fingers in a lot of public pies as the world's policeman. China takes no such stance. It wants oil, so it supports Sudan genocide. It wants a buffer zone between it and the West, so it supports North Korea. Just like the honey badger, China doesn't give a shit. It's relatively quiet and has tons of cash and (directly)stays out of other people's foreign affairs, so everybody more or less ignores it. I wouldn't call this a particularly nuanced understanding or implementation of foreign affairs policy. Turning to domestic affairs, I wouldn't call China's policies nuanced either. Maybe draconian? Their one-child-per-family policy, their restrictions on speech and travel, their widespread confiscation and displacement, (I could go on) I would call evil, not nuanced. They are booming, and a 10% growth rate will cover up a lot of poor decisions. Their growth is certainly a function of a few smart guys taking the reins and dragging them into the future, but that had a lot to do with last cadre of "smart" guys shackling them to a failed system for 50 years. And it doesn't mean that's the best way forward, either.

iskander 15y ago
>Turning to domestic affairs, I wouldn't call China's policies nuanced either. Maybe draconian? Their one-child-per-family policy, their restrictions on speech and travel, their widespread confiscation and displacement, (I could go on) I would call evil, not nuanced. I used to feel the same way until I visited China last year. Their social restrictions really are nuanced! They allow a lot of freedom to the rich/intelligentsia of appropriate ethnic groups and restrict the "restive" segments of their population. A lot of care has gone into the system by which their government maintains control while simultaneously trying to maximize growth and material comfort. It's not just naked oppression.

jxcole 15y ago

http://www.freekorea.us/2011/05/16/un-report-implicates-china-in-n-korea-iran-missile-transfers-china-tries-to-block-said-report/ http://www.freekorea.us/2011/05/16/un-report-implicates-chin...

ramanujan 15y ago

Right. To add to this, in the US system: -- the vast majority of bureaucrats with power over the average man are not elected or even subject to firing -- we do not truly have a system of one man/one vote. the guy who writes the new york times headlines on election day literally controls at least a million votes. -- the candidates who are dubbed "serious" by the media are not chosen at random. By any quantitative theory of political voice, that up front winnowing from 300 million to ten or so is more substantive than the election itself. -- in the business sector, power is wielded with far more responsibility. there is a CEO and an identifiable company behind a product, which can go out of business if it displeases its customers, and which is subject to feedback on an instantaneous basis through purchases. by contrast most govt projects are products of committees, with permanent funding and diluted accountability only in the form of the 2-4 year election cycle. in short, voting with your wallet or voting with your feet means far greater efficacy and voice than going through the ceremony of voting with a ballot. -- Rule by an elite is inevitable. The process by which that elite is selected is everything. The US used to be much more aware of this, referring to itself as a "republic" rather than a "democracy". -- The Chinese model is a lot easier to understand when comparing it to Apple. Should Steve Jobs choose his successor through a plebiscite in which he ostensibly has the same voice as a retail store employee hired yesterday? Or should he choose a leader who he thinks will follow his path? In the latter case legitimacy among Apple employees ultimately rests on the bottom line success of Apple, with the necessary safety valves being exit (freedom to quit) and market (revenue growth) rather than voice (noisily protesting Jobs' successor). In the same way, most Chinese believe that Deng was the best qualified person in China to choose his successor. And legitimacy comes from continually posting solid bottom line numbers, something the US has not done for a while.

teyc 15y ago

I think you also should add to the list that given a choice, people will chose leaders who they are able to like the most. This means that if China's existing leadership is heavily engineering based, the power structures will form in such way that aspiring politicos study engineering. After all, we are all having this debate because we, being engineers, want to see more engineers in high office.