3 ms·

I can't get to the New Yorker article but this is a theme starting to play out in the US Press. From March 8th: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/world/move-ove

I can't get to the New Yorker article but this is a theme starting to play out in the US Press. From March 8th: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/world/move-over-mao-beloved-papa-xi-awes-china.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/world/move-over-mao-belove... “You can see the whole Chinese propaganda machine has geared up to promote his personality,” said Xiao Qiang, an adjunct professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who monitors developments in Chinese media and censorship for the website China Digital Times. “It’s become over the top.” While many Chinese welcome a strong, plain-speaking leader, critics say the zealous promotion of Mr. Xi has begun to show some of the hallmarks of a personality cult, alarming those who see echoes of the hubris that engulfed Mao." I think XI has been in power long enough that it's safe to start to call out trends like this if they're apparent. To me it's chicken and the egg. Do you need to have this type of unassailable position if you're going to root out very powerful corrupt peers/figures? Or do you root our very powerful peers so you can have an unassailable position? Or does 1 morph into 2 after time?

hackuser 12y ago
> To me it's chicken and the egg. Do you need to have this type of unassailable position if you're going to root out very powerful corrupt peers/figures? Or do you root our very powerful peers so you can have an unassailable position? I wonder about the premise: I think the widely accepted theory is that 'assailability' and corruption have an inverse relationship; that is, the less assailable you are the more likely you are to be corrupt. I think the real chicken and egg question is, 'do you need an unssailable position to root out your political opposition, or do you need to root out your political opposition to become unassailable'. Democratic leaders are far more assailable -- they have limited power, they can be removed from office, and they are open to public attacks by the media, the public, and competing politicans -- but are considered, partly for that reason, to be less corrupt.

hackuser 12y ago

> To me it's chicken and the egg. Do you need to have this type of unassailable position if you're going to root out very powerful corrupt peers/figures? Or do you root our very powerful peers so you can have an unassailable position? I wonder about the premise: I think the widely accepted theory is that 'assailability' and corruption have an inverse relationship; that is, the less assailable you are the more likely you are to be corrupt. I think the real chicken and egg question is, 'do you need an unssailable position to root out your political opposition, or do you need to root out your political opposition to become unassailable'. Democratic leaders are far more assailable -- they have limited power, they can be removed from office, and they are open to public attacks by the media, the public, and competing politicans -- but are considered, partly for that reason, to be less corrupt.