For historians Democracy is not something given by the Founding Fathers, quiet the contrary that was a country ruled by landed wealthy white male gentry. The evolution toward a broader representation was stage by stage a battle, but America’s pride and its selling point to the world that it happened.
This year’s primaries in both parties rolled out of considerable citizen discontent and the choices that occurred and the lack of support for those chosen is not a matter of pride, nor is the charge that ‘money rules’ since Citizens United ruling. Is this better that rule by an authoritarian party?
‘Yes’ sounds right. But time to admire that we have a dysfunctional government at each federal level and difficult to see that changing soon. Maybe the Chinese are correct; we need something better and a way to find it if that is possible.
This year’s primaries in both parties rolled out of considerable citizen discontent and the choices that occurred and the lack of support for those chosen is not a matter of pride, nor is the charge that ‘money rules’ since Citizens United ruling. Is this better that rule by an authoritarian party?
‘Yes’ sounds right. But time to admire that we have a dysfunctional government at each federal level and difficult to see that changing soon. Maybe the Chinese are correct; we need something better and a way to find it if that is possible.
Had the Chinese Communist Party had to face up to public scrutiny by way of a free press, maybe its leaders' excesses would have been held in check. And maybe the biggest death toll ever exacted on any civil population in the history of the world would not have come to pass.
Why should Americans,(with enough problems of our own) ever bother to so much as care what a bunch of people, who get ALL their news filtered through government censors and analysts, think?
I have watched the carefully doctored and trimmed Chinese news on numerous US English language channels in NYC, and I inevitably find my blood pressure rising, as I realize that the viewers seem to accept the version of truth and reality presented by Chinese announcers with total calmness and the assumption that there can be no greater truth than news presented by intelligent and accurate Chinese Communist networks.
I suppose were I a Chinese and nationalistic also, I too, would be easily programed to accept the pap which these official opinion shapers present. Surely, after so many years of listening to and reading similar lies in Chinese, it must be easy and reassuring for such a people, so genetically homogenous, to believe that whatever a Chinese official says to them on TV, in Chinese, presented by the Chinese communist officially sponsored, censored and owned or allowed outlet must be ,of course, factual.
So good to be a Chinese; to have blind faith in all things Chinese!
Such a simple step to assume that all Chinese are truth tellers and good, and have wonderful government; while all filthy, ugly, big nosed and offensive smelling foreigners suffer like the idiots and criminal fools they are.
So sad they do not live in veritable paradise that is the Middle Kingdom!
I have watched the carefully doctored and trimmed Chinese news on numerous US English language channels in NYC, and I inevitably find my blood pressure rising, as I realize that the viewers seem to accept the version of truth and reality presented by Chinese announcers with total calmness and the assumption that there can be no greater truth than news presented by intelligent and accurate Chinese Communist networks.
I suppose were I a Chinese and nationalistic also, I too, would be easily programed to accept the pap which these official opinion shapers present. Surely, after so many years of listening to and reading similar lies in Chinese, it must be easy and reassuring for such a people, so genetically homogenous, to believe that whatever a Chinese official says to them on TV, in Chinese, presented by the Chinese communist officially sponsored, censored and owned or allowed outlet must be ,of course, factual.
So good to be a Chinese; to have blind faith in all things Chinese!
Such a simple step to assume that all Chinese are truth tellers and good, and have wonderful government; while all filthy, ugly, big nosed and offensive smelling foreigners suffer like the idiots and criminal fools they are.
So sad they do not live in veritable paradise that is the Middle Kingdom!
Little recognizable in your perceptions of China. It is filled with people of all sorts, many extremely intelligent and the control of the media a well know fact. As a waiguoren or foreigner I find people curious but generally courteous and those who know me most kind. As to bias Fox New is a know quality to any thinking person and American media does have owners who largely influence content directly or indirectly. Truly.
Really? For China's leaders (as with any totalitarian leaders) waking up in the morning makes the case for one party rule. Having lunch and a nap makes the case for one party rule. I could make a looong list, but the point is people will find any and every excuse to justify their viewpoint, especially those who make a living out of imposing their views and edicts on others.
Iranian hardliners decided to allow the second American Presidential debate to be broadcast live on Iranian television because they knew it would damage America's reputation among Iranians.
Those who have been paying attention have known that the American Congress doesn't just contain, but is actually run, by men and women of the same type as Trump.
Yet American democracy through the ages has shown the capacity to regenerate.
Just don't make us wait too long.
Those who have been paying attention have known that the American Congress doesn't just contain, but is actually run, by men and women of the same type as Trump.
Yet American democracy through the ages has shown the capacity to regenerate.
Just don't make us wait too long.
It will be interesting to see how Xinhua and its ilk are instructed to respond to a Hillary Clinton victory (should such come to pass).
In any event, I think that the apparatchiks of the Communist Party of China who indulge this sort of gloating are a little challenged when it comes to understanding just how unpopular members of their own party are. They certainly cannot be unaware of just how venal many of their fellow party members can be, since they often direct the Party-controlled news media to run stories in support of Xi Jinping's anti-corruption campaign.
I also suspect that not a few senior Communist Party officials also know just how angry people in China get when they think of the inordinate privileges that Party members with official positions have accorded themselves--and how abusive they can be when they have access to the levers of political power.
In any event, I think that the apparatchiks of the Communist Party of China who indulge this sort of gloating are a little challenged when it comes to understanding just how unpopular members of their own party are. They certainly cannot be unaware of just how venal many of their fellow party members can be, since they often direct the Party-controlled news media to run stories in support of Xi Jinping's anti-corruption campaign.
I also suspect that not a few senior Communist Party officials also know just how angry people in China get when they think of the inordinate privileges that Party members with official positions have accorded themselves--and how abusive they can be when they have access to the levers of political power.
2
Regardless the number of parties in each country, the final purpose is to find a good person the government taking care of its people. If two-party country is better than 1 party country, will three-party country better than two-party country? We have two dominant parties among many small never-heard of parties. China has 1 dominant party among many small never-heard of parties as well. So don't be confused with the issue of getting the best candidate. Unfortunately, we cannot get out of the current two-party system, and China cannot get out of their 1-party system. And the worst is that at least China's 1-party system on the surface seems to respond better to their people's demands than our 2-party system to our demands.
1
Smug and self-righteous. At least the world knows what's going on in the US, while in China...
3
No doubt the Chinese leadership must be relieved that it doesn't have to deal with partisan politics and brinkmanship like the US. But its one-party rule lacks legitimacy and can't be as widely accepted as a representative government.
Western democracy with its flaws and imperfections is still more preferable than dictatorship. Voters do make mistakes sometimes, but the country learns from them. History shows that democratic elections could also be hijacked by populists who later became dictators - Hitler, Mussolini. In recent years it has become more difficult for democracies to remain relevant and representative - the rise of illiberal democracy in Hungary, Poland, Russia, that curbs political freedoms. Meanwhile we complain about political paralysis and democratic deficit in the European Union reflecting the Zeitgeist of our era.
In China people have no way to elect their government. But they aren't worse off than countries with hereditary dictatorship like in North Korea. People in Libya, Egypt and Syria have showed that they reject family dictatorships and cronyism in their countries.
Western democracy with its flaws and imperfections is still more preferable than dictatorship. Voters do make mistakes sometimes, but the country learns from them. History shows that democratic elections could also be hijacked by populists who later became dictators - Hitler, Mussolini. In recent years it has become more difficult for democracies to remain relevant and representative - the rise of illiberal democracy in Hungary, Poland, Russia, that curbs political freedoms. Meanwhile we complain about political paralysis and democratic deficit in the European Union reflecting the Zeitgeist of our era.
In China people have no way to elect their government. But they aren't worse off than countries with hereditary dictatorship like in North Korea. People in Libya, Egypt and Syria have showed that they reject family dictatorships and cronyism in their countries.
3
Chinese depicting Trump and Clinton as puppets of wealthy elites, competing to do their masters’ bidding, is a classic case of people living in glass houses throwing stones.
Chinese communist leadership evidently believe that ordinary Chinese are unworthy of free democracy Chinese leaders know that Chinese nationalists can turn against the Party if they appear too weak to deal with external pressures.
China today is the world's fastest growing economy. But Susan Shirk in Fragile Superpower, finds that the real paradox of astonishing growth is the deep insecurity of its leaders. More developed and prosperous the country becomes, the more insecure and threatened the leaders feel. Susan offers insight into how the Chinese leaders think and fear. It is the fragile communist regime desperate to survive in a society turned upside down by miraculous economic growth and a stunning new openness of fully networked world.
In a long time frame, one could have a debate about which system whether the China’s command-and-control system was very helpful or proving to be handicap. China spends about 9 times that of India on R&D, but by many solid measures of R&D output, India’s R&D output is about half that of China. So the productivity of R&D investment in China is pitifully small as compared to India.
The only explanation is the difference in political systems. Jury is still out on how the two economies will compare with each other in the second half of the 21st century.
Chinese communist leadership evidently believe that ordinary Chinese are unworthy of free democracy Chinese leaders know that Chinese nationalists can turn against the Party if they appear too weak to deal with external pressures.
China today is the world's fastest growing economy. But Susan Shirk in Fragile Superpower, finds that the real paradox of astonishing growth is the deep insecurity of its leaders. More developed and prosperous the country becomes, the more insecure and threatened the leaders feel. Susan offers insight into how the Chinese leaders think and fear. It is the fragile communist regime desperate to survive in a society turned upside down by miraculous economic growth and a stunning new openness of fully networked world.
In a long time frame, one could have a debate about which system whether the China’s command-and-control system was very helpful or proving to be handicap. China spends about 9 times that of India on R&D, but by many solid measures of R&D output, India’s R&D output is about half that of China. So the productivity of R&D investment in China is pitifully small as compared to India.
The only explanation is the difference in political systems. Jury is still out on how the two economies will compare with each other in the second half of the 21st century.
2
I disagree with you that the more developed and prosperous the country becomes, the more insecure and threatened leaders feel. Some of the least free countries, where leaders can execute the opposition with impunity and control the press with a free hand, are the poorest and least developed. Development and economics doesn't necessarily guarantee freedom as some would argue. But they don't necessarily preclude it, as you suggest.
Does anyone believe that China is the only country in the world that is disgusted by the state of U.S. politics?
Imagine your polling numbers in Paris.
Imagine your polling numbers in Paris.
2
Yeah....The french just run out and vote for fascists like marine Le Pen. Please.
@john
An English friend commenting on the first debate:
“Trump won it; only because she is more despicable than he is outrageous.
That said, I'd rather live in The Yemen that a country run by either.”
The V.Pres. debate was embarrassing to watch as each tried to launch the approved statements and turned off after less than 5 minutes. My country of choice would be China where I have no input – as in fact in America – but people have rising expectations, pleasing to watch.
I did give a chunk of change to Bernie's cause but knew he had no chance when his numbers rose.
An English friend commenting on the first debate:
“Trump won it; only because she is more despicable than he is outrageous.
That said, I'd rather live in The Yemen that a country run by either.”
The V.Pres. debate was embarrassing to watch as each tried to launch the approved statements and turned off after less than 5 minutes. My country of choice would be China where I have no input – as in fact in America – but people have rising expectations, pleasing to watch.
I did give a chunk of change to Bernie's cause but knew he had no chance when his numbers rose.
"Even before the most recent scandal involving Donald J. Trump, the Chinese news media has depicted him and Hillary Clinton as puppets of wealthy elites." Depicted? Depicted?? They ARE both puppets of wealthy elites. As was Obama. As was Clinton before him. An observant child knows this much. As Ralph Nader famously noted back in 2000, "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties." The fact that you may not wish to admit this painful, inconvenient truth makes it no less true. Americans walk about in a cloud of illusion, encouraged in the fantasy that they still live in a functioning democracy where there is real choice, by the Kabuki Theater which are our four year national elections. Both candidates have been thoroughly approved by the 1%. Thanks for your contribution and participation in the continuing farce, children; you've served your ceremonial function quite honorably. See you in 2020.
8
Ah, yes. Ralph Nader. Surely an infallible prophet and authority on all that's wrong with the world...
Yes, the two main parties in the United States have been too willing to tilt the economic playing field in ways that favour wealthy individuals and major corporations. But puppets?
Do you really think that the alleged puppet masters wanted the present train wreck of an election campaign, with the head clown threatening to destroy the Republican Party altogether?
Your claims don't wash.
Yes, the two main parties in the United States have been too willing to tilt the economic playing field in ways that favour wealthy individuals and major corporations. But puppets?
Do you really think that the alleged puppet masters wanted the present train wreck of an election campaign, with the head clown threatening to destroy the Republican Party altogether?
Your claims don't wash.
1
ralph nader showed conclusively that there is a lot more than a dime's difference between the two parties. too bad he wiped out most of the good he had previously done by succumbing to a grandiose egotism.
i don't know anyone who has half a brain who thinks this country is a functioning democracy, except maybe in small towns.
the most disturbing view i run into is that since our system is less than perfect is must be completely broken, and since it's completely broken it's going to break. the premise is ok, but the logic is not.
i don't know anyone who has half a brain who thinks this country is a functioning democracy, except maybe in small towns.
the most disturbing view i run into is that since our system is less than perfect is must be completely broken, and since it's completely broken it's going to break. the premise is ok, but the logic is not.
@ A Canadian
There is an effective Ruling Elite, but disagreement within it. It spends the money and makes the promises that form the controlling beneficial effects of government with all parties reaping rewards. Not very different in effect than the struggles within the CCP but play on a much more open stage. One system hides behind an ideology the other a myth. The rising stars in China come from a claimed meritorious system impressive in comparison to most politicians. See Daniel A. Bell’s publications for the argument, such as it is.
There is an effective Ruling Elite, but disagreement within it. It spends the money and makes the promises that form the controlling beneficial effects of government with all parties reaping rewards. Not very different in effect than the struggles within the CCP but play on a much more open stage. One system hides behind an ideology the other a myth. The rising stars in China come from a claimed meritorious system impressive in comparison to most politicians. See Daniel A. Bell’s publications for the argument, such as it is.
It makes perfect sense for the Chinese to support Clinton. Trump calls China out on their shenanigans like currency manipulation, cyber espionage and engaging in unsavory trade practices. They know that their pillaging of US wealth will be over if Trump is elected president.
Clinton will keep the status quo that currently enables China to suck the US dry while she and her global elite cronies laugh their way to the bank.
Clinton will keep the status quo that currently enables China to suck the US dry while she and her global elite cronies laugh their way to the bank.
This headline is ridiculous. China isn't a "one-party" state. It's a no-party state. China doesn't have genuine politics at all. That's the point.
7
Democracy takes many forms around the world. Recent events in the US, including the coming election, have shown that our particular system does not always produce the best results. Still, I think we are better off tinkering with it than opting for a single-party system. Our Chinese friends would probably agree that their system has not yet produced an ideal society, either, and they are undoubtedly looking for modifications that will lead to happier outcomes.
3
There is a saying: Democracy is the very worst form of government, except for every other kind.
8
The source is Winston Churchill.
2
Ms Wu's comment ("There's no real democracy. Or, we can say that democracy is also a system dominated by interests.") is insightful and extends to all forms of social and public management. It is unavoidable that we will suffer from world-class narcissistic megalomania...
Yes, there is a nationalist trend in the United States (and elsewhere). The United States is a great nation. But the confidence of its people is shaken. We feel the responsibility to promote and protect democracy. It has worked for us over these past 240 years. But it has become stressed from influences that could not be foreseen 240 years ago...
The American Dream is changing on many levels and this is very painful. The responses of the American public to this election cycle express the frustration of that change. The American "world leadership" role, that began concurrent with a new emerging China, is also changing...
During much of the past 65 years, the United States could influence the world. In general, our strategic intentions were good even when some of our tactical choices were poor. The state of US democracy at this time exhibits the turmoil of a revolution, one that I hope can be settled out in our public network with a minimum of violence and destruction...
I doubt Donald Trump could, within 18 months, easily penetrate and assume power in a single party system of governance. That privilege would have to be earned. He could not do that without his public support. A choice made from anger...
Yes, there is a nationalist trend in the United States (and elsewhere). The United States is a great nation. But the confidence of its people is shaken. We feel the responsibility to promote and protect democracy. It has worked for us over these past 240 years. But it has become stressed from influences that could not be foreseen 240 years ago...
The American Dream is changing on many levels and this is very painful. The responses of the American public to this election cycle express the frustration of that change. The American "world leadership" role, that began concurrent with a new emerging China, is also changing...
During much of the past 65 years, the United States could influence the world. In general, our strategic intentions were good even when some of our tactical choices were poor. The state of US democracy at this time exhibits the turmoil of a revolution, one that I hope can be settled out in our public network with a minimum of violence and destruction...
I doubt Donald Trump could, within 18 months, easily penetrate and assume power in a single party system of governance. That privilege would have to be earned. He could not do that without his public support. A choice made from anger...
1
“I feel that the American people generally are also nationalist and very frightening.” That’s a projection and a half.
2
Our experiment in democracy is messy and there is no guarantee that it will survive unless the American people cherish it. We are struggling here against an American oligarchy of business and inherited wealth that disdains common people of all backgrounds. A key reason to want democracy is that it allows common people to at least have a fighting chance of not becoming a means to the ends of others with power.
WE here have much in common with the people of China. We all do not want our children and ourselves to be the means to the ends of others. Democracy is the messy answer. -Rudy
WE here have much in common with the people of China. We all do not want our children and ourselves to be the means to the ends of others. Democracy is the messy answer. -Rudy
7
The Chinese acting out their ignorance over our system is not surprising. They only know and understand autocratic dictatorship. In actuality, there are enough Chinese afoot in China who would welcome more American style freedoms and would dispose of one party rule in a second.
4
Democracy is WAY overvalued: it is an inefficient and unstable governing system that can only make short term plans at the expense of the long ones. So many tribes and nations tried democracy throughout history and they all quickly failed and gave way to either autocracy or authoritarianism. To those who argue the west is a prime example of successful democracy I say this: Seriously? Anyone who took history lessons would know that it is no so. The 'success' of the west was due to shameless imperialism and colonialism: the systematic genocide or enslavement of natives. Also, democracy did not 'win' the world war 2 as many thinks: It was the Stalin's iron fist that crushed the Nazi Germany and saved the 'free world.' The history of real liberal democracy is only about 70 years old: right after the end of world war 2, and the result was a dismal failure as shown by the 2008 economic crises. When you look at the nations that rose to power after 1945, they all have one thing in common: their rise of economic and national prestige was led by authoritarian leaders. Such examples are South Korea's General Park Chung Hee, Taiwan's General Chiang kai shek, Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew, China's Deng Xiaoping, and Russia's Vladimir Putin. When authoritarian governments in South Korea and Taiwan gave up power and allowed democracy to return, the two nations entered into a decline just like the one being experienced by the west. 21st century will be the century of Authoritarianism.
4
I've been told by more than one friend from the Mainland that Donald Trump is what they think all Americans are like..
One party rule can work, if only you are lucky to have a group of government officials that are all perfect without personal agendas, free of greed, a mix of saint and superman.