Last week, New York Times op-ed columnist Thomas Friedman wrote an interesting piece titled “Our One-Party Democracy” with an introductory paragraph in which he utters the line:
There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.
This ruffled many feathers, including those of The Peking Duck’s Richard Burger, prompting him to write “China’s reasonably enlightened autocracy“. While conceding that while Friedman has a point, he objected and argued that Friedman should have said more about the flaws and problems with China’s one-party autocracy:
But you, Tom, have a debt to your readers, too: you have to tell them that the price of an enlightened autocracy is always less representation, the law being carried out by whim, and a curtailment of freedoms that many of us would never sacrifice, no matter how wise and magnanimous our leaders may appear. And when you’re praising China’s great strides, don’t forget that at the same time, it’s still trapped in a straitjacket that’s at least partially of its own making): extreme environmental fragility, overwhelming poverty and an economy that’s far more tenuous than immediately meets the eye.
Barring some technical quibbles over what defines an “enlightened” autocracy, Richard’s point is clear. But…doesn’t it remind you of Chinese people complaining about negative Western media reports of China, whining about them being unbalanced because they don’t include a mention of China’s accomplishments, successes, and progress?
The West would dismiss these Chinese, arguing that it is patently silly that they “must” or “ought to” include admissions of what China has done right or well, especially when they are irrelevant to the point of the negative criticism being advanced. Yet, when someone says something positive about China, the West is quick to condemn that person for not including enough reminders of what’s negative about China even when they are likewise irrelevant to the point being advanced?
This is bias. Juxtaposed and in action.
Is there malicious, even shamelessly malicious, intent behind this bias? Certainly with some. Certainly not with everyone. I’d venture to say certainly not with Richard. He’s made significant strides towards being fair to both sides of controversial and contentious China issues over the years and, while I use him to illustrate this one half of this hypocritical behavior, I’m not singling him out. The point is: this attitude is certainly bias.
This attitude of “but you need to tell them the bad things about China too” also shows a certain insecurity, as if people reading the article are so stupid and gullible that they need to be reminded that “wait, America is still better!” You know what? They very well may be. They may be sitting there with stars in their eyes ready to leap out of their chairs towards their suitcases and pack up to move to the golden mountain that is China. But, this still reveals our insecurities.
We have to remind ourselves, our own, and others of what’s bad about “them” in order to feel good about ourselves, what is ours, and “us”.
And doesn’t this also remind you of China and the Chinese too? Doesn’t it remind us of all our criticisms of the Chinese government for all the propaganda, both subtle and overt, it disseminates reminding their own populace of the flaws and problems of the West? We laugh at their insecurity, their desperate attempts to nitpick and malign us, arguing that it is all a Communist government ploy to keep their citizens from envying the green grass on the other side of the fence, revolting, or even demanding faster progress. We denigrate them.
Why does Friedman owe a debt to his readers? When did Americans become so insecure about their political system next to China’s? When did Americans need to be reminded of how different or how much worse China is compared to the United States? When did Americans need to balance out praise with criticism, admission with caution…when we justified criticism without praise, caution without admission?
This is insecurity. Equal and embarrassing.
With less pun and more knee-jerk outrage were the ruffled feathers over at Gawker in a post titled “Thomas Friedman Demands Communist Revolution” for optimum search-engine traffic and click-throughs.
Flat-earther Times columnist Thomas Friedman thinks we should probably “outsource” our form of government to China, where they have streamlined the whole process by eliminating the bit where idiots “vote.”
No, seriously, he is outright saying that the autocratic one-party Chinese government is superior to our own. There is no equivocation in this line:
There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.
It continues:
And why are things better in China? Because the current “reasonably enlightened group of people” in charge of China, at the moment, can just impose “politically difficult but critically important policies” like raising gas prices to encourage clean power investment and so on.
So, yes, the party may be increasingly corrupt and full of the Princeling children of former Communist party officials, the party may stoke violence against ethnic minorities, it may censor the media and lock up journalists and cheerfully ignore human rights, but at least they can get cap-and-trade passed.
Like The Peking Duck, Gawker felt compelled to respond to Friedman’s editorial by rattling off the laundry list of bad things about China: lack of suffrage, corruption, nepotism, ethnic tensions, censorship, and human rights violations (amongst others).
Charles Custer of ChinaGeeks noted it too in his post, “Western Media Bias: The Little Things“, writing (with my emphases):
In point of fact, Friedman’s column isn’t even really about China, it just uses China as an example. And in terms of the things he’s talking about, it’s pretty hard to argue that China isn’t in a better position than the US. But, God forbid, he said something good about China, so someone was sure to take the bait [referring to Gawker].
In “Thomas Friedman Demands Communist Revolution” (clearly, they’re going for subtlety here), Gawker takes aim at the straw-man argument that China’s political system is unequivocally better than the US:
And straw-man argument it is. Friedman does not demand Communist revolution. He does not think Americans should outsource America’s form of government to China (see Iraq). He does not unequivocally say “the autocratic one-party Chinese government is superior” to America’s own government. Friedman did not write “Everything in China is better than America” or “China’s one-party autocracy is better than democracy.”
Let’s go back to what he did write:
Watching both the health care and climate/energy debates in Congress, it is hard not to draw the following conclusion: There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.
Emphases mine. Friedman’s introductory paragraph is laced with conditional statements. He is specifically referring to what he believes to be a “one-party democracy” that exists in today’s America with regards to the issues of health care and climate/energy. The question going through our heads should not be “what?! he said China is better than America?!” but rather “what does he mean by ‘one-party democracy’?”
People who jumped on Friedman here jumped the gun. Carelessly misunderstanding Friedman’s point is only slightly less shameful than the intellectual dishonesty of intentionally misrepresenting his point. Gawker cherry-picked the quote, divorcing it from its context, and presented it the most damning evidence in support of their straw-man argument.
In reality, all Friedman is echoing is the old political fact that autocratic political systems have more efficient (not necessarily better) decision-making processes. What’s wrong with this? It’s true. And so what? Americans and the democratic West consciously gave this up. They thought long and hard and decided they’d rather have less efficient decision-making processes for what they felt was safer for protecting their self-accorded rights. Friedman is stating the obvious.
So why does stating something that is obvious attract so much American resentment and accusations of communist betrayal? Aside from the fact that it brings in pageviews, it’s — at least partially — due to the fact that some Americans and Westerners can be every bit as biased and insecure as the Chinese they ridicule. The mere suggestion by Friedman that there is something enviable about China, regardless of what it is explicitly limited to, brings out genuine disbelief and shock as people demand: “Yeah, but how dare you! What about…”
This is bias and insecurity. Unintelligent but for the shrill clicks it earns.
Photo of Thomas Friedman by Charles Haynes (CC-BY-SA).
-
Is American hegemony tied to its aptitude for soccer (er, football)? Is Transformers 2 really just a big commercial for the United States to sell its weapons?
-
Americans outraged by the Empire State Building honoring the People’s Republic of China’s 60th anniversary with red and yellow lighting reveal their own bias & hypocrisy.
-
Why authoritarian China is defying Western democratic expectations by not failing & imploding…and how foreigners indeed interfere with its internal affairs.
American Hegemony Tied To Football & Transformers! 
Empire State Building Honoring PRC 60th Anniversary Outrage 
America Interferes With China’s Internal Affairs, Yes, True, And…? 
There’s an interesting discussion of this topic over at Drorism* as well. He compares the ideological battle between China and the US to that of 1929, when the USSR was playing the role of the “enlightened autocracy”.
I don’t think even Friedman himself believes the US is a “one-party democracy”. He has always been prone to hyperbole and overstatement, and as long as we keep that in mind when we read, we can still extract useful insights.
I read that column for what it was: an admonishment for the Republican Party to quit sniping from the sidelines and get in the game. I cannot disagree with that.
Absolutely. He was just using it to describe the situation he sees in Congress over two specific issues: health care and energy/climate.
I want to believe the blogger at Gawker could see that. If s/he didn’t, it’s intellectually embarrassing. If s/he did but proceeded to misrepresent Friedman that way, then it depends on the motive. If it was just for writing a post that gets clicks, fine, controversy for entertainment, I get it. If it was because s/he just purposely wanted to malign Friedman, then that’s just cheap intellectual dishonesty.
Nice analysis Kai. After reading all the related posts mentioned above, felt like I had done today’s portion of GRE study already :)
Seriously though, Friedman is open and honest enough to state the obvious w/o any emotional appendage. Peking Duck’s post seems rational enough although there is a tad bit of defensiveness in between the lines.
Kai,
The only problem I see with the reactions is that they (like you are doing except with “America”) expanded their retorts to to a discussion of the general value of “China” as a model rather than focusing on what Friedman was actually saying.
He wasn’t saying something “enviable about China” he was saying something enviable about the CCP. The problem is not that Mr. Friedman is lauding the efficiency of an authoritarian decision making process (which as you point out has less to do with “China” than attributes of this certain political system). The problem is not that Mr. Friedman is saying something nice about “China”. The problem is that he lauds the “reasonably enlightened” leadership of the CCP, which for all its “enlightened” decisions continues to commit atrocious human rights violations in the enforcement of them. If we made a simple distinction I think many of these misunderstandings would go away i.e. The CCP IS NOT CHINA, IT IS THE PARTY THAT RUNS CHINA. To criticize one is not necessarily to criticize the other, to praise one is not necessarily to praise the other.
I love your columns Kai, but if there is one thing that irks me, is that you LOVE to try to point out the biases of the China vs. the West debate, but then fail to get beyond this dialectic in your own analysis.
A statement like this: “due to the fact that some Americans and Westerners can be every bit as biased and insecure as the Chinese they ridicule” only highlights the fact that you’re not as above the fray as you seem to want to portray yourself, you’re smack in it. In this statement, you’ve successfully pointed out the obvious that “people” no matter what nationality can be biased and insecure (duh)…but still framed this seemingly “detached” conclusion within an America vs. China framework. Further you get a neat little jab of your own in at the end by pointing the finger at “the Americans” who “ridicule” the Chinese, seeming to imply that “American ignorance” is to blame for this whole thing as usual, and the Chinese are just misunderstood. As I said I love your columns, but sometimes, the “omniscient and above it all” perspective you try to claim is complicated by the fact that you obviously have a stronger (dare I say biased) opinion somewhere in there.
Finally, you take a dig at both authors for using this controversy to increase page views, but you’ve done exactly the same thing (only a week late) with a even more controversial title to attract audiences to an old topic. It’s also interesting that you did not mention the reader comments that were posted on the NY times site most of which actually supported Mr. Friedman’s praise for “China” (even though as you point out, the article was not about “China”). So please Kai, who are these “biased” Americans and where is there insecurity? You’ve discussed two different blog posts written by Americans, and conflated their opinions with “America”…aren’t you participating in the same type of chicanery you seem to so vehemently oppose in your writings?
AndyR,
Yes, I understand broadening. I think Richard broadened, but I think Gawker outright misrepresented.
I used Richard to show how Westerners can behave like the Chinese, and how this behavior evidences a certain bias, even hypocrisy. I used Gawker to highlight Western (or American, to be accurate) insecurity.
I’m familiar with the distinction between CCP and China. I admit I, like many, often write “China” when I’m referring to the CCP. Usually, I depend on people to know which one I’m referring to through context. I seriously hope no one mistakes me for someone who thinks they are one and the same.
I agree that Friedman is specifically saying that the CCP is “reasonably enlightened” in certain ways to take advantage of the efficiency of their one-party authoritarian decision-making process to push through important policies. I agree he is not simply lauding China or the authoritarian decision-making process itself. He’s lauding them explicitly with reference and limitation to a specific issue. I’m pretty sure I made my understanding of this very clear above.
I certainly do believe I have a strong opinion about these things and that strong opinion is mostly against what I consider to be poor rhetoric or intellectual dishonesty. There will be far more intelligent and articulate people who will look down upon my own rhetoric as well, and I accept that. To be honest, I don’t think we, as humans, can ever really be “above the fray”. I just personally try to get to the next level, and implore others to do so as well, to look at things one step further back, one level deeper. I know my tone can seem haughty or self-righteous for some but I think this is a common accusation against most people we feel are at least saying something that makes us uncomfortable about ourselves and what we believe/d.
It sounds to me that you think I am biased against Americans or Westerners and that’s why you interpret my sentence “due to the fact that some Americans and Westerners can be every bit as biased and insecure as the Chinese they ridicule” as me implying this is Americans’ fault and the Chinese are just misunderstood.
First, I don’t think the Chinese are necessarily misunderstood. I think accusations of their bias and insecurity are often very true…just as are my reminders that Americans or Westerners are biased and insecure in similar or different ways too. I don’t blame the tensions or resentment between the “sides” on Americans, I blame idiocy itself for contributing to these tensions or resentments.
Second, I ask that you consider who I am writing for and how my writing, my examples/metaphors/analogies/etc., intentionally caters to that audience. If I come across as speaking to (or, as some accuse, speaking down to) Westerners, challenging them, or making them feel uncomfortable…that’s because I AM. I am NOT writing to the Chinese here (at least most of the time) and I DO want to make Westerners uncomfortable so they stop taking certain things for granted or given.
I AM in the fray and I have no delusions about it. Am I above it all? I think I’m above many of the things I criticize, but all? No, not “all”. Do I have biases? Sure, but what do you think they are? Are they the same biases I’m challenging others for? Or are they biases against or for something else entirely? Is there a difference between being biased against Chinese/Americans and being biased against the hypocrisy behind the bias against Chinese/Americans? Can I be biased against biases?
All biases are indeed bias, but bias against one thing is not the same as bias against another thing. Saying I’m biased is easy, but does the bias you accuse me of negate the bias I accuse others of? No, we treat each on their own merits.
Yes, I fully admit that, in addition to have a bona fide reaction and opinion I wanted to share, I was conscious that I’m blogging for an audience. I happen to think of it as an inescapable inside joke for bloggers in general, which is why I said “unintelligent but for the shrill clicks it earns.” I don’t think earning clicks is unintelligent, so I separated it from my criticism of the rhetoric in the Gawker post, which I did think was unintelligent. To clarify, I wasn’t taking a dig at “both authors”, only Gawker.
Finally, while I think I make mistakes all the time, I don’t think this particular episode can be accused of “participating in the same type of chicanery [I] seem to so vehemently oppose in my writings.” I wrote: “some Americans and Westerners can be every bit as biased and insecure as the Chinese they ridicule” and I’ve highlighted both Richard and Gawker as examples of what I argue that some Americans and Westerners can be, just like the Chinese they ridicule. I don’t see anything ambiguous or false in that statement. I feel you’re trying to pin a more absolutist and broadened statement on me, but that’s, well, not cool of you. Frankly, I think you completely understand what I’m saying, but you want to find something that shows me being guilty of the precise thing I criticize.
Respectfully, I don’t think you have a strong case here. “Some” and “can be” should not be misrepresented as “all” and “are”. You know this. You know it isn’t semantics either. You know my gripe is with the faults themselves (or the faults as they manifest themselves in the nationalities I write for), not with the nationalities themselves.
I don’t fashion myself above mistakes or reproach. I know there are many who disagree with me or will believe something about me with far less evidence and argumentation than I personally need to admit fault. I believe argument and debate, both in prosecution or defense, even when different people have different standards for what is logical or persuasive, is a good thing as long as people do so with intellectual honesty. I try to be this way and I thank you for being likewise.
Thanks for the compliments and comment. Cheers.
Kai said:
“All biases are indeed bias, but bias against one thing is not the same as bias against another thing. Saying I’m biased is easy, but does the bias you accuse me of negate the bias I accuse others of?”
Biases are bias but bias isn not the same as bias. Saying I’m biased does the bias negate the bias of others biases. Is this bias a clearer bias?
Gawd!
Is this what they teach you at Berkeley? If so, spoken like a true lawyer-wanna-be. No wonder you’re confused.
Oh come now, Fred, pithy attempts to insult my educational background isn’t the way to my heart, darling! I’m always amused by the trolls who seem compelled to say something about my alma mater, as if doing so calms some deep-seated insecurity they have. It isn’t enough to say “I don’t like you, Kai”, you have to add “and your mom is ugly!” :)
Sorry, Sweetheart,
The intellectual glory days of Cal have long gone. The neighborhood has gone to shit – too many “minorities” if you know what I mean.
You should have come to Stanford. (Our minorities are of a higher caliber.) But then again, it wouldn’t let you in – no affirmative action.
Doesn’t Cal require English 101 for foreign students?
I think you can ban this person now…
huh. http://www.browndailyherald.com/2.12237/without-affirmative-action-asian-admission-rates-rise-1.1671413
Sorry, Fred, I wasn’t particularly interested in Stanford. In fact, I didn’t even apply. Somehow, I highly doubt you’re from Stanford anyway as most Stanford graduates I know have better reading comprehension AND better things to do than troll some person they dislike online. Cheers.
Kai,
Sorry to reply so late…great response. I will just say this: 1. I think if you read through your post the “some” you claim to be guarding from generalization with is less apparent than you seem to think. 2. It would have been good to look at the reader responses to the Friedman article. I was expecting xenophobia and hatred, but the comments proved me wrong.
As much as you don’t want Chinese to be pigeon-holed as “communists” and “fenqing” nor do I want Americans to be thought of as “racist” and xenophobic”. (And I don’t think that attacking the biases of either increases understanding.) I think the post above unfairly portrayed the American reaction to Mr. Friedman’s comments, but that is just my opinion.
Thanks for the reply and looking forward to future posts. Any chance that you are on Facebook?
AndyR,
1. Point remains that I’m still faulting faults, not nationalities. I think I’ve been very consistent in the whole “we’re all human and all humans can be jackasses” department.
2. I understand.
Neither of us has any scientific measurement of the spectrum and concentration of American responses to Friedman’s op-ed, even if I’m quite certain I can find at least 2 negative comments to every positive comment you point me to. However, I think both of us can agree that it isn’t necessary as we both should know that the things we respectively take issue with are both true and significant. There is idiocy amongst Chinese as there are amongst Americans, and everyone else. I don’t know for certain if attacking the biases of either side increases understanding. I only think it does, thinking the first step to solving a problem involves recognizing, identifying, and acknowledging it. Moreover, I only think it does for some people, knowing full well it won’t do jack squat with many, such is the nature of narcissistic self-righteousness.
But we do what we can, ideally with intellectual honesty and sincerity. The dialectic, for me, is a good thing, and better than the alternative.
P.S. – I got the Facebook e-mail notifying me of your friend request. Unfortunately, I don’t log onto Facebook while I’m in China (not that I log on much when outside China anyway) because I’m too lazy to fire up a VPN. As such, I’ll probably have to respond to that request the next time I’m out of the country.
AndyR,
If you made a simple distinction I think many of these misunderstandings would go away too i.e. NOT ANY CHINESE OFFICIAL REPRESENTS CCP, IT WAS THIS OR THAT CHINESE OFFICIAL THAT MESSED UP. To criticize one is not necessarily to criticize the other, to praise one is not necessarily to praise the other. Is it also easy for you to make such distinctions and be a levelheaded commenter?
If you have to attribute all the atrocities happened in China to CCP, how about also attribute all the good things to CCP too? E.g., no major famine in 50 years, no civil war and foreign invasion, fast economic growth, and so on? Not every country can achieve this so don’t take it for granted. If communism is so bad a system it only makes CCP even more admirable to be able to achieve this, isn’t it?
If you want to point out all the good points of CCP rule, that is fine. I am not a journalist, just a commenter, so I have no obligation to give (or consider) a “balanced” portrayal of the CCP’s record.
Opposition to CCP rule is not a condemnation of China or what THE CHINESE PEOPLE have achieved since they were finally given “economic” freedom post 1978.
It is admirable what the Chinese people have done over the last 30 years, giving them the freedom to do it was an admirable move by Deng Xiaoping, but the people should not now have to bow to the CCP for giving them what they by right should never have had to ask for.
Good analysis.
You figured that after W and neocon’s adventures in Iraq the ever so brainwashed people of the “freedom” western nations would wise up about pushing “freedom” down other people’s throats. Given America’s own problems with healthcare, racism, wars, plutocracy, etc. it’s laughable that the online warriors who have no or very little stake in China would even bother to talk about what’s good for China.
Personally I find it funny whenever i see the foreign expats like the peking duck guy complain about freedom in China. If freedom is so important why did he and millions of others give it up to be in China? Clearly there are plenty of things which are alot more important.
Also, why is it that you always get the Chinese defending China against the non-Chinese on what’s good for the China? It’s like having your neighbor who has tons of problems on his own and knows little about you coming over to your house and give you advice on how to run your own house.
Kai,
you state with Friedmann that “autocratic political systems have a more efficient decision-making process”.
Can a decision-making process be effective without regarding its consequences (i.e. good or bad – right or wrong)? I think, without any further qualification efficiciency is just another word for velocity. I even doubt that decision-making in the Chinese system is fast for example concerning the right time of (delayed or not promptly or at all implimented) decisions. Would you characterize the decision to establish the “green dam” as efficient? What do we learn about the (power-) struggles and trade-offs in decision-making behind closed doors in China to reason about efficiency?
ahab,
Efficient is not effective nor better or worse. Friedman was saying its faster for the CCP to make decisions and then push that decision through their autocratic political system than Americans’ democratic political system. Decision-making is more centralized and less-checked by definition. He makes this observation because he’s criticizing the impasse of policies he favors in America. You know he’s just saying “dammit, I think we need these and I wish they could be enacted faster!” He’s not out to comment on the broader ramifications of autocratic decision-making efficiency (short of acknowledging the existence of downsides), and in reference to what my post was about, he wasn’t saying China overall is better than America or that autocracy overall is better than democracy.
“The point is: this attitude is certainly bias.”
That should be “biased”.
You sure? It can’t be both?
Hyperbole begets hyperbole to add little light to such a minor ado.
“The West would dismiss these Chinese,….” China is not the East and the US in not the West and certainly one American ‘blogger based in China and a recent graduate writing for Gawker, which nobody reads for its political analysis, do not amount to much of anything. I certainly would dissuade you from reading Gawker for anything thought provoking. I would also say the same about Thomas ’suck on this’ Friedman.
Kai, your bias hammer causes you to see too many insignificant web postings as nails, which are not worth your efforts. I suggest that you pull something new out of your toolbox.
Mitchell,
If we take your argument to its logical end, CNR is less influential than Gawker and I am less influential than Friedman. This would mean you’re seeing my insignificant web posting as a nail that probably shouldn’t be worth your effort.
And yet you’re here, posting. ;)
I know your point, Mitchell, but like others, I’ll invariably continue to write about whatever I feel is important enough to write about, using the right tools for the job I see. Thanks for the comment.
One issue I think the Friedman article raises though does not discuss is that there is a middle ground between single-party domination and multi-party bickering and swings: non-partisan democracy.
In a non-partisan democracy (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-partisan_democracy ), as with the general perception of democracy, there can still be universal suffrage along with people who have a reasonable chance of getting elected while holding beliefs contrary to platforms where a dominant party (or parties) would have instead held sway, and where a multiplicity of ideological leanings can find itself manifested among elected officers as well as in the wider community, regardless of swings in voter mood. Rather than breaking people up into divisive coalitions, there can still be a unity (but a unity-in-diversity as opposed to uniformity) where all can vote, participate, and be elected regardless of belief or communication style.
This is especially true with non-partisan systems which constitutionally frown on or prohibit campaigning and electioneering–letting the electorate (which could be voting in direct or multi-stage indirect elections) observe regular behaviors of eligible competent citizens in the voting district (local, national, or even international) without being limited to letting the most vocal, most pandering, most telegenic, most double-talking, most promise-making, most ready to make individual barbs at others, and most self-aggrandizing get themselves elected.
While some Asians have accustomed themselves to “Western” partisan systems (some would say in a number of cases exceedingly so) (and though not all Westerners subscribe to these systems either), the particular historical emphasis on humility and unity in Asian cultures might find itself particularly less painfully or tumultuously reflected in such systems (as well as better inviting and facilitating the contributions of women and minorities).
People everywhere should not continue to make the large mistake of conflating democracy (which does require universal and equal suffrage) with partisan democracy (which in my opinion is actually a hindrance to it). Doing so only limits options available to electorates.
Notice, for that matter, there is no mention in the UDHR (or the ICCPR for that matter) of political parties being a prerequisite… (and indeed, many of the United States’ local governments, and at one time in its history, its national government, would not qualify as democracies if multiple parties were a prerequisite):
“The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.” (UDHR, Article 21.3)
Partisanship is less a manifestation of political systems as they are of human behavior.
While I would agree that human behavior (and attitudes) are indeed going to color even outwardly non-partisan systems (as well as determine people’s openness to them in the first place), the rules of the game do influence the game a lot.
It’s like the seeming catch-22 of peace–we cannot achieve a global security pact, an official common language, etc., or any other measure which could facilitate peace without a certain measure of peace and security to be able to get together and likely agree on such things. But having such institutions in place confirms our unity. Like the establishment of the U.S. government or the European Union: there needed to be enough cohesion to overcome states’ concerns, but it is not really possible to argue that such a wider membership did not and does not eventually consolidate a common identity with its members. Likewise, even the tradition of the execute branches enforcing legislative and judicial decrees is itself a sign of the power of the system; these other branches have no army of their own, yet human beings have accustomed themselves to submitting themselves to these rules. On the other hand, as your statement implies, that doesn’t prevent some weak systems from being overturned, as we still see today.
In some ways, the promotion of such institutions (such as a non-partisan system)–and realizing they are possible to achieve–is really the same work as consolidating such institutions once in place, even though the one tries to take advantage of a temporary willingness to work it out (e.g., the original and mutually distrusting U.S. colonies needing to be united with a common constitution if they were to be strong enough to preserve their independence from Great Britain, or the victors of the second world war agreeing to set up the United Nations, World Bank, etc. to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind”) while the other tries to maintain it (e.g., the first Gulf War agreed to by the Security Council preventing the aggressive take-over of the sovereign nation, Kuwait).
Is there any chance now that New York will go to war with New Jersey? Will Henan fight with Hunan? Human behavior has been the same, but the systems which now encompass them had to be put in place (and promoted by media and education) in order for the possibility of mutual fighting to become effectively unthinkable. Our institutions do shape our behavior, even if their unity can be assaulted, challenged, and, if not solid enough, overturned.
All interesting arguments and points but what it boils down to is; would I rather live in the US or in China as a citizen of the country? The answer is a no-brainer – even for many Chinese. Having lived in both countries it would take me a millisecond to decide that I prefer the States. Not because it is richer, but because it is free.
@jay: I’ve lived in both countries too, and as a non-Chinese native born U.S. citizen, I can say I prefer living in China. It’s not any commentary on government (I love my government), nor is it, God forbid, any rejection of my heritage and proud U.S. citizenship.
I do favor many of the aspects of American life when I return for visits (such as vigorous multi-sided discussions on certain television programs, though it seems to me that that is advancing in China too, to the extent I understand it, with debates, lectures, etc. having emerged slowly but determinedly) and I absolutely support the principles of human rights it advocates (though it has its own warts, such as the horrors of its prison system), its principle of federalism, non-censorship of belief and discourse, yet am turned off by many things, especially in our general culture (much less so than our government as people tend to harp on).
This includes rudeness and divisiveness in discourse, a crass popular culture (both “right” and “left”), many degenerate morals, frequent bullying among youth and children and well-ingrained and shallow cliques from grade school to university, a seeming inability for most segments of society to actually learn about the culture and lives of people in other countries (no, hearing generals and Western pundits on the news discuss Iraq or Iranian politics does not count). While there are exceptions and it is a big generalization I just made on all counts, it is enough for me to be glad to take refuge in the greener grass over here. And this is not to speak of the positives of Chinese culture, the focus on beauty, gentleness, and subtlety, of smoothing things out, and love of family and propriety, even if it sometimes falls short.
America can be fresh and idealistic (and in a way which others would embrace if it weren’t cloaked so often in inward-looking nationalism–God Bless the Whole World, thank you very much), but also childish and a not insignificant portion of the populace is downright harsh and hostile–thin-skinned about any criticism yet fast to criticize, assuming superiority in all aspects of the American system–full of opinions and open to argument, yet, as far as culture and way of life, not really open to deep self-reflection or self-change. Academia is arrogant in its atheism and purported perfect objectivity in analyzing other cultures, some of the public is fanatic in its fundamentalism or racism, and much of the rest are absorbed in shallow or excessive pursuits of sex, constant games and thrill-seeking, drugs and alcohol, or useless partisan bickering, etc. Television in America is completely absorbed in crime and horror-or-war-as-entertainment; even the science shows focus heavily on things like forensics or drooling over military weaponry (e.g., as a friend calls the History Channel, the War Channel), and murder is available casually in all flavors–from quaint shows to the graphically violent and, even worse, supposedly humorous gruesomeness. (Even if you are on the top of your chair now in indignant rage at a perception of so-called anti-Americanism, or wanting to wag the finger at corresponding faults in Chinese, can you really deny there is some degree of what I’m saying here?)
There are a few great exceptions, yet China seems to find most of these to bring over here (with a few I wish they didn’t)! Despite some minor quibbles I may have, innovative shows whose advantages often override its negatives, like House or even American Idol, are shown here, and I can get other great and informative things from America like NPR (esp. Frontline) or the WSJ via the web (admittedly sometimes needing to get to some good sites indirectly, but I won’t go into that).
There is, to be fair, also a large segment of society in America which is admirably and most emphatically benevolent, enterprising, and caring, voluntarily choosing to sacrifice deeply for others whether domestically or abroad (albeit sometimes misguidedly so) and which shows upright morals and graciousness to others, but this segment has to battle the symptoms caused by the dysfunctionalities of the rest (e.g., to expand on the TV analogies, shows like Third Watch or ER).
There are things I could certainly criticize about life in China (and a few things which can even drive me nuts), though I’d probably focus on different things than most do. However, as a guest here, and understanding the sensitivity of human beings, particularly those still understandably identifying themselves as belonging to a different group than me, and one which is often fighting off some subtle sense of self-shame and excessive self-criticism, in most cases, I do not feel it productive to air grievances in an outright way, just as I do not feel it productive to do so with people’s personal faults as I may perceive them.
If you think denigrating someone, especially in regards to their culture or government, in personal attacks as I see my fellow Westerners do here quite often and freely (and this is one of the better sites), even if based in part in truth, is going to cause even cosmopolitan Chinese to deeply reevaluate aspects of their own culture or government (two related but also distinct things)–a culture which is thankfully not used to such crassness, and give them warm feelings about American values, and not to mention in a way which does not encourage some Chinese to abandon positive aspects of their culture, I think you are quite mistaken.
I see the world as an extended family (as we are)–while I may be a bit tougher on my immediate family (as I am critical of aspects of my native culture), I’d rather focus on my own problems and the problems more directly under my control (and wish others would too), before I go around with advice, let alone sharp and public criticism of others. This is not just about manners–it’s about effectiveness. Can Chinese learn that lesson too, including with a little help sometimes from us? Yes, of course. But I think it’s worth calling ourselves on it first and foremost: Take the thorn out of your own culture’s eye first…
As inspired by my own religious beliefs as an imperfect Baha’i, I believe we (whether as individuals, national citizens, or whatever) ought to do the hard work of making our own culture impervious to criticism rather than being impervious to criticism of our culture…
Holy shit, I’m guilty of a ton of these negative things. Wait, was that my narcissism? Crap.
No, I think that was a concession… See guys?!?
jay,
I don’t think your question is at all what these arguments and points “boil down to”. It’s a change of subject evidencing your lack of interest in the import of these arguments and points. That’s a fine opinion to have, but you’re disrespecting the conversation.
In a mainstream column, like Friedman’s in the NY Times, there is the need to give as much good background info as possible, as briefly as possible. He could of done that with a simple turn of phrase or a couple of senetnces. One doesn’t always need to present both sides, or detailed bibiographies of all the previous research on the topic, but when’s it’s relevant, or pertinent to the subject matter and point being made, then it IS neccesary. Despite that seeming lapse, Friedman makes a clear point, the American system has many flaws, comparable even to those we hold as exemplars of undemocracy.
The best way to interpret Fridman’s article is through the distinction between “reform wholesale” and “reform retail” as described in his book THE WORLD IS FLAT. According to Friedman, western demcracy is geared toward “reform retail”, ie, fine tuning of policies but ineffecient for big job needed to be finished in a hurry.
Friedman probably chose China to make people jump and (over-) react. Interestingly Friedman could have chosen Cuba to highlights his healthcare point (Cuba has an excellent medical system), but Cuba is not anymore the big bad of US nationalist discourse, China is.
So why both Chinese and US nationalist discourses need to hate (often with a hint of envy) each other? The good old “Orientalism” argument would suggest that both use each other to reinforce the sense of national identity by emphasising this dangerous (and desirable) other.
Yes, for the US population and political elite, China has desirable attributes. The most important one is its extraordinary and sustained economic growth. China took away the limelight and this defining quality of the US economy (and a corner stone of the ultra-liberal economic discourse).
In the same way Chinese population and elite have a very ambiguous relationship with what the US represents, hegemony, economic power, external intervention and so on. All attributes that ordinary Chinese and their elite resent greatly when they are imposed on them, but that the Chinese national discourse advocates to reinforce and to project rather that suffer from the outside.
You can see that it is the same kind of discourse going on. This version of the national discourse is an efficient way to ensure that people will not look with a learning eye to other systems. A learning eye would make people wonder what works and what does not work in this dangerous/desirable “other” and compare it with their own personal situation and the governance system they are parts of. In short this kind of ordinary nationalist discourse make sure that criticisms do not take a coherent and constructive form that could grow into valid alternate political/intellectual discourse.
If you think I am being over-intellectual about it, let’s put it that way. What is the legitimacy of a political system where vote abstention is often above 50% and where accountability is largely a wholesale bundle once every 4 years? Is the sacrifice of efficiency really worth it when it is for a check and balance process that is a bargaining process state by state, particular interest by particular interest? On the other side of the Pacific, questions around the link between the lack of accountability and the high level of official corruption would certainly be interesting. Questions about how the US cannot do accountability without a certain level of personal freedom and a meaningful rule of law would also resonate strongly with people daily experience and be a good base for an alternate political discourse.
In the end my point is, be wary of the nationalist discourse that demonise the other. It is never about the other, it is always about creating a minimalist political consensus and avoiding debating deep issues at home.