I don’t know about you but I always look forward to reading something from our Chinese friends. Their official government spokespeople and their allies in the private realm (whatever that may be in a Chinese context) have their own way of thinking about things and the confidence to say what’s on their minds. It’s interesting. They don’t like democracy and they’ll tell you why. They have the courage of their convictions. So much easier and more pleasant to discuss things with someone like that than with someone from one of the legion of fake democracies scattered around the globe where people pay lip service to democratic ideals but obviously fail to understand or respect what real democracy is all about. I was trying to think of an example just now and Iran popped into my head. Why not? As good an example as any other I suppose. Look if you want the place to be run by religious bigwigs that’s fine with me. I don’t live there. Just say what you think and we can discuss it. If you think clerics should rule because they hear voices or have special insight into the wishes of various supernatural entities or whatever then more power to you. It all sounds a little looney tunes to me but to each his or her own; that’s my motto. But there’s something rather annoying and disappointing about trying to discuss politics with someone who clearly supports an authoritarian theocracy but wants to pass it off as a weird sort of democracy perhaps because people can choose between a handful of candidates vetted by clerics or can discuss social issues freely with government censors crossing out every other word and throwing people in jail whenever anyone says anything a little too close to the mark. Come on. It’s cheesy. I mean really. Just talk it out. Now when it comes to foreign cultures that dislike democracy China is to me in a whole other league. They’re what I suppose I would call the honorable opposition. They don’t know what the hell they’re talking about in my humble opinion but to me they seem to speak in good faith and that’s got to count for something.
The article I have in mind was published in China’s state-owned Global Times newspaper. I’d be happy to tell you the author but the copy I read online seemed to lack a byline. I don’t know but I suspect that might be the custom in China. Maybe no one wants to be on record having any particular opinion on any particular subject in case some grand poo-bah gets annoyed. Or perhaps in these state owned publications it’s understood opinion pieces express the unanimous thinking of the Party elite and the identity of whichever plebeian scribbler actually pulled these emanations from the ether is irrelevant. Whatever. Makes it a little awkward to talk about though. Maybe I’ll just make up an author for purposes of this post. I think I’ll go with Ms. Li this time around if you don’t mind. (I looked up the most common surname in China, which is Li, and I thought I’d go with the female version to honor communist China’s long-standing support for gender equality. Give credit where credit is due. That’s my motto. One of my various mottos anyway.)
The focus of Ms. Li’s criticism of American democracy in this instance was basically that it can give rise to such political figures as Donald Trump, who she describes in various places as a rich, narcissistic, inflammatory, big-mouthed, abusive, racist, extremist clown. Ouch! But sounds pretty accurate to me so no issues there. Her analysis of Mr. Trump’s rise seems spot on as well. In her opinion his job initially was to intentionally overthrow political correctness and tradition and in general act the clown to attract the attention of disaffected lower class white voters to the GOP cause. Well, probably. The aforementioned voters for their part “know that elections cannot really change their lives” so they support Trump to “vent their spleen.” Hmm. That sounds a bit cynical to me although I may have said some things rather similar myself from time to time. I do agree money talks in US politics. Money talks a lot. Hard to get it to shut up sometimes. And of course most of our political candidates do tend to come from the same moneyed and leisured class and their personal interests do generally match up pretty well with interests of the financial elite of the country, which is convenient because those are the people our Supreme Court has said the US Constitution envisioned funding political candidates anyway. It’s like a festival of rich people out there. But there are some variations. I’d hardly throw Bernie Sanders in the same category as Donald Trump. Votes still matter. And real changes do take place from time to time. FDR ring a bell? So I understand what Ms. Li is saying but I really wouldn’t go that far myself. She goes on to note that some people in Western media have likened Trump to other notably annoying political figures like Mussolini and Hitler, who she points out also initially achieved political power through democratic elections. I can’t dispute any of that. She then notes that while most political analysts believe the US election system will eventually put an end to Mr. Trump’s candidacy even if Trump is a false alarm the prospect of political unpredictability and imminent institutional failure he represents has left a “dent” on the US. That part seems fine to me. Finally she suggests the US should “watch itself for not being a source of destructive forces against world peace” rather than “pointing fingers at other countries for their so-called nationalism and tyranny.” I’m fine with the US watching itself. I’m trying you know. But I did find the last part rather humorous. Have any country in mind?
The funny thing to me about the article was that Ms. Li didn’t really say anything I wouldn’t have said myself or not much anyway and yet I still feel democracy is the only game in town while she apparently thinks she’s really made quite the case against it. Something weird is going on. Let’s think it through. I think where Ms. Li misses the mark is that no one ever said democracy was infallible. That’s not the argument in favor of democracy. Obviously if everyone in a particular society decides at a particular time to become irresponsible jerks and vote in some nut case like Hitler or Mussolini or whoever else might fall into that category then yes that country would indeed be in for a bit of a bumpy ride. But stick with democracy and the same mechanism that allowed these people to get elected will allow them to be thrown back out again in short order. That’s why although Hitler and Mussolini may have gained political power through democratic elections those were the last democratic elections they ever saw in their sorry lifetimes. They used democratic institutions to their advantage and then got rid of them as soon as possible. They did not support democracy. They were foes of democratic ideals. Democracy doesn’t guarantee optimal results every moment of every day. It provides a mechanism to discuss things and fix things and improve things. As long as people can talk and vote the jackasses of the world can only screw things up for so long before people wise up and decide to give someone else a go.
Now let’s contrast that to whichever undemocratic, tyrannical, and nationalistic nation or nations Ms. Li may or may not have been talking about. The notable thing about such places for purposes of this post is that there are no reliable self correcting mechanisms at work. Will citizens get angry and vote the bums out? Not bloody likely. At least not without a whole lot of shooting and explosions, that’s for sure. Will people speak out freely about what’s troubling them? Will they put their heads together and discuss and debate ideas about how to solve social issues? No. Not unless they’d like a long vacation in the basement of some concrete guest house. More likely they’ll just nod their heads and go about their business and hope for the best. The whole thing is actually a bit comical to me. We all know it can’t work in the long run but no one knows when it will finally topple over. Will it be next year? Twenty years from now? A hundred years from now? I don’t think it could be much beyond that unless they have one heck of a system for choosing responsible leaders. But anyway that’s plenty long enough for those in power today so who the hell cares, right?
Well, maybe that’s enough rambling for this week. Summary? Trump bad. Democracy good. Anonymous Chinese opinion writer confused but confident. Keep ‘em coming China. Always a pleasure.
References
Trump opens Pandora’s box in US. Global Times. March 14, 2016. http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/973564.shtml.
