The pro-China author has some interesting points to make about our democratic system - which should sound familiar to my students:
In the history of human governance, spanning thousands of years, there
have been two major experiments in democracy. The first was Athens,
which lasted a century and a half; the second is the modern West. If one
defines democracy as one citizen one vote, American democracy is only
92 years old. In practice it is only 47 years old, if one begins
counting after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — far more ephemeral than
all but a handful of China’s dynasties.
Why, then, do so many boldly claim they have discovered the ideal
political system for all mankind and that its success is forever
assured?
The answer lies in the source of the current democratic experiment. It began with the European Enlightenment. Two fundamental ideas were at its core: the individual is rational, and the individual is endowed with inalienable rights. These two beliefs formed the basis of a secular faith in modernity, of which the ultimate political manifestation is democracy.
. . . The American Federalists made it clear they were establishing a republic, not a democracy, and designed myriad means to constrain the popular will. But as in any religion, faith would prove stronger than rules.
The political franchise expanded, resulting in a greater number of people participating in more and more decisions. As they say in America, “California is the future.” And the future means endless referendums, paralysis and insolvency.
In Athens, ever-increasing popular participation in politics led to rule by demagogy. And in today’s America, money is now the great enabler of demagogy. As the Nobel-winning economist A. Michael Spence has put it, America has gone from “one propertied man, one vote; to one man, one vote; to one person, one vote; trending to one dollar, one vote.” By any measure, the United States is a constitutional republic in name only. Elected representatives have no minds of their own and respond only to the whims of public opinion as they seek re-election; special interests manipulate the people into voting for ever-lower taxes and higher government spending, sometimes even supporting self-destructive wars.
In essence he is arguing that the limits that had allowed for stability in American politics have been eroded and we may be less able, as a nation, to solidly address our current problems. We are, he says, too democratic - less the republic than we once were. 2301s - who have just finished Fed 10, should understand the point he is making.
He argues that the greater restrictions on popular participation placed on China's people by their leadership will make it easier for the nation to handle and respond to ongoing changes in the economic and political environment.
Frank Pasquale sees flaws in the argument and suggest that China's model is not quite as stable as is suggested, and may be suffering from the same divisive factors that are impacting us.
