In a comment about a controversial new book that questions Donald Trump’s fitness to hold America’s top office, China’s Global Times took a swipe at the 45th president of the United States.
Reviewing Michael Wolff’s Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, the publication opined on January 7, “Although since World War II US presidents have often come under attack, Trump is the first to have his mental health questioned.”
What’s more, the offspring of the People’s Daily and the Communist Party of China’s official mouthpiece editorialized, “Questioning the mental health of an elected US president satirizes not only the institution but the US electoral system itself.” In fact, it asserted, “This shows the waning quality of US democratic politics.”
More precisely, the nationalist newspaper argued, “From Trump’s electoral victory to his being overwhelmingly questioned, US democracy is suffering a kind of demonic possession.”
It added: “As onlookers, we [the Chinese] find that there are big problems with the US political system from which we should steer well clear.”
By deriding America’s democratically elected president and its political system as a whole, the Global Times implicitly hailed China’s one-party authoritarian system. Of course, this isn’t the first time the Communist-run country’s semi-official media outlet has done so.
In a March 2016 article, it scorned democracy and particularly the US, “which boasts one of the most developed and mature democratic election systems,” because it allowed “the rise of a racist,” alluding to Donald Trump, who was at the time the frontrunner in the Republican primaries.
Citing Italy’s Benito Mussolini and Germany’s Adolf Hitler, who “came to power through elections,” it said Trump’s rise in “the US political area worries the whole world.”
After his shock election win in November 2016, an op-ed in the state-run tabloid asserted that Trump “was known for being a blowhard and an egomaniac” and that “if such a person can be president, there is something wrong with the existing political order.”
The message, or warning, that the CPC-linked newspaper probably wanted to send to the Chinese public through these articles was that Western/American-style democracy is divisive, chaotic and destructive and that they should be happy with their country’s stable authoritarian leadership.
Judging by many of Trump’s comments, actions and their consequences before and especially since his election, the Global Times is right that he is, in many respects, a flawed individual. His recent disparaging remarks about Haiti and African nations are a case in point. That such a person was elected to be the country’s commander-in-chief also indicates that America’s political system has significant weaknesses.
That’s why though China’s media and commentariat often publicly criticize Trump’s character, words and deeds, privately its authoritarian rulers must be happy with his ascendancy to the White House.
Admittedly, Trump’s rise makes the world – especially the Chinese people – realize that America’s democracy isn’t as good as it’s usually advertised and China’s authoritarianism isn’t as bad as it’s traditionally perceived.
His election and particularly his “America first” policies have, in fact, greatly enhanced China’s global image and emboldened Beijing to project strongly – and in some cases, aggressively – its soft power, including its authoritarianism, globally.
But does all that mean that China’s autocratic rule is better – or more desirable – than Western/American democracy, as the Global Times suggests?
A survey by Pew Research Center published last October found that democracy was still widely supported, whereas there was little backing for strongman rule. More precisely, according that survey, 78% of the people in the 38 nations polled (including several neighbors of China, such as India, Indonesia, Japan and Vietnam) backed government by elected representatives. In contrast, only 26% agreed that rule by a strong leader was good while 71% said it was bad.
It can be said that although their democracy is currently rather messy, Americans still favor it over China’s stable but autocratic form of government. In the same vein, should they be allowed to choose, perhaps the majority of Chinese people would opt for Western- or American-style democracy
The People’s Republic, which has been continually ruled by the Communist Party since its establishment in 1949, is now under President Xi Jinping’s strongman rule. For some observers, under his watch, the 1.4-billion-population country is transforming into a huge “Big Brother house”, an “all-seeing state”, or even “a police state” because the government has used technology such as facial and voice recognition software, and other means, to monitor its citizens and to suppress any dissent.
If the above findings by Pew are any guide, it is clear that people in many countries, including the US, largely prefer democracy to a tyrannical alternative. According to the same poll by the Washington-based think-tank, 86% of the American public said a democratic system was good and 76% indicated autocracy was bad.
Thus it can be said that although their democracy is currently rather messy, Americans still favor it over China’s stable but autocratic form of government. In the same vein, should they be allowed to choose, perhaps the majority of Chinese people would opt for Western- or American-style democracy.
In its January 7 editorial, the Global Times also contended, “As long as US elites think the public are deplorables, Trump voters won’t rest.” By referring to the word “deplorables,” a term coined by Hillary Clinton to describe Trump’s supporters just two months before America’s November 2016 election, the publication seems to suggest that the Democratic candidate was defeated by Trump because she didn’t respect voters.
If that was the case, it also shows, in a democratic America, that the public does not vote for a politician or a party who doesn’t respect them, let alone one that violates their basic rights. In contrast, in one-party authoritarian China, the people aren’t allowed to do so. All they can do is to submit to whoever and whatever the CPC chooses for them, no matter whether they like it or not.
Get it right!. China is a socialist meritodracy and decisions was made by consensus and voting by committees at the grassroots and highest government levels.
Cheap name calling China as an autocracy is simply lying propaganda.
PRC pulled 700 million out of poverty in 15-20 years, the same time America decimated its middle class.
In the war of 1861 when the ‘nation’ of the Confederate States of America (CSA)
fought the (union) army of the United states of America (USA), the CSA lost in 1865. Over 625 thousand soldiers died and an estimated 300 thousand civilian deaths. The pop. of America was 32 milion and the pop of the 11 states of the CSA was 9 million. It was a massive carnage to keep the union together. slavery was not the main reason for the war of 1861, secession was. Ironically there was no real external threat to justify the defeat of the CSA.
The CSA had formed a nation with Jefferson Davis as President, Richmond as its capital, Confederate dollars as its currency, a government and an army. President Lincoln had no right to destroy this nation. His intent was to keep the Union, and not slavery as stated in a letter he sent to Horace Greeley.
Going back to 1776 the union of 13 states was consensual and clearly stated in the articles of declaration where a if a state wanted to dissovle this union that state had that right. After 1865 the Union was held together by military force.
From 1865 to 2017 the power of Washington DC grew exponentiallly. By 1913 the Federal Reserve, the IRS, the FBI and the Anti Defamation League came into power and the income tax became a reality. By 2017 the power of DC exceeds that of any Emperor of the past and the Founding Fathers would not recognize the nation they founded.
In the war of 1861 I believe the founding fathers would have stood shoulder to shoulder with the Confederacy and against President Lincoln.
Today Politicans make promises during elections and quickly break them when they come to power. Our economy is based on Predatory Capitalism where usury laws siphon the money from the populace into the hands of a few. Where institutes set up to protect& entertain us often become Predators as in our insurance system, Media, to advertising and even medical system (Sackler family, Purdue Pharmacy and opiate epidemic that killed 63 thousand in 2016)
Today we have a full fleged Plutocracy where the government is beholden to the elite and not the common man.
Democracy has a way of devolving into mob rule.
And in the US, the former majority is in the process of being replaced by way of policies put in force in the 1960s. With said policies having that end precisely in mind. Call it "electing a new people."
The Chinese complaining about anyone else’s "racism" is just too rich.
East/South Asians have been rolling that way for millennia.
Democracy may be applicable in some countries but not all countries. In countries which consist of different tribal or ethnic groups, it is necessary to have a strong center to hold things together. If it were a democracy, the ruling ethnic group, probably with most population, will lord it over the minorities and will most likely lead to disgruntlement and eventually chaos. In a healthy democracy, the will of the majority or the institutional majority should be respected. That is not the case in the US now. I believe each country should be allowed to evolve its government to whatever suits them best. It does not matter what "cracy" it is.
"For some observers, under his watch, the 1.4-billion-population country is transforming into a huge “Big Brother house”, an “all-seeing state”, or even “a police state”
A perfect discription of the USA and much of the rest of the Western World. I would guess this guy never heard of the NSA and the other 16 Security Agencies in the USA that can decide anything right up to and and including the assasination of american citizens with no charge, no trial and not even a verdict only theirs.Just the Presidents say so will do. Xi could only wish for that kind of power.
Another thing. Is this author really under the impression that there is a multi party system in the USA? How delusional can a guy get. The US is a one party state. Can anyone really tell the difference between the Democratic party and the Republican Party. The party that runs the USA is the Elite .0001%. No one else has a voice.
Oh and one other thing. The only thing the US Population knows about the Government of China is the propaganda they are fed by their ..0001% owned government and media. If they knew a little more about how Xi and people like him achieved high office i don`t think they would be to enamoured of their own corrupt system of choosing leaders.
And then there is a further point. Who is doing the better job of running a country? Hands down the Chinese Government. They have raised more than 500 million people out of poverty and into the middle class while the American Government and Elites have driven a hundred million or so of their citizens into poverty. See the UN study on extreme poverty in the USA for confirmation.
Rfc Mys …..The description has no legal force. It is only a description not an legal article in the constitution. Any party can leave the consultation process without any legal process. The leading role only exists in consultation, it does not exist in the government of a nation. The leading role only applies to 8 parties, it does not apply to the independents who are not led by any communists and have a constitutional right to participate in elections to win the state power according to the constitution.
The constitution of China describes it as "The system of the multi-party cooperation and political consultation led by the Communist Party of China will exist and develop for a long time to come
China’s autocracy violates her own constitution, specifically Article 79. This article specifies that its national leader will be elected ifrom multiple competing candidates from multiple political parties and independents. Besides, China’s constitution specifically says all political power belongs to the people, and its congress members be elected in democratic elections. But unfortunately China always promises something but does not do the promised.