Western analysts have been scratching their heads for years now, trying to figure out what's behind China's startling economic growth and soon-to-be world dominance. But they could have saved themselves the trouble, and just asked the governor of China's central bank. He says that China's economic flexibility and quick response capability "proved the superiority of its authoritarian, one-party political system." (Did he really use the term "authoritarian", as the article claims? Doesn't he know that applies only to fascists, Republicans, and the Catholic Church?) This is all part of the propaganda run-up to the upcoming London economic summit, at which time a Nuremberg trial of American political and financial leaders is expected to take place, with the expected punishment being hanging and exile, in that order. But seriously, China is definitely positioning itself to take over the lead in world economics -- an event that would have seemed hysterically far-fetched a mere 30 years ago. And considering our recent performance in this department, it shouldn't be all that difficult for China to take over, and with the full approval of everyone else at the summit, who, I'm sure, is sick to death of American pretentions leading to disaster. Right now, the "rogue state" when it comes to economics is none other than us -- and when we sneeze, the rest of the world catches cold (especially Iceland... but it is called "Iceland", after all). Maybe it is time to let someone else try their hand at ruining everything for everyone.
But I do have one quibble with the governor's statement. He holds up an "authoritarian, one-party political system" as the answer -- or at least the basis -- for maintining economic stability. The probem is, we _have_ a one-party political system. Oh sure, it's divided into two warring camps the way the World Wrestling Federation has its "good guys" and "bad guys" -- but everyone knows it's a joke and a fraud. The Republicans and Democrats agree, in principle (if that is the word), on 99% of the issues 99% of the time. The differences are at the margins, and even at that the fights are more about power than about policy -- to say nothing of principles or -- heaven forbid! -- morality in government. And when the so-called two-party regime is threatened from without -- as by a third party or independent political movement -- they combine forces and circle the wagons in an instant. And as to "authoritarianism" -- that's just another word for political correctness, and we certainly have more than enough of that. We also have an elected monarchy which requires worship and idolization of whoever happens to win the most votes. Not to mention which, there is a new variety of authoritarianism afoot which started on Day One of Obama's administration -- namely the act they put on of being puzzled and dismayed when anyone doesn't fully agree with their programs or priorities -- which is followed by hostility and a no-holds-barred counterattack designed to annihilate all opposition.
So one-party? Authoritarian? Fuhgeddaboutit. We're every bit a match for China in this department. Where we seem to have fallen down on the job is in allowing the business community to operate relatively autonomously all this time -- a serious mistake, we can now all agree, and one that is being remedied even as we speak. Who knows, we might be as good as China yet. (But we really have to get Hillary to stop going over there and begging for more loans... so unseemly...)