Podcast Summary
The US-China relationship goes beyond foreign policy: China's impact on US politics extends to manufacturing, industrial policy, and domestic issues. The Chinese political system's shift to a personalist dictatorship under Xi Jinping has significant implications for both countries, making them mirror images of each other during their respective gilded ages.
The relationship between the United States and China is more interconnected than it may seem. China's role in American politics extends beyond foreign policy and reaches into domestic issues such as manufacturing and industrial policy. The Chinese political system, which has undergone significant changes in recent years, also shares similarities with the US in ways that are often overlooked. According to Yuanwen Ong, a China scholar at Johns Hopkins University, the end of the reform era in China marks the beginning of a personalist dictatorship under Xi Jinping, and this shift has profound implications for both China and the US. Ong also views the US and China as mirror images of each other, likening their historical periods to the clash of two gilded ages. This perspective offers a fresh way of understanding the complex and evolving relationship between these two global powers.
Understanding China through its similarities and differences with America's reconstruction history: Despite shared experiences of reconstruction, China's development has resulted in unique outcomes of growth, corruption, and inequality. American envy towards China's manufacturing prowess and swift project execution overlooks the autocratic system with democratic characteristics that has emerged.
The experiences of China and America during their periods of reconstruction after destruction have led to similar outcomes of growth and development, but also corruption and inequality. This shared history can help us understand China not as an alien or scary entity, but as a country with familiar and different aspects. The dominant emotion in American political rhetoric towards China is envy, particularly for China's manufacturing prowess and ability to act swiftly on projects. However, it's important to note that China's development has not unfolded as expected, with the rise of an autocratic system with democratic characteristics, rather than becoming a liberal democracy. This misunderstanding of China's development trajectory contributes to the envy and competition between the two nations.
China's political reforms and economic prosperity: China's political reforms, driven by the CCP, introduced democratic qualities but not the Western democratic model, focusing on checks on power, accountability, competition, and pragmatism at the bureaucratic level.
The political reforms in China were a crucial foundation for its economic prosperity during the reform era, but these reforms did not follow the Western democratic model. Instead, they occurred within the Chinese Communist Party, introducing partial democratic qualities such as checks on power, accountability, competition, and pragmatism. This transformation primarily took place at the bureaucratic level, where the energy is focused in China, while politics are seen as exciting in the West. By understanding this, we can gain a more accurate perspective on China's development and avoid misunderstandings based on conventional Western wisdom.
The Chinese bureaucracy's allure and profit sharing during reform China: During China's economic reforms under Deng Xiaoping, bureaucrats and elites shared profits with businesses, creating high-powered incentives for capitalist growth and career advancement.
The Chinese bureaucracy, historically holding the highest position in the social hierarchy, continues to be an attractive and prestigious career path due to its status and job stability. During periods of economic uncertainty, the allure of being a civil servant increases. China's political system did not fully democratize but became more flexible, experimental, and results-oriented, leading to economic growth. This period, known as reform China under Deng Xiaoping, created a unique autocracy with partial liberalization and effective governance. Profit sharing between bureaucrats and businesses functioned as an incentive alignment and a metaphor for the Chinese political system during this era. At all levels, elites and bureaucrats shared in the revenue produced by their organizations, creating a system of high-powered incentives to embrace capitalism and advance careers. This profit sharing system, visible in corruption scandals, was a key factor in China's economic growth during this period.
The Complex Relationship Between Capitalism and Corruption: Capitalism can drive economic growth through incentives, but corruption can act as a double-edged sword, fueling or hindering growth. Balancing these opposing forces requires accountable, predictable systems.
Throughout history, high-powered incentives like commission and profit sharing systems have driven economic growth, but they also come with the risk of corruption. This is a complex issue, as some forms of corruption, like access money, can actually fuel economic growth, while others, like petty bribery and embezzlement, can hinder it. The relationship between capitalism and corruption is a complex one, and it's important to acknowledge that corruption is not a monolithic concept. It comes in different forms, some of which can act as steroids, accelerating growth, while others act as depressants, slowing it down. The challenge is to find a balance between these opposing forces and create a system that is accountable, predictable, and free from corruption's most damaging effects. In America and China, we can see different approaches to addressing this challenge. While America has focused on electing responsive and open governments, China has experimented with profit-sharing systems and other incentives to drive economic growth. Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages, and it's important to recognize that the relationship between capitalism and corruption is a complex one that requires ongoing attention and adaptation.
US vs China: Different Approaches to Managing Capitalism: The US prioritizes limiting government and allowing society to innovate, while China focuses on empowering the government to lead policy innovations and limit society.
The political systems and focus on limiting power in the United States and China have led to significantly different approaches to managing capitalism and its problems. In the United States, the government is limited, and society is given freedom to innovate and adapt. In contrast, China's focus is on limiting society and empowering the government to lead policy innovations and adaptability. The Chinese government's primary goal is to maintain political stability and keep itself in power, but it also aims for the country to be peaceful, prosperous, and strong. The difference in approaches raises important questions about the role of government and society in shaping policy and the potential consequences of each approach.
Xi Jinping's rise to power in China due to different approaches to capitalism and political power: Xi Jinping's ascension to power in China was influenced by public awareness of corruption and violent politics under Bo Xilai, contrasting his low-profile image and strong stance against corruption, seen as both a substantive and political problem.
The different approaches to capitalism and its relationship to political power in China and the United States played a significant role in the rise of Xi Jinping to power in China. At the time of Xi's ascension to the premiership in 2012, China was facing a major scandal involving corruption and abuse of power within the Communist Party, led by the flamboyant and popular Bo Xilai. This scandal, which included allegations of murder and collusion with private businesses, elevated public awareness of elite level corruption and violent politics. In contrast, Xi was seen as a safe, low-profile choice due to his lack of public profile and his ability to lie low. Xi's theory of corruption saw it as both a substantive problem for China and the Chinese Communist Party, as well as a political problem requiring a strong hand to address. His response to corruption was characterized by a crackdown on both officials and private businesses, reflecting the Communist Party's view of capitalism as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself.
Xi Jinping's Anti-Corruption Campaign: Complex Motivations: Xi Jinping's anti-corruption campaign combined political consolidation with genuine efforts to address corruption, using a top-down approach and prioritizing personal loyalty over economic growth.
Xi Jinping's anti-corruption campaign in China is a complex issue, with both political and ideological motivations. While Xi identified corruption as a systemic problem and used it to consolidate power, he also genuinely aimed to address corruption across the entire bureaucracy. His approach was top-down, empowering the disciplinary apparatus for a massive investigation drive, with success measured by the number of officials investigated each year. Prior to Xi, economic growth was the primary objective for government officials, but under Xi, personal loyalty to him became the key to success. The shift in priorities was exemplified by Xi's personal agenda of maintaining "0 COVID," even if it meant shutting down prosperous cities like Shanghai. In contrast to the collective leadership that defined China's political system since Deng Xiaoping, Xi has personalized the system, making his personal whims a dominant force in national policy.
China's Political Evolution and Xi Jinping's Power Consolidation: Xi Jinping inherited a system with corruption, inequality, debt, and pollution issues, reimposed personalist dictatorship to address some problems but also reintroduced one-man rule vulnerabilities, and faced unprecedented protests against COVID policies, leading to policy changes.
China's political evolution under Deng Xiaoping brought about significant economic growth but also introduced vulnerabilities to corruption and risk. Xi Jinping inherited this system, which led to issues like corruption, inequality, debt, and pollution. To address these problems, Xi chose to reimpose a personalist dictatorship, resolving some issues but also reintroducing the problems associated with one-man rule. A notable moment in Xi's consolidation of power was the forcible removal of his predecessor, Hu Jintao, during a party congress. Meanwhile, unprecedented protests against COVID policies in late 2022 led to a shift in Xi's agenda, marking the first time Chinese citizens successfully changed a national policy through mass demonstrations.
Xi Jinping's governance shift and its impact on Chinese legitimacy: Xi Jinping's focus on objectives like fighting poverty, corruption, and consolidating power sometimes contradicts economic growth, potentially leading to a loss of legitimacy for the Communist Party. Balancing objectives and maintaining legitimacy through effective governance is crucial.
Chinese President Xi Jinping's approach to governing China has shifted from a focus on maintaining economic growth as the primary basis for Communist Party legitimacy, to a more complex set of objectives that include fighting poverty, corruption, and consolidating power. However, these objectives sometimes contradict each other, with some actions, such as crackdowns on the technology industry and media, being anti-growth. The perception of government capability, information, promptness, responsiveness, and fairness, which was relatively broad during China's period of reform, is at risk under Xi's personalistic rule. This could potentially lead to a loss of legitimacy for the Communist Party. In contrast, the American procedural state derives legitimacy from the perception that government is capable, informed, prompt, responsive, and fair, but there are critiques that the focus on procedures has overshadowed the government's objectives. The Chinese situation highlights the importance of striking a balance between achieving objectives and maintaining legitimacy through effective governance.
Xi Jinping's Legitimacy: COVID Response & Tech Crackdown: Xi Jinping's popularity waned due to unpredictable policies, draconian COVID measures, and sudden tech crackdown, causing investor alarm and market losses, but progressive reforms like economic restructuring are not inherently wrong.
Xi Jinping's legitimacy in China has been influenced by his handling of various policies, including his response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the tech crackdown under the "common prosperity" campaign. Initially, his populist policies, such as anti-poverty and anti-corruption efforts, gained him popularity. However, his draconian zero COVID policies and the sudden implementation of the tech crackdown led to rapid and significant negative public opinion. The perceived unpredictability and political control of the Chinese government's actions alarmed investors, resulting in significant market losses. Despite this, it's important to distinguish between the policy objectives and their implementation. Progressive reforms, like those aimed at restructuring the economy for more equity, are not inherently wrong. However, the top-down authoritarian approach to implementing these policies scared off investors and raised concerns about China's commitment to supporting the private sector. Xi's self-reflection and course correction in a 2021 speech marked a walk-back on the common prosperity campaign, but it remains to be seen whether this is a permanent shift or a temporary response.
Managing Capitalism's Excesses in China: Xi Jinping acknowledges the complexity of managing capitalism on a massive scale in China and encourages experimentation, while US-China relationship deteriorates due to a combination of timing, circumstances, and choices by both sides.
China's experience in eradicating poverty is well-established, but managing the excesses of capitalism on a massive scale is a new and complex challenge for the Chinese Communist Party. In his speech, Xi Jinping acknowledged that they don't have a clear solution and encouraged local bureaucrats to experiment. Meanwhile, the US-China relationship has become increasingly negative, with both sides blaming each other for the deterioration. However, it's important to remember that it takes two parties for a relationship to fall apart, and the current state of US-China relations can be attributed to a combination of timing, circumstances, and choices made by both sides. China's rising ambition and authoritarianism under Xi Jinping, coupled with America's democratic and capitalist crises, have created a volatile situation. Ultimately, understanding the complex dynamics of this relationship requires recognizing that it's not a simple matter of blame or fault, but rather a complex interplay of factors.
Understanding China and the US beyond headlines: Exploring China and the US through historical and social context, and recognizing the unique strengths of each political system is crucial for navigating their competition.
The ongoing competition between China and the US is not a simple matter of one country outpacing the other in terms of industrial policies or infrastructure projects. Instead, it's about each country making the most of its unique political system to address the challenges of capitalism. Fei Xiaotong's work provides valuable insights into understanding China's historical and social context, which is essential for navigating the complexities of the current competition. Additionally, Mandelbrot's memoirs offer a reminder of the importance of creativity and resilience in the face of adversity. To gain a more nuanced perspective on China and the US, it's essential to read beyond the headlines and delve into the underlying ideas and stories that shape our understanding of these global powers.
Annie Rose Dresser's Role in New York Times Pending Audio: Annie Rose Dresser's leadership as executive producer of New York Times Pending Audio is crucial for bringing thought-provoking and engaging stories to life for listeners.
Annie Rose Dresser is the executive producer of New York Times Pending Audio. This information was shared during our discussion, and we would like to express our gratitude to Carol Sabaro and Christina Simoniewski for their contributions to the conversation. While this may seem like a simple fact, it's important to note that Dresser's role is significant, as she oversees the production of the audio content for the New York Times. Her leadership and expertise help bring thought-provoking and engaging stories to life for listeners. This underscores the importance of strong leadership and the impact it can have on the success of a media organization. Additionally, we want to acknowledge the valuable insights and perspectives shared by Carol Sabaro and Christina Simoniewski during our conversation. Their contributions added depth and context to our discussion about the world of audio production.
