Skip to main content

Re-Interpreting the Meaning of China for the USA

Introduction*

American perceptions of China lean towards the negative.

Taking a morally judgmental stance,

“Half of Americans now say China’s policy on human rights is a very serious problem for the U.S. – up 7 percentage points since last year. … And nine-in-ten Americans say China does not respect the personal freedoms of its people.” 82% of Americans have a negative view of China.

64% of conservative Republicans view China as an “enemy” – far more than any other US group. Currently, 55% of Americans as a whole see China as a “competitor.” 34% agree that China is “an enemy.” And, a measly 9% regard China as a “partner.” [1]

Yet, there is nothing in the way of the US and China seeing themselves as partners in trade and cultural exchanges, like the US sees itself with European countries; that is, nothing but misunderstanding.

How China is like us – that is, we Americans

I think it is very unfortunate that the American people understand China in the wrong way. The public’s understanding of China has been grossly distorted by the US media and the federal government. They play on the moral sensitivities of Americans by stressing what we would all consider the “bad conduct” of the Chinese government. We hear a lot about the limitations on the freedom of speech and press, restrictions on Google searches, the crackdown in Hong Cong, the intimidation of Taiwan, and the forced re-education of Uyghurs in the far North Western province of China. [2]

However, in my opinion, all these “bad” things are fed to us without telling us about the larger context in which these events occur. By “the larger context,” I mean China’s place in World History.

So, I would like to briefly sketch out for you how I see this larger context.

First, I would like to say a few things about our own country, America.

I’m sure that most of you will agree that America’s finest hour in military history was its role in the victory over German, Italian, and Japanese fascism in WWII. We helped to protect the freedoms of Europeans, and we also helped to liberate the large parts of China that had been conquered by the Japanese.

But that was only the beginning of America’s good works. After the fascists surrendered, Americans didn’t just go home and forget about the rest of the world. Our government immediately started spending very large sums of money to help our former allies, and our former enemies, to re-build their countries.

Among the most famous programs in this noble effort were the Marshall Plan and the Berlin Airlift. In today’s money we can say that through the Marshall Plan the US spent billions of dollars, particularly in Europe, to help these people get back on their feet.

Most impressive of all, in my view, is that we treated our former enemy, Germany, just like we treated France, England, and other allies.

Just think about the Treaty of Versailles at the end of WWI.

In that treaty France and the Allies forced Germany to pay for all the devastation caused by the war. As a result, Germany was bankrupted and impoverished. One reason why Hitler was so popular is that he expressed the feelings of anger and resentment at being treated in a way they felt was unjust.

But under the Marshall Plan, the United States extend a helping hand to Germany, and as a result Germany and the rest of Western Europe were able to recover from the devastation of WWII and become thriving economies.

Now, back to China.

In my opinion, what the Chinese Communist Party has done for its people in just the last 30-40 years is both the economic and the moral equivalent of what the USA did with policies like The Marshall Plan for Europe and Asia after WWII.

Here’s what happened in China:

In 1958, Mao Zedong initiated a policy called “The Great Leap Forward.” Among other things, all farm land was taken from the rich and divided up among everyone else. Farmers were forced to live on collective farms. They had to grow what the CCP told them to grow.

The program was a huge disaster, with enormous crop failures. A terrible famine followed, and over the next few years, as many as 50 million people died of starvation. Then came the Culture Revolution which attacked critics of Mao’s policies. The country was suffering greatly, and almost no progress was made during this tumultuous time.

After Mao’s death in 1976, the Chinese Communist Party underwent a radical change of policy. It moved from being highly ideological to becoming much more pragmatic.

One of the architects of this new shift to pragmatism was a man named Deng Xiaoping. He advocated ending forced labor in agriculture, reducing the number of state owned factories and businesses, and allowing limited free markets for labor, production, and privately owned businesses. Also, limited foreign investment in Chinese firms was allowed. One of Deng’s slogans was “to be rich is good.”

Since the 1980s, the CCP has followed a policy of limited economic liberation while also trying to keep order for over 1.3 Billion people.

Whereas almost everyone in China was terribly poor in the 1970s, now China has a middle class as large as the entire population of the United States, which is over 330M people. [3]

China has millions more people in their middle class than we have in ours.

In other words, the main policy of the Chinese Communist Party has been exactly as humanitarian as were the post-WWII policies of the United States, which included The Berlin Airlift and The Marshall Plan.

The CCP wants to, and actually has, helped its people to become among the most prosperous people in the world. China’s new Community Prosperity program is meant to bring even more people into the middle class. [4]

The Political Happiness in China

Another thing you don’t hear from the US media is that the Chinese people appreciate what the CCP has done for them. Several different pre-COVID social science studies show that the Chinese people in general are happy with their government.

One 2020 study of the new middle class showed that “trust in the national government reaches 97% and trust in local governments is at 79%.” Also, over 82% of “the Chinese middle class are proud of their state” and want to continue living in China. [5]

A Harvard study of Chinese public opinion, reported in 2020, that, “95.5 percent of respondents were either ‘relatively satisfied’ or ‘highly satisfied’ with Beijing.” [6]

In contrast, a 2020 Gallup poll in the US found that only 38 percent of respondents were satisfied with the federal government.

(The Harvard authors affirm that the Chinese responses were authentic, and not based on fear or propaganda.)

A Pew Research study found that, in general, “the Chinese public is optimistic” about the future. 82% think that their children will be financially better off than their parents. [7]

The Pew researchers comment that this Chinese optimism “stands in stark contrast to the pessimism found in the United States and much of Europe.”

Indeed, far from wanting political change, over 75% “of Chinese believe that their way of life needs to be protected against foreign influence.” Especially that of the United States.

The Pew study found that “45% of Chinese see US power and influence as posing a major threat to their country. [This] concern is up from 39% in 2013.”

Conclusion

In conclusion, I want to emphasize that the Chinese Communist Party has the welfare and prosperity of its people at heart. It is a very caring institution.

As a result, over 800 million human beings were able to pull themselves out of poverty. (See N3)

And these people are far happier with their government than we are with ours.

The humanitarian core of the CCP is just one among many reasons why China is not a threat to the United States, but instead is a moral model that the USA could learn from.

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.

@InterpretivePo1

*This post consists of excerpts from my lecture at Santa Monica Community College, given on February 4, 2022.

References

[1] These are among the findings of a 2021 survey by Pew Research Center. See,

“Most Americans Support Tough Stance Toward China on Human Rights, Economic Issues

Fewer have confidence in Biden to handle U.S.-China relationship than other foreign policy issues”

Laura Silver, Kat Devlin, Christine Huang March 4, 2021.

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2021/03/04/most-americans-support-tough-stance-toward-china-on-human-rights-economic-issues/

[2] One example of media demonization of China is Scott Simon, on NPR, comparing China to Nazi Germany.

https://www.npr.org/2021/12/04/1061483650/china-has-a-record-of-human-rights-abuses-and-u-s-businesses-make-billions-there

[3] “In a speech on February 25, 2021, Chinese President Xi Jinping declared that China had eliminated extreme poverty.” See “The Historical Battle to put an End to Poverty in China.” Lillian Ellis October 6, 2021 https://borgenproject.org/end-to-poverty-in-china/

Also, “more than 800 million people have been lifted out of poverty.” The World Bank in China https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/china/overview#1

[4] “China's Common Prosperity Drive.” December 29, 2021

 https://internationalisms.blogspot.com/2021/12/chinas-common-prosperity-drive-us.html

[5] Zang, L. (2020). "Middle Class and Its Attitude Toward Government in Different Political Systems: A Comparison of China and Japan." Chinese Political Science Review, 5(1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-018-0115-1 Page numbers not available online.

[6] "Taking China’s Pulse: Ash Center research team unveils findings from long-term public opinion survey." Dan Harsha, Ash Center Communications. July 9, 2020

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/  Page numbers for quotes not available online.

[7] "Chinese Public Sees More Powerful Role in World, Names U.S. as Top Threat."  Richard Wike and Bruce Stokes. October 5, 2016.

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2016/10/05/chinese-public-sees-more-powerful-role-in-world-names-u-s-as-top-threat/ Page numbers for quotes not available online.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Reappraising David Easton can make Political Science Research more Exciting.

D avid Easton’s theory of the political system has long been  misrepresented  as requiring a mechanistic theory of causation, thus dehumanizing political behavior. The widespread claim that his vision was of the political system as striving for equilibrium is totally false.   Easton was a humanist. He envisioned human political behavior as a consequence of the meanings people create volitionally in their own minds and social context. He rejected the automaton theory of political behavior.     He also understood the relationship between system performance and public opinion and sentience. A well operating system will likely result in public satisfaction and support. Poor operation, the opposite.   That, in turn, implies a  standard,  or norm, by which to assess how well a political system is performing. Indeed, Easton's theory of the empirical political system can also be used as a way to assess how well a political system is operating. Efficiency and effectiveness are elements to b

Causation, Not Correlation, in Interpretive Political Science

Using David Easton’s theory of the political system as my interpretive framework, in this post I will offer a non-mechanistic theory of how human political behavior can be “caused.” I will argue that, for Interpretive Political Science, reasons can be causes of political behavior. Indeed, respect for the subject matter – human political behavior – requires this causal theory. After all, people are not machines. “Reasons” will be understood as units of meaning in the minds of people. I will offer examples of such causal relations in the operations of two political systems, China and Peru. Hypothesis: The operation of a political system will tend to provide reasons which explain the political sentience of the public. A well-functioning political system will probably be the reason for high approval ratings among its membership. Likewise, a poorly functioning system will probably be the reason for low approval ratings. China In the past 40 years the Chinese political system hel

Does Political Science Force Graduate Students into a Career of Irrelevancy?

Introduction In a 2014 New York Times op ed, columnist Nicholas Kristof drew numerous defensive responses when he criticized political science for having very little “practical impact” in “the real world of politics.” [1] Rather than exercising civic leadership, political science has been most noticeably AWOL from public policy debates since WWII, he claims. And, in his view, there are “fewer public intellectuals on American university campuses today than a generation ago.” How does he account for this absence? Primarily, it is due to the academic interest in pursuing the quantitative approach in political science research. This kind of research is too often unintelligible to both the politically interested general public and the policy making community. Also, the “value neutrality” required for such studies prohibits advocacy. The pattern persists, in part, because graduate students must conform to the expectations of their professors, as a requirement for a successful academic