The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    jollyroger's picture

    In praise of smoke filled rooms. Why can't we have a meritocracy like China?

    By jollyroger on Sun, 02/19/2012 - 5:56am |

    If you paid any attention to Xi Jinping, the president-designate (interesting that they even have such a position, rather like scholarly associations) of China, you might have been struck by the efficiency with which the Chinese political system finds and promotes individuals of talent.

    Consider, after all, that Xi Jinping was not the product of a democratically premised electoral politics.  He was selected by cadres who themselves were selected from ever wider pools of aspirants.

    Let us indulge in a thought experiment.  Exhibit A, the set of all those who were competitors of Xi for his heir-apparant spot.   We need not identify them with particularlity to know that they exist.

    Exibit B, the contenders in any given election cycle for the nomination of the major parties for the office of President.

    Compare and contrast, for instance, Donald Trump and Xi Jinping.

    See what I mean?

    Our political system reliably rewards failures and promotes clowns.

    The Chinese system, albeit short on human rights adornments (just like us...) does not reward fucking up.

    It should be noted that 3 of the past vice presidents failed to get promoted.  I believe that more than one was executed (talk about "up or out...")

     

    Comments

    From what I understand about the Chinese hierarchy and the manner that any are jettisoned up the governmental ladder, usually they are either from the wealthy segment of their society or a toady that has served his masters well.  Oh, wait, that's our political progression processes too!

    But, there is that pesky group referred to as females, who are seldom acknowledged or even part of the upper echelon of their political organizations.  Oh, again, similar to ours too!

    Hmmm.  Okay, well at least we don't blatantly execute them!  Because we know THAT would be wrong.


    by Aunt Sam on Sun, 02/19/2012 - 12:26pm

    either from the wealthy segment of their society or a toady that has served his masters well. 

    Xi, as I understand it, could qualify on the first grounds, except that his father (who was a big time revolutionary) fell out of favor during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (is that enuff capitals?), and he did spent his teenage years on a pig farm (or sumpin')

    On the larger question, I still believe that overall they have more talented bureaucrats, and certainly smarter chief executives.


    by jollyroger on Sun, 02/19/2012 - 3:09pm