This essay has been sitting in the corner of my draft box for a long time. Unlike other articles in this newsletter, this one is not about China, but about the West. So for some time, I struggled to find the right occasion to publish it. Seeing those people who don’t know much about China (such as Noah Smith) talking about China as if they were experts haunts me greatly, so I figure I’d better think twice about commenting somewhere I don’t come from, even though I did spend many of my student years in the West, and unlike Noah with the Chinese language, I can speak English and I read both historical and contemporary content in English.
Two things made me finally decide to publish this article now. First, to be totally honest, this article is not exactly about the West. It’s about how a young child in China became first enamored with the West, only to be disappointed later. It’s a story about myself. And just like how Noah represents how a whole lot of people in the West look at China, I hope by dissecting myself, you would also gain a valuable glimpse into how a considerable number of young Chinese like me have come to look at the world.
The second thing that prompted me was the failed assassination of Donald Trump last weekend, which could be a defining moment of our century. Barring any miracle, Trump’s second term seems inevitable, making me realize the West that I used to know might cease to exist any minute from now on. In that case, I will lose the target to critique and my writing will lose relevancy.
So I’d better hurry up now.
The Tweet
Originally, the idea for this article was prompted by a tweet.
On May 16, Mr. Lawrence Wong was formally sworn in as the 4th Prime Minister of Singapore. One X user, named Steven Glinert left this comment about the event:
I am not Singaporean, but I love the history of Singapore. I always say Lee Kuan Yew, the founder of Singapore is easily my top idol. Learning about Lee’s story, his words and his achievements gave the once 20-something me epiphany after epiphany. He is truly “a great man on a small stage”. In his and his many colleagues’ hands, Singapore was transformed from a post-colonial, resource-poor backwater just booted out of Malaysia, into one of the most prosperous and globally prominent economic centers in the whole world, all achieved with a reasonable degree of democracy and liberty for his citizens, high amount of human development, and a huge dose of common sense.
His son, Lee Hsien Loong, the 3rd Prime Minister, certainly had better resources to prepare himself to take the top job. But the top job is not an easy job, especially not for the Prime Minister of Singapore. It’s a high-pressure, demanding job that you need to devote your whole life to. And I think Lee the Son also did a terrific job. I watched many speeches he delivered over the years, and I hope one day our leaders could be as eloquent and as confident in expressing sensible ideas to their people.
But in the tweet by Mr. Glinert, all those achievements were reduced into a single dimension, that somehow the “Lee Dynasty” has impeded Singapore from joining the ranks of truly civilized nations, as defined and certified by the West.
You might not care about what Mr. Glinert said. But I find in this tweet a common pattern in the mainstream Western discourse: a singular complacency in handing out judgments to the world using a very narrow way of measurement.
It’s a sense of complacency deep in the mind of Western elites. For example, just when Donald Trump and Joe Biden finished their depressing pissing contest that’s the presidential debate, Ian Bremmer of Eurasia Group, instead of reflecting on how the West has come to this point, posted this:
These tweets are like silent punches into my stomach. In an instant, my many memories, going all the way back to my adolescent years started to flash back.
My First Awakening
I was politically awakened, for the first time, when I was ~14 years old.
In that year, I first learned of Tiananmen Square. I was shocked to find there could be an event of such historic significance happening, at the time, barely 15 years ago, and I knew nothing about it till then. It was a bizarre and pummeling experience that I bet many of the more politically conscious members of my generation have gone through at some point in our lives.
It was also the same year when I really focused on learning English. Being a maverick, I managed to find ways (some are illicit) to subscribe to all sorts of foreign magazines. I remember my very first one was Newsweek. In the beginning, I couldn’t recognize more than half of the words in any article, but I labored through it with all means possible to the point when I could fully enjoy reading Fareed Zakaria’s great columns.
My favorite magazine during that period turned out to be National Geographic. In one month’s issue, I was gifted with a wonderful “Earth at Night” map which I hung on my wall till today. As a kid, I often stood there looking at it, aching and fantasizing about future global travel.
I also surfed the young internet for whatever kind of information I could find. I even bought an old-school short-wave radio and (secretly) listened to foreign radio transmitted across the high seas. At the time my favorite channel was the Chinese-language channel of France’s RFI, which is relatively balanced regarding China vs US, (unless it comes to French affairs). I hated Voice of America. It’s utterly boring. There was also a Chinese-language channel from DPRK, giving me glimse into the hermit kingdom.
For the first few years, what I saw and learned truly fascinated me. I started to learn about Western ideas and political philosophies. Liberty, democracy, rule of law, checks and balances, Adam Smith, Tocqueville, Jefferson, Rousseau, Plato… This beautiful variety of fresh ideas and new information made the paltry information I had access to in China pale in comparison. Toward the dreaded monotony and self-righteousness of the official indoctrination in China, I felt disgust, even anger.
This political awakening also coincided with my rite of passage as a teenager. And you could imagine how explosive that combo could prove to be at times. (My parents will painfully agree.)
I sincerely felt at the time, that indeed, as Francis Fukuyama famously claimed, the history has ended. It’s a matter of time before the whole world will converge into the same value system.
But has the history really ended?
My Second Awakening
At a certain point, I forgot exactly when, maybe at ~20, something started to bug me. Something seemed missing but I didn’t yet know how to describe it.
I felt that what I was learning started to be repetitive, and boring. The first publication that started to bore me was The Economist. It’s a curious publication that always seems to give you an expansive view of the entire world, but yet amazingly, an invisible hand always seems to be able to fit every event of the world into a single ideological framework. A protest happening in the Middle East? This is because of a lack of democracy. Indian economy not doing great? But their democratic institutions are wonderful. Modi is doing something right for India’s economy? But he is damaging India’s democratic institutions. Economic miracle in China? But one-party rule is too bad! Economic problems in China? Because of no democracy, of course!
Is the world really that simple? Shouldn’t the world’s problems be already fixed by now if that’s so simple? My dreaded monotony has come back to me again.
At the same time, my understanding of the world starts to flourish in more directions. I read philosophy, world history, Chinese history, economics, science, social sciences, history of science… I tried several businesses during college, but they went nowhere. I tried investing, which was quite fun. And the aggregate of all these learnings and trials of real life made me appreciate the complexity of the world’s problems.
This world is not for the faint-hearted. Hard decisions are being made all the time. There would not be any magic pill for the world’s problems. And once there was an attempt for a magic pill, disasters usually ensue.
Yes, the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution were such lethal magic pills. But so was the Iraq War. I never could wrap my mind around the Iraq War. Looking back, I see a combination of paranoia, moral hubris, and sheer ignorance that brought the Americans into a war which was presumably a magic pill that would bring freedom and prosperity to the ancient land of Mesopotamia. Instead, what you got was only pain and suffering for the people involved and the loss of a million lives.
Events like the Iraq War (and similarly the shock therapy in post-Soviet Russia which essentially gave rise to Putin, and many other such episodes) ought to be important lessons that Westerners should keep revisiting and reflecting on the problems with their own political philosophy. Maybe we are missing something here? Maybe we should rethink our positions and start to reform them?
Instead, strangely, I almost never see people talking about events like the Iraq War anymore these days. It was certainly not “censored” in the same way that “Tiananmen Square” was censored in China, but I know it is still “censored”, in a more subtle but more effective way.
Some time ago I saw this video of Mr. Kishore Mahbubani, a former Singaporean diplomat giving an insightful talk at Harvard about this deeper format of “censorship”. (Gosh, how I love that small but sensible country.) I think this talk was viewed by far too few people in the West:
One thing that really surprised me, on the one hand, United States has the freest media in the world, the best finance newspapers, the best finance television stations in the world. But I can tell you this, as someone who travels 30 or 40 countries a year, when I come to the United States, and when I go to my hotel room in Charles Hotel and turn on the television, I feel I have been cut off from the rest of the world. Literally. The insularity of the American discourse is actually frightening. This is also true for the New York Times. This is also true for the Washington Post. This is true for the Wall Street Journal. There is this incestuous, self-referential discourse among these newspaper journalists, and they reinforce each others’ perspectives and end up misunderstanding the world.
What Mr. Mahbubani said entirely resonates with me.
Today, whenever I turn to read the same mainstream Western media that led me onto my journey 20 years ago, I am shocked to find that although I have evolved a lot since then, what I am reading seems not to have changed at all! For all this time, the same media seem only able to put on the same old set of lenses to explain the world. There is only one doctrine, one yardstick, and one principle to decide what’s good or bad: the Religion of Democracy and Freedom. Never mind about the importance of economic development. Never mind the importance of peace. Never mind deeper respect for rules and civility that may only flourish in an environment of stability and prosperity, and through good public education. All of these important topics pale in front the all-mightly Religion of Democracy and Freedom. You take this magic pill, you are cured. Refuse it? You are doomed.
I have suddenly realized the same Western media that used to amaze me 20 years ago, is sadly also a form of indoctrination. It’s, for lack of a better word, propaganda. Not just any propaganda, but a more dangerous form of propaganda in which the people involved don’t realize it at all!
What’s propaganda anyway? I have witnessed two kinds of propaganda in my life, so I think I have something to say here: propaganda is really just the systemic expression of any set of belief systems (aka ideology) that claims only this ideology is better than everything else. Sometimes, even facts and truth can be sacrificed for the sake of upholding this one ideology. But isn’t telling the truth (including the whole truth) what news media’s main job is all about? Since when does conformity to the same story become more important?
In this regard, Chinese propaganda and Western propaganda really don’t have much difference. The only difference is that Western propaganda is far more effective, that far fewer people question it, and that wars and suffering and human sacrifices could be brought about by this self-referential propaganda without people involved ever realizing it and ever regretting it.
My Renewed Perspective on China
If you are too married into the West’s ideological monotony, you might think I am ranting against the idea of democracy. Absolutely not! I love democracy. Democracy is good. Freedom is valuable. I am simply objecting to the idea that one set of ideas should take absolute precedence over others.
And you will be surprised that China has no grudge against democracy as well. Some of you might think words like “democracy” are censored in China. Not at all. The truth is, “democracy” is at the core of China’s modernization program. It’s written in our constitution. It’s written in the Party’s constitution. It’s mentioned in every major policy document, such as the recent communique of the pivotal 3rd Plenum. No Chinese officials today in their right mind will say democracy itself is a bad thing, and if they do, they will easily lose power. (They do have objections against western-style democracy.) We, the modern Chinese, share the same core belief that the government should be of the People, by the People, and for the People. We only disagree with the West about how to make it work.
Within this context, it might be easier for you to understand why last year, when Biden called Xi a “dictator”, instead of staying silent about it, the party and state apparatus went into overdrive fighting this narrative. This is just because our political power is essentially built on a set of values that also include democracy, leaving no space for a true cartoonish “dictator” to exist. Sure, some of our leaders may be more willful than others, and some of the policies may not get everyone on board, but if that willfulness is not for the sake of the People but only for the self-interest of that leader, he will be kicked out in any minute.
And here is another important fact I have come to understand about my own country over the years: for many people who only have one set of lenses to look at the world, one thing they still don’t understand is that China is not about anti-democracy. What China is about is finding and managing the right balance among many good value systems at the same time.
During the 18th Party Congress in which Xi Jinping ascended to the top role, the Communist Party enshrined all together 12 so-called “Core Socialist Values”, they are:
Prosperity, Democracy, Civility, Harmony, Freedom, Equality, Fairness, Rule of Law, Patriotism, Dedication to Work, Integrity and Friendship.
You see, both democracy and freedom are listed as part of the 12 core values of the People’s Republic of China. They are not looked down upon. They are not ignored. It’s just that they are on par with 10 other core values and have no dominating position over others.
Aren’t 12 values too many? Will too many values at the same equal no value at all? Perhaps, but it’s really hard to tell which one should dominate others. Maybe we really need all of these.
Aren’t some of those values conflicting with others? Yes, there will inevitably be conflicts. But such is the reality of life. Not all things that we cherish can be realized at the same time. Sacrifices are constantly made according to the circumstances of the time. When those sacrifices are made, it might be tempting to believe China no longer believes in X or Y, but in truth, China is really only prioritizing different values.
Such is the context in which the heavily worded concept of “whole-process democracy” was born. This idea aroused some ridicule from the West, perceiving it as window-dressing for an authoritarian system. But don’t laugh at it just yet. I see it as a good attempt at defining “democracy” within the space of other values that are interconnected, integrated and sometimes competing.
At the same time, the idea of “whole-process democracy” confirms the central importance of “democracy” in China’s modernization efforts, yet at the same time, it’s also about recognizing there is no easy fix. This is about the humble acceptance of seeing no clear pathway. This is about crossing the river by feeling the stone.
This is about no magic pill.
Why Ideological Monotony is Dangerous
But increasingly I have come to appreciate this ambiguity more and prefer it over a clear answer. Because a clear answer is not just boring. It’s also dangerous as it creates and amplifies imagined divisions between people who hold one view against those who hold another.
Wherever there are people, there will be differences. It’s what makes the world beautiful and diverse in the first place. But if one group of people hold on too tightly to their own perspective, a religious crusade ensues.
This is, what I see, the ultimate force behind the rise of Trumpism and the ultra-right. Western elites have been for years living inside their own self-congratulatory ideological bubbles, blinding their view, fooling themselves into the idea that history has ended, and so for a long time, they have neglected the plight of the underprivileged, the hillbillies, the rednecks, the rust belt poverty, channeling energy into the swelling populist anger.
Yet to react to this anger, the elites seem unable to deliver concrete policies to re-adjust the balance. Instead, they only seem to be able to dial up the moralizing rhetoric, blaming and labeling their opponents as bad people. They stick to their ideological monotony, which will only let the opposing camp harden even more. The two camps are forever locked into a game of “right vs wrong”, of “good vs evil”, each side only believing its own ideology is right. This kind of division is very difficult to be bridged, unless a fundamental shakeup in core belief takes place.
When ideological monotony comes to global affairs, it also constantly frames the world into a “good vs evil” binary and does not think twice about waging endless wars to uphold their side of values. This not only sowed further imbalances into the global structure, but also, in the words of Kishore Mahbubani, a fundamental misunderstanding of the world. Perhaps, they fail to recognize not all great powers want to resort to war to achieve their goals? My single biggest fear about US-China relations is seeing fanatics and diehards taking the reins at policymaking, who want nothing but to vanquish the other side, risking a global conflagration.
When the mighty Tang Dynasty fell into chaos in 907, people in Japan, ever great pupils of the Tang, self-styled themselves as Tang’s spiritual descendants. Today, when you visit Japan, the temples you see are all essentially in the Tang style. Similarly, when the Ming Dynasty fell in 1644, and when ethnic Manchus ruled over China and established the Qing Dynasty, the Koreans curiously came to this belief that the Qing Dynasty was unworthy of succeeding the politico-cultural orthodoxy of "China", so instead, Korea’s Confucianist Joseon dynasty asserted itself as the legitimate heir to the Chinese civilization and termed itself "Little China".
At the risk of sounding overly ambitious, I sometimes also see my generation as potential preservers of the best of Western values, which are at the risk of falling victim to the West’s own over-stretch. Fake prophets of all stripes are taking center stage. The temple may fall in front of us at any minute. But not all should be lost. I believe that the best of the Western values, the ones that attracted me in the first place, would have to be rejuvenated and blended with other cultures and traditions to be great again. For a starter, the Chinese emphasis on maintaining the right balance among different values may be a cool idea that’s worthy of some consideration.
The Final Twist
Newsweek, the same esteemed publication that was the starting point of my journey, recently published an article that for the first time ever, quoting me! But instead of giving me a sense of joy, it felt like some dark humor.
A few months ago, Tucker Carlson made this interview with Putin, in which Professor Putin waxed to pupil Carlson about the history of Russia and Ukraine, justifying his war efforts. I found this episode amusing. I think Putin did have some point, that history is something we have to factor in. But there is always the question of where we should draw the line. So I made a joke on X about China’s vast lost territories to Russia as late as the late 1900s.
Yet this joke got picked up by Newsweek, and became the central piece of evidence for the story that China eyes Russia's Far East as Putin's 'history lesson' backfires. They never came to me to ask me if it was a joke or if I seriously believed it. They never question a humble user like me might not be a good representation of “China”. They just had a narrative, and then spun my joke into the narrative. They don’t really care about facts, only the story.
In a bizarre twist, my dreaded ideological monotony finally gets to me. My journey has come in a full circle. Propaganda is back.
Yet, I have grown up and am no longer a child. Will you?
Hi, I went through a similar journey, admiring the West, and now feeling disillusioned. In truth, there was plenty to admire, and I like to think that the West today is not the same as what it once was. Perhaps it’s easy to be principled and magnanimous when the West collectively dominated the world’s economy. But not so easy when one feels threatened by the economic (and military) success of regimes that are supposed to fail.
Yet again, did the West ever deserve admiration? It’s only recently that I discovered how the CIA has overthrown (or helped to overthrow) democratically elected governments in Iran, Congo, Chile, Afghanistan, etc, … instigated the violence against the Chinese community in Indonesia for their alleged communist sympathies, …. Who knows what other atrocities have gone unreported? And know, the ongoing genocide in Gaza (which the US supports by continuing to provide arms) has laid bare the full hypocrisy of the West.
The hope I have for a better, more just world is the continued growth of the Global South, and the diminishing centrality of the West, economically and culturally. I also hope that more and more Chinese, Asians, Africans, Latin Americans wake up and see Western hegemony for what it is. Western soft power” remains formidable, and humans have an unfortunate tendency to admire the rich and powerful (which Adam Smith observed in his Theory of Moral Sentiments).
Also, too many people still conflate “democracy” either a particular set of Western liberal institutions, simply dismissing the possibility that other ways of doing democracy is possible. I agree with your observation about dualism, dividing the world into “democratic” vs “authoritarian”, and treating allies as “democratic” no matter how undemocratic they really are. (Is Israel really a democracy? Is Ukraine really democratic? Is the US really democratic when the wealthy have so much influence on preselecting candidates?)
I feel this is an important topic, and you should keep writing about it. It is something I am exploring in my own Substack publication “The possibility of democratic choice” (it’s a personal journal).
A very interesting piece. The West has no understanding of balance. The closest we get is systems thinking which also allows us to differentiate wholes from parts & self organisation from top down control. The Western elite are trained factor-ists, reducing an argument to parts & hammering down against each part. But they are poorly equipped to see the complex whole. The Starling murmuration that pulls together into something bigger. That is governed by rules & order but always poised at the edge of state change ready to disassemble into parts. Your point about conservation & stability is a good one. In the West we are careless about the organic, adaptive tools of stabilisation that we possess. We develop something as remarkable as the common law & jury system then destroy it with a politically appointed SCOTUS that doles out ideology. Instead of patient, trial & error justice that is constantly updated & adapted at the local level, we get this top down, politically skewed code making. A court of 9 wielding more ideological influence than a congress of 535. The same is true for markets. We develop something local, adaptive & balanced & then hand it to 10 white men in Silicon Valley & ask them to pick winners. All the diversity & variation is stripped from the system & we’re forced to consume the output of 4-5 producers across all our ‘markets’. With Peter Thiel saying - out loud - that competition is for dummies. In short, in the West we took a balanced, varied, distributed, bottom up, local set of institutions & handed them to oligarchs. Our strongest organs of power cannot discipline these oligarchs & reintroduce variation. So we cover the whole thing with this nonsense about ‘democracy & freedom’ when a coup has taken place. A coup that does not seek balance, distributed power & conservation but power law distribution & oligarchy. We have so much to learn if we can just zoom out & see the whole scene instead of its parts.