In the late 1940s, Chinese communists under Mao Zedong were battling the nationalist forces of Chiang Kai-shek. The prize, China itself, was a far cry from the great dynasties of the past that had contributed so much to civilization.
The U.S. was nominally on the side of Chiang, and had we lent him our full support he might have prevailed. But we were not confident of his abilities, and some saw any form of serious aid as throwing money down a rat hole. Others believed Chiang wasn’t much of an improvement over Mao, and his flawed military strategy did not inspire confidence that we would be backing a winner.
But what really drove our policy was the notion that China was so backward it would never be competitive with the West. What was the point of becoming materially invested in a nation that had nothing to offer in return, and never would?
For a long time, China seemed determined to prove the American diplomats right. Mao won popular favor by seizing lands from the wealthy and distributing it among the peasants, and as far as domestic policy went, it was pretty much downhill from there.
Mao finally did something useful for his country by dying in 1976. With a gradual liberalization of society and economics, China began to reclaim greatness, as entrepreneurs and private citizens were largely permitted to do their own thing in exchange for staying out of politics.
That ended with the ascension of Xi Jinping in 2012, who has systematically rolled back slowly won freedoms such as, to pick one, access to The New York Times.
Even if they disagree with their policies, some Americans have become envious of Xi and Russia’s Vladimir Putin, including some in elected office. To them, these stern-faced leaders who demanded absolute fealty represented a no-nonsense toughness — “manliness” as Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, would have it — that was lacking in an increasingly effete America.
All-County boys cross country: North senior O’Neil takes top honors
Trumpism tapped into this desire for a commandeering father figure who wouldn’t take any guff. This persona was quite effective. It’s worth remembering that former President Donald Trump wasn’t brought down by his countless scandals; he was brought down by the pandemic, without which he would still be president today.
The tools that were so effective in dealing with people — delay, denial, lies, bullying, tantrums, bravado — meant nothing to a virus. The first job of any leader is to protect his people, and Trump failed.
So too has President Xi’s government been bowled over by COVID. His people lack the recourse of the ballot box, so they must suffer as Xi flounders. His stubborn refusal to admit that Western vaccines were better than China’s, his inability to get seniors vaccinated at all and his ultimate solution of imprisoning the populace to keep the disease from spreading have taken, it seems, the worst elements of all other nations’ experiments and consolidated them into one epic disaster.
Even his system of bar codes to ensure that people venturing out are disease free are a reminder that in China, big brother knows your every move.
Xi won’t lose his position, but he has lost face, and to authoritarians, image is everything. Suddenly his stony expression can be interpreted not as wisdom, but as bafflement.
Putin, of course, wishes all he had to deal with was COVID. The grave that he has dug for himself in Ukraine now, nearly a year into the “special military operation,” seems inescapable. He yearned to be thought of as Peter the Great, but now seems certain to be relegated to history’s outhouse of butchers and losers.
The talking points of the American far right — largely a collection of intellectual ne’er-do-wells with YouTube channels — call for Trump or someone like him to ascend to power once more, at which point he would fire every federal employee of consequence and replace them with fellow authoritarians.
These are not sheep in wolves clothing trying to gain power through subterfuge, these are influencers who openly say that democracy has failed and needs to be repealed and replaced.
All-County girls cross country: North Hagerstown’s Lauren Stine leads the pack
This dovetails with extremist conservative efforts to put elections exclusively in the hands of state legislatures (in a case now before the Supreme Court) which would then be free to gerrymander and oppress the vote at will.
The ultimate goal is to take elections out of the hands of the people and policy out of the hands of Congress and vest power in a Xi- or Putin-like tyrant. This explains why these YouTube firebrands would end aid to Ukraine and why they want our COVID policies to be as dysfunctional as China’s.
Because when Xi and Putin look bad, our home-grown autocrats look bad too. Both are shining examples of the failures of one-person rule. Fortunately for us, our election deniers and democracy-scrappers seem no more capable of defeating democracy than Xi and Putin do of defeating COVID and Ukraine.
Tim Rowland is a Herald-Mail columnist.
This article originally appeared on The Herald-Mail: Home-grown autocrats look bad when China and Russia look bad
