[refurb]

This is an incredibly generous take on the situation.

In China the corruption of government officials is several orders of magnitude higher. We’re talking wholesale theft of govt assets in the billions of dollars.

Chinese leaders also have a much more tenuous hold on power. They aren’t smacking down Jack Ma because they are looking out for the Chinese commoner (though they might benefit), their top priority is looking out for themselves.

[oreally]

To put it this way is too much of a simplification. There is good and bad.

For now their priorities intersect with the chinese commoner, ie. Protecting themselves via serving the chinese commoner. Another bonus to this is the ability to make harder decisions now for the sake of the future.

The fact of the matter is that with this 'aligned interests' dictatorial style you can more done and plan for the future - so long as that future is aligned with your population.

I'd say the standoffish bipartisan politics of the US is far harder to get things done, but hey, as I'm sure some of you would say, it's better to have the freedom.

[refurb]

Authoritarian decision making is great until the authority starts making the wrong decisions.

The bipartisan politics of the the US is not a bug, it’s a feature. It was entirely intentional that power was split and broad consensus was required to get anything done.

[oreally]

Categorizing it as either a bug or a feature is thinking at extremes and is indicative of the influence of the media on your minds, leading to poor decision making. It's a feature with weaknesses.

As another example, the NRA preventing gun control laws in spite of school shootings. The path the US has chosen is both poison and boon. The trouble is who gets to suffer from the poison?

[bllguo]

nobody disputes if it was (broadly) by design, it's whether the design is outdated and needs modernization.

by the way, i actually really disdain founding fathers veneration, but two-party deadlock was infamously _not_ intentional. neither was our increasingly corporatocratic government.

[refurb]

i actually really disdain founding fathers veneration, but two-party deadlock was infamously _not_ intentional

It absolutely was.

Canada, where the majority party can pass whatever they want (their majority practically guarantees it), the unelected Senate almost always rubber stamps it and the head of state is one and the same as the ruling party, it's clear that the US design is intentional.

Nothing gets passed in the US unless: 1) House approves it, 2) Senate approves it, 3) President signs it. All three bodies are independently elected.

It was clearly intentional to be much more challenging to pass legislation in the US. What you call gridlock, I call the system operating as designed.

[haram_masala]

This is the first time I have ever heard the claim that the CCP's hold on power is anything but rock solid. Unless you mean that specific leaders within the party have a tenuous hold against their party rivals.

[refurb]

The later.