The world is fast-forwarding, and America is anxious

  As is customary, at the end of each year, a year-end inventory is conducted to review the major international events that occurred in the year and analyze how these events will affect the future. Taking stock of the last few years, there is always this feeling – every year is like a turning point.
  Indeed, the world cannot go back to the past, and it is difficult to see where the future will go. This generation has witnessed “historical events” more often than at any time since the end of the Cold War. World politics is fast-forwarded, and that state is unlikely to go away until uncertainty eases. Because the major powers in the world are all exerting force with unprecedented strength. The focus is on both internal governance and external relations.
  History is the result of synergy, and so is the future. Any “big event” that happens is related to the past and “maps” the future. In a period of great changes unseen in a century, the relationship between “this moment” and the future will become even closer. For example, the major decision-making, active deployment and crisis response of the world’s major powers, as well as the interaction between them, will leave a deep imprint on the “future”.
  The objective effect of “fast forward” is that the moment is the future. This does not mean that tomorrow will be a repetition of today, but that all relevant parties are aware that the world is fast-forwarding, and they are all making efforts to seize the high ground in the future. The post-Brexit European Union is striving to ensure that it becomes the “pole” of the world. After the regime change, Japan continues to struggle to “balance” between China and the United States.
  In contrast, the United States is a special prism. The United States in 2021 is definitely a distribution center for “big events”. If you want to find out the events that can “load history” and “map” future events, it is not difficult. On January 6 at the beginning of the year, the “Capitol Hill Rebellion” broke out in the United States, and several people died. On December 9 at the end of the year, the United States hosted a “democracy summit” that brought together more than 100 countries.
  For the United States, both events can be called “unprecedented.” The difference is that the former is an offline activity, while the latter is an online advertisement. Sometimes history is so ironic. Two things that look and feel completely different can be united by the same logic: America is the benchmark for democracy.
Today’s Biden is calling a democratic summit, but he is dividing the world in two, objectively creating resistance to concerted efforts to deal with global problems.

  The cause of the “Crash on Capitol Hill” was that supporters of the then incumbent President Trump were dissatisfied with the results of the presidential election, so they bypassed normal procedures and tried to prevent President-elect Biden from “taking the throne.” Moreover, this matter also has an inexplicable relationship with Trump. Therefore, no matter from which perspective, American “democracy” is making history.
  The investigation of the matter by the relevant U.S. departments is still ongoing, and it is unknown whether it will extend to Trump. But Biden convened a democracy summit at the end of the year, as if to tell the world that what happened at the beginning of the year was just an episode, and that the old America has returned.
  The question of whether American democracy is safe will not dissipate when Biden enters the White House. The reason is not difficult to understand, because judging from the current domestic situation in the United States, no one can determine which one Biden or Trump is the “episode” in American politics.
  Neither wants to be an episode, reflecting the collective anxiety of the American political elite. But this anxiety is bound to become a problem for the world. Because once America becomes sick, the world will share the medical bills. The financial crisis more than 10 years ago was an economic disease, but now it is a political disease.
  However, when the United States convened the G20 summit that year, it objectively achieved the effect of making concerted efforts to stop the decline and rebound of the world economy. Today’s Biden is calling a democratic summit, but he is dividing the world in two, objectively creating resistance to concerted efforts to deal with global problems. Comparing the two, we can clearly see the trade-off between constructive and destructive in America’s international role.
  Excessive force due to anxiety. In the new crown epidemic, economic recovery, climate change and many other pressing issues, Biden’s choice to “sell democracy” is too much force.
  Biden is clear in his heart that the root of America’s problems lies in internal governance, which is also the problem faced by the vast majority of countries in the world. His real intention is by no means to “make democracy great again”, but to go sideways and to benefit the United States by creating opposition.

  The “Leaders Democracy Summit” led by the United States has no new tricks. It is still the old way of dealing with the Soviet Union. It uses democracy as a moral banner to vilify the opponent’s ideology, and defines the vitality of the opponent’s development as a kind of the result of injustice.
  This time, the United States, wearing old shoes and taking a new path, may very well indeed end history—the history of the moral superiority of Western democracies in the world. The stars have changed, and the Western democratic system has been “shattered by the autumn wind” under the test of the epidemic, while China’s path of deliberative democracy has shown its powerful function of supporting national development and the improvement of people’s well-being.
  People are thinking, what is the purpose of democracy? Is it just to look good on the facade? Why not consider an alternative path to democracy that is free from the limitations of the old forms, but can actually lead to real benefits?
  In a community of sizable numbers of people, there is bound to be a split of interests. If such divisions are allowed to arise, accumulate and develop, the community will disintegrate and no one’s interests will be realized. The purpose of politics is to resolve this inevitable division of interests in the most benign way possible. Repression is autocracy, and consultation is democracy.
  In the history of human politics, despotism and democracy often coexist. For example, the Zhou Zhao republic in Chinese history was a small-scale democracy; in the history of Western Greece and Rome, the co-determination of the slave-owner class was also a small-scale democracy. From this we can find that the size of the scope of democracy is related to the class attributes of the regime. The reason why Western modern democracy is progressive in nature is because it expands the coverage of democracy. Whether it is direct democracy or representative democracy, it confirms that everyone has the right to express opinions on the operation of public power, so that the interests of The parties to the split remain benign in their attitudes. One person, one vote dilutes personal opinion to almost nothing, and through some complementary institutions or practices (such as the Electoral College system in the United States, political donations, and congressional lobbying), it is ensured that power remains in the hands of powerful classes.
The United States is addicted to a discursive trap of its own creation, that China’s development is caused by autocracy. Countless theories created by the West to serve their own interests over the centuries have all failed in the study of China.

  For a long time, this democratic system worked effectively. The effective reason is that, on the one hand, economic growth dominated by powerful classes expands the well-being of ordinary democracy, while economic growth depends on the international strength of technology, finance, manufacturing, trade and other fields, and even to a certain extent predatory nature. . On the other hand, the democratic system guarantees the freedom of citizens to a certain extent. Western-style freedom as a product of the market economy is recognized as the highest value, which is not only conducive to the realization of the interests of powerful classes, but also allows ordinary people to recognize that the current pattern of interests is legitimate , generally attributing personal predicament consciously to the individual. When the two work together, the Western democratic system can “solve the division of interests in a benign way.”
  America’s victory against the Soviet Union was largely due to these effectiveness. And now the core problem is that the failure of the first aspect leads to doubts about the second aspect, thus rendering democracy ineffective. Democracy was originally designed to stop disputes and reduce their destructiveness, but now, democracy itself has become a destructive battlefield that creates and enhances disputes.
  In essence, the predicament of the West is that there is a problem in development, and the problem of development is not solved, but it continues to argue politically. And we know that the reason why developing countries with democratic systems transplanted by the West are chaotic, turbulent, and mired in the quagmire is that their development problems have not been solved in essence, and now their system “God” is also caught in the predicament of their own creation.
  The United States is addicted to a discursive trap of its own creation, that China’s development is caused by autocracy. However, a large-scale modern country built on the basis of autocracy to achieve long-term stable development cannot be explained logically in itself. The countless theories created by the West to serve their own interests over the centuries have all failed in the study of China, basically because they have always refused to face the reality that there is not only one path to modernization, and there is not only one form of democracy.
  Democracy is diverse and should be self-generated and self-constructed in every society, which has always been China’s attitude and is increasingly widely accepted. As long as China does its own thing well in terms of national development, improvement of people’s well-being, protection of freedom and democratic rights, etc., it will have a stable and long-term foundation in the road competition.