Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other forms that have been tried from time to time.
So famously said Winston Churchill in 1947, when democracies, notwithstanding their postwar struggles, were still flush from their victory over the Nazis. Even now most Americans would agree that Churchill was right. Even now most Americans would agree that living in a democracy is better than living in an autocracy. But perhaps for the first time, Churchill’s observation should be challenged – even argued.
What if the most powerful autocracy in the world is running reasonably well and the most powerful democracy in the world is not? What if the deficits of democracy are becoming increasingly apparent? And what if the same can be said about the benefits of autocracy?
As I write, the United States is stumbling if not crumbling – no surprise given it’s being led by two men swinging a sledgehammer. And, as I write, China is steady as she goes – no surprise given it’s being led by a smart, sane strongman who’s helmed the ship of state since 2012.
This is not by any stretch to say that China is problem free. It is not. But for better and worse the Chinese government has been stable for well over a decade while the United States government has lurched from pillar to post. During the same stretch that China has been governed by a single individual, President Xi Jinping, and a single party, the Chinese Communist Party, the United States has been governed first by Republican President Donald Trump (2017-2021), then by Democratic President Joe Biden (2021-2025), and then back again to Republican Trump (2025-2029). This time along with political newbie and newfound sidekick, Elon Musk.
Moreover, when both presidents came into office (in Trump’s case the second time), they did nothing so fast as to undo legacies left by their immediate predeccessors. In 2021 Biden promptly issued a string of executive orders intent on erasing as much as he could as fast as he could of Trump. And in 2025 Trump did the same, intent on erasing as much as he could as fast as he could of Biden. Is this any way to run a railroad? Can you imagine Apple or JPMorgan doing a one-eighty, a total U turn every four years?
The United States though is not alone. Other democracies are also having a hard time – for example, Germany and France, Japan and South Korea. Is it then possible that for a constellation of causes democracy and the 21st century are incompatible? That there is something about this moment in history – especially the breathtaking changes in culture and technology – that makes good democratic governance exceedingly difficult to sustain? Is it possible that changing governments every few years as democracies are wont to do – even if in response to the will of the people – is ill-suited to an era in which leaders who are free to engage in long-term planning are greatly advantaged while leaders who are not, and who are, to boot, constantly being distracted by detractors, are greatly disadvantaged?
Let’s be clear: President Xi has benefited – and in many ways so has China – from his being left alone. Left alone to do what he wanted to do when he wanted to do it – and carefully to consider the future without much if any, intrusion or interruption.
No question that Xi – self-appointed leader for life – is far more dictatorial now than he was a decade ago. Similarly, no question that the Chinese people are far more subject to state and party control – in every aspect of their lives, from the cradle to the grave – than they were a decade ago. But from a geopolitical perspective China has gained against the United States. Moreover, given the times in which we live there is no good evidence that the U.S. will have the competence and consistency to slow its greatest competitor ever. For China is far more fearsome an opponent than the Soviet Union was even in its heyday.
This post is not about the current American president. Nor is it about the current Chinese president. Rather it is about the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the American and Chinese leadership systems in the 21st century.
In just the last week two things became clear.
First, China is giving the United States a run for its money on technology. The impact of DeepSeek on the American psyche has been profound and properly so. Not for nothing have the revelations about DeepSeek been dubbed a Sputnik moment: they made clear to Americans along with the rest of the world that so far as artificial intelligence is concerned, they are not invincible. Not only will China not be a bystander, it will be a formidable competitor.
Second, China is giving the United States a run for its money on the military. China now has the largest army in the world. China now has the largest navy in the world. And China is rapidly expanding its nuclear arsenal. OK, you might say, how much does this matter? Consider this. What does it say about Xi’s military ambitions that he is building in Beijing a military command center projected to be 10 times larger than the Pentagon?
Sure, maybe it’s just for show. But maybe not. Maybe size matters. Maybe size especially matters when it’s coupled with a leader who has boundless ambition and no competition. Maybe size especially matters given China’s arch-rival has a crippling case of whiplash that has no prospect of being cured anytime soon. And maybe size especially matters when democratic centrism gives way to nationalism, populism, and extremism. Which, even if they don’t further flower do damage. Damage to individuals. Damage to the state. Damage to democracy.
Let’s assume for a moment that my argument is valid. That there are certain things about this moment in history that make democratic governance difficult, or even, at least some of the time, impossible. What might a good democrat do? For starters, think big! The problems that bedevil liberal democracies are not small, nor are they familiar. They are large, and they are new, which means they require solutions that similarly are large, and new. Unfortunately I have yet to hear the leaders of the Democratic opposition – Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, Ken Martin – say a single syllable that begins even to rise to the occasion.