Transcription
You know, I think the the West, especially America, have been extraordinarily arrogant. You've been lecturing everybody so much everywhere around the world. You're so used to lecturing people and humiliating people. You don't think you're humiliating them. And finally, you got a you got somebody who's grown big enough and say, "No, we're not going to take that anymore." And you think they're thin skin, and that's the case, you know, that's okay.
>> You don't think China is acting arrogant now?
>> I hope we won't be arrogant. All right. But even if we are, we're far behind someone else. I am sure I am sure things that have happened in the history of the people's republic will be discussed much much sooner than how soon you you address the race problems in America.
>> Okay, fair enough.
>> I think there is a extraordinarily high degree of self-criticism within the party right now through this self-reinvention. Okay. Now, first of all, self-criticism is only useful when it's relevant. Um, and and let me just point out the parties being engaged in three major major areas of self criticism since the 18th party congress. One is political corruption. Okay? From 2012 on, every single newspaper, every single television, you can't get away from Chinese official media without reading and hearing about the horrible situation with corruption. And they attacked it because of that self criticism. Okay. Second, environmental degradation. Okay. You can't get away from media reports from the party itself about we got to fix the environment. We screwed up. Okay. and and and anybody who lives in Beijing will tell you how much improvement they've had in their air uh in the past five, six, seven years. Okay? 10, 20 years, 10, 15 years ago, you go to Beijing, you can hardly catch a day with blue sky. Uh now, most days are blue sky. Okay? Self-criticism. Third, most important right now, inequality. Okay? you know, um the the last campaign to eradicate extreme poverty in the country, the campaign lasted about eight years. They took the last 99 million people out of absolute poverty. Mhm. Nearly 2,000 party members died in the process. Okay. Several million of them went to the front lines. They went to rural areas with harsh conditions. Okay. So, why did they do that? Self-criticism. They realized there was a problem that economic reforms have lifted a lot of people, made a lot of rich people and built this great big middle class, but many many millions of people were left behind and there was something wrong with that. So the entire campaign was driven by self-criticism. Race is always a big problem in America. I I know that's from the the country's DNA. So I think I uh I will support uh a great discussion a greater discussion in America and that came very late um you know come on when did Lincoln live 150 years ago whenever it was okay now you're doing this and you call the self criticism and you're asking China when you're going to do it about 1989 come on cut people some slack
>> well I think we didn't wait until after uh it's been since Lincoln that we've discussed race in America
>> I'm sure I'm sure I'm Sure, things that have happened in the history of the people's republic will be discussed much much sooner than how soon you you address the race problems in America.
>> Okay, fair enough. Think about it. The party 92 million members, that's only 6% of the population of China, which is about 1.3 to 1.4 billion. Can 6% of the population really represent, you know, the entire population of China? It is it is bigger than what I call the holy trinity that runs America. The holy trinity the one America is also in in in in some way a one party state and it's run by a party called the holy trinity. I call it Wall Street, Silicon Valley and Hollywood.
>> These three groups of people including the nannies that they employ no more than 100 no more than a million people. They make all the decisions in America. That's why you have all these dissatisfaction in the country.
>> Well, some people would add in the gun lobby and a lot of others in there as well.
>> Gun lobby too
>> into that trinity. But uh but seriously, I mean, what what are the checks and balances in a in a one party state? What if what if what if the what if the party what if Xiinping got something wrong?
>> Oh, let let me tell you without real checks and balances, the party would not have survived this long. Okay. So, so when we when we talk about all these con abstract concepts like checks and balances or democracy for that matter, okay, we ought not f only focus on procedure. We ought to focus on outcome. Okay, when you have these really beautiful things like checks and balances and democracy of people's will. You when you have them, the outcome should be success. Success means people are satisfied and their lives are getting better and they look towards future with optimism and society is cohesive. Okay? I don't care what kind of procedures you have. If you don't achieve those outcomes, I don't think you're democratic. I don't think these checks and balances do any good.
>> So, are you one of those who believes that the east is rising and the west is in decline?
Well, I wouldn't put it in those terms. I mean, I I'm one that I hope liberal societies could rejuvenate themselves. You know, liberalism needs some self-criticism. Liberal liberals in liberal societies should learn from the party state in China. The party state in China has been very good at at self-criticism. That's why they reinvent themselves. Mhm.
>> You only reinvent them yourself when you see problems.
>> Otherwise, why would you reinvent yourself, right?
>> Mhm.
>> So, liberal societies have been failing at that
>> for the past decades because they take their system for granted. They think there's some kind of moral imperative that that sometime somehow they take their system as a given that it it works. It's the best thing you've got. So, of course, you don't need self-criticism. you don't need to reinvent yourself. Um I I I I hope for a world where we have a we have a degree of pluralism, a degree of plurality, different kind of systems and ideologies could coexist and compete. Um so I I wish liberalism well.
>> Well, let me let me ask a question that might be slightly provocative. Don't mean it to be, but I I I mean it and I mean it with all seriousness. I mean, most people would say that the vast majority of Chinese support what what the Communist Party has done and what the Communist Party is doing. Why don't they have why don't they have an election like in Singapore where the ruling party has been in power? They have elections to legitimize their rule every once in a while. They continue to stay in power, but that kind of rejuvenates and allows them to claim legitimacy from the people.
Well, we have a system of selecting capable people from the population and move them up to lead the country and they've proven to be great leaders and effective leaders. They have delivered countries I mean Singapore is a small place I don't want to use as an example. Okay. countries, especially big liberal societies, at least in the past few decades with your elections, have not been able to produce leaders that are capable and effective and can deliver. So, the best way for you to convince the Chinese to have elections to make yours work.
Well, let me ask you the question then. Without elections, where does the Communist Party in China get its legitimacy? They I mean they were originally a revolutionary party. They won the war.
>> They get they get their legitimacy like I said based on outcome. Okay. Procedural legitimacy I think is what is getting liberal societies in trouble. It's what getting liberal politics in trouble. As long as you follow procedure, even if you elect people that are completely incompetent, even if you elect people that are selfish, that are corrupt, that don't deliver, you're still legitimate. Um, we don't want that. We want leaders who get their legitimacy by delivering. If you can deliver the goods, you are legitimate.