How's that for a post title, eh? Particularly on a Monday.

Let's unpack that a bit. I'm responding to that "Letter from Beijing" article written by Howard French at the International Herald Tribune (h/t China Law Blog). Very odd article, and after reading Dan's comments, I felt like I was unnecessarily being tugged back and forth between two diametrically opposed opinions.

This is the Manichaean – good/evil, black/white, paper/plastic – sort of approach that political scientists and economists sometimes take when looking at the world. Bush has boosted this method of analysis with statements like "You're either with us or against us." In this case, either China's "system" is right, or the West is right.

Howard French wonders whether the Chinese way of doing things is perhaps correct after all. However, he doesn't really spell out in detail what that way of doing things really is (political? economic?), and I don't have a clear picture who "the doubters" are in the first place. Annoying, that, particularly since the Chinese "way of doing things" is changing rapidly from year to year.

French's guidance starts off with a description of China as an embodiment somehow of "big government and an all-powerful state." Coincidentally, I got into a discussion last Friday with some of my students on this very subject, and I cautioned them not to fall into the "all-powerful state" trap.

The limits of the state in China are tremendous, and the tug-of-war between the central government and provincial/local government has been going on for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. One sign of success cited by French, 11.5% GDP growth, is just as much a symbol of China's current federalism problems (e.g. Beijing wants to slow down, but localities keep investing) than anything else.

Even that attractive symbol of political repression, Internet censorship, is by no means the "Great Firewall" monolith as many believe. Several folks much more versed in the subject than myself have suggested other nifty names that are much more realistic and descriptive labels. (For example: Silicon Hutong suggests "Checkpoint China", while Danwei uses "Net Nanny.")

French lists a lot of impressive things the government here has done. Economic growth, the bustling metropolis of Shanghai, the stock market . . . wait a minute. Does he really point to the stock market, which is bubbling along completely divorced from reality and worrying a lot of people, as a success story? Yikes, that's a brave move. To me, the stock market is a sign of an unbalanced transitional economy. Lots of good things about it, but a lot to worry about as well. Bold choice.

Next we go into a discussion of how the government here controls all political dialogue, and that because of this, decisions are theoretically made based purely on logic. Personnel decisions in the leadership are determined by merit alone. Interesting, to say the least.

I understand that this is calculated exaggeration used to make a rhetorical point, and that if French had more column inches, this argument would have been developed with a bit more sophistication. As it is, it looks like some sort of propaganda, which it obviously is not meant to be. To be fair, French poses a lot of this in the form of questions, musing to himself whether the world could actually follow a "China model" in this regard.

In my reading of this, I figured that French was setting up an extreme position in his article only to hit back in his conclusion that things are not so black and white and that these comparisons are not at all useful at a time of tremendous change in this country. I guess his editor must have excised that insightful concluding message, 'cause I never found it.

So what happens when a one-sided, unrealistic viewpoint is floated out there? One that purports to discuss the "China model" even though the description of that model does not resemble the real political and economic structure of this country? Well, folks take up the challenge and respond to it.

Dan's response is a flat-out rejection of French's thesis: "I do not believe Beijing is right." I assume based on the rest of his post that he is talking about the political system, although he might also be referring to elements of a controlled economy. But that's the problem. Because French did not elaborate on what his "China model" was, we also don't really know upon what Dan's response is based.

I bring this up specifically in relation to Dan's comments because I have spoken to him personally about some of these issues and know that his opinions are quite balanced and moderate. French's article does not on its face invite a reasoned, moderate response, and that's a shame.

Note: CLB readers stepped up to the plate with some good comments that are worth a read. Paul Midler also has some comments at The China Game, and it sounds like he is in general agreement with Dan.