Chinese Newspaper Denounces Long Lines For Americans In Choosing Their Leader

My colleague and well-known China expert Donald Clarke sent me another ironic nugget from our friends in China. China’s Global Times has run a story entitled “Seven-Hour Wait to Vote; This Election Is Shameful.” Since I blogged on this disgrace myself, I would normally be heartened by the outcry, but coming from China, where citizens are denied the ability to choose their government, it is nothing short of absurd. It is right up there with the Iranian government calling for the investigation of the mistreatment of protesters in England.


The article proclaims “The U.S. claims to be free and democratic, but the rights of the people are far from guaranteed. It is increasingly difficult for a U.S. citizen to cast a vote and for that vote to be counted”

You know the best thing about authoritarian rule? No lines.

My favorite response online is:

ZhaoHanqingJason: What is a ballot?

then there is . . .

UncleDingdang: If it’s a shame for American voters to wait for seven hours, then what should it be for Chinese people to have waited for over 60 years?

Clearly the irony is not lost on the Chinese people.

Source: China Digital

25 thoughts on “Chinese Newspaper Denounces Long Lines For Americans In Choosing Their Leader

  1. The world got to read and see the Republican voter suppression efforts during this election cycle; they also got to read and see that it did not work because it really pissed off a lot of people who made a determined effort to overcome the restrictions and vote. That said, I think what the Chinese article was really alluding to was a message to all self-righteous types who are always telling the rest of the world how to run their own Country and systems. We should just keep our collective mouths shut and continue to make our “points” by our example…like those determined voters.

  2. Justice Holmes,

    I agree with you that we need to clean up our act. The US is moving more and more to an over-criminalized, philosophically bankrupt parody of what it should be. But I disagree with your dismissive attitude towards a “matter of degree”. All societies are only a matter of degree. None are perfect, not one can be perfect (whatever standard you our I use as perfection notwithstanding). I will acknowledge that you did not use perfect, not your word but mine tied to a matter of degree.

    A matter of degree is a very meaningful standard to judge liberty.

  3. “That said, I think what the Chinese article was really alluding to was a message to all self-righteous types who are always telling the rest of the world how to run their own Country and systems. ”

    I assume you’ve kept your mouth shut about Franco’s Spain (if you’re old enough), Pinochet’s Chile, the Junta’s Argentina, Pol Pot’s Cambodia or even Myanmar today. I’ll leave out the African continent for brevity. If you want to stick with your point and say that you have no criticism, or that criticism would be “self-righteous” even if you do, I’ll go with that. A Communist regime “alluding” in your statement is ludicrous.

    “The world got to read and see the Republican voter suppression efforts during this election cycle; they also got to read and see that it did not work because it really pissed off a lot of people who made a determined effort to overcome the restrictions and vote.” Which lead to a 51-48 popular vote, hardly meeting the it “pissed off a lot of people” unless you think Romney would have won otherwise. My feeling on this is that it’s a tempest in a teapot. I’ve seen claims of voter suppression, but there seems to be lot of subjectivity in that claim because it smacks of cognitive dissonance. My major thrust on this would be, to avoid any tu quoque, is that it is endemic to a political system. I’m old enough to remember the voter fraud issues of both Kennedy and LBJ, the usual suspects being Texas, Illinois, and Massachusetts (White in his “Making of the President” series goes over this).

    Taking it OT but I think germane to my point, when you demonize one party to the point that they are “the bad guys” you lose perspective to the point of insularity. Both parties throughout the 20th Century have done really bad things. The 1924 DNC is affectionately known as the “Klanbake”, and no it wasn’t solely because of the South, the third wave of the Klan had its tendrils throughout the US; at the same time the Republicans had Klan scandals in at least Indiana and possibly California and Oregon. FDR was the President that started J. E. Hoover on spying on domestic dissidents (1937 IIRC, and no it wasn’t just the GA Bund, but all including his political opponents). Woodrow Wilson was by far our worst President on civil liberties, he had something like 75 newspapers shut down for sedition, warned many others, while arresting by various estimates 50,000 to 175,000 using the Sedition laws (US pop. approx 104 million in 1919). Neither he nor FDR were disposed to “civil rights” (I use scare quotes only because to me civil rights is civil liberties).

    It was Truman that desegregated the military in 1948, and Eisenhower started it for the nation in 1954 after Brown v. Board of Education . Plessy v Furgeson in 1894 was decided by a SCOTUS heavily Democrat, IIRC. And no I haven’t forgotten Nixon’s Southern Strategy, but it’s impact is overblown compared to history previous.

  4. Just desire to say your article is as astonishing.
    The clearness in your post is simply spectacular and that i could
    assume you’re an expert on this subject. Fine along with your permission allow me to clutch your feed to stay updated with drawing close post. Thank you one million and please keep up the rewarding work.

Comments are closed.