I recently saw a film clip from last year of Bill Maher comparing the U.S and China. Here is the link: https://www.thewrap.com/bill-maher-china-dominating-us/ China, of course, comes out on top. Maher’s comparison was akin to the praise that European fans of Mussolini gave “At least the trains run on time.” You see, the Chinese are getting things done while the US is mired in trivial disputes. Well, yeah thats what happens when you have a democracy. Democracies are messy businesses because democracies care about their people and have to hear from them before making a move. In China some autocrat makes a decision. Nobody gets to disagree or question it. The Chinese just do what they are told.

Maher did suggest that there might be some middle way between our present chaotic and efficient democracy and the Chinese dictatorship. But what is that middle way? It would have been helpful if Maher had chosen a democracy that is getting things done instead of a dictatorship that is getting things done. With a democracy I could see if he had something to say and an idea of how to make things better. Instead he raves about China. Yes, China. The China that locks people into their apartment blocks, the China that uses Uyghurs as slave labor, the China that is shutting down democracy in Hong Kong, the China that is threatening democratic Taiwan, the China that builds cities where no one wants to live? That is, indeed, the China Maher is talking about.

What’s really frustrating is that I keep hearing the similar comments from a lot of smart people. Particularly, since the reason they are giving up is they believe that the other half of the country are numbskulls undeserving of democracy. They are not going to waste their time persuading idiots to change their minds. This willingness to forego democratic institutions for dictatorial edicts because I am right is troubling. It is as simple as that — I am right and they are wrong. Which is all good and well as long as the dictator agrees with you, but what if he doesn’t.

Another argument is that our democracy isn’t really a perfect democracy. A minority has taken hold of our institutions through antidemocratic processes ( the Electoral College, the Senate, gerrymandering, the filibuster) and that the only way to change them is through dictatorial edict. I agree that the present system is unfair but it is still the system. A system that is difficult to change. Next to impossible to change unless your party elects a President, controls the House, has a super-majority in the Senate, controls a super-majority of the individual states legislatures, and has a working majority on the Supreme Court. And then, and only then, can you think about making big changes to the rules. And even if you have control of all of these institutions, even then, it will be really difficult to get all the changes you want enacted.

So barring a revolution, there is no way a lot of these processes are going to change soon. I hear those mutterers who believe that maybe a revolution is in order here, at least until we can change to a fairer system. Revolutions are bloody and acrimonious and, given the divisions in this country, comes with very real difficulties that does real harm to good people on both sides of the divide. You may think you want a civil war but you really don’t and, unlike the last civil war, there will be two sides who could possess nuclear weapons. Think about it. Who gets the nuclear weapons in this divorce? It may depend on where those warheads are located.

So let’s stop talking about revolution and dictatorships and support democratic institutions because even unfair ones are better than dictatorships. A good example of the benefit of democratic institutions is the storming of the capital on January 6. The rebels thought they could stop the process and change the result of an election. Much to the dismay of the rebels, possessing the capital building, only delayed the process. Enough good people at various points did the right thing and saved us. Keep in the mind this wasn’t one person acting heroically. It was many different people seeing what the right thing to do was and behaving responsibly. A lot of people, with varying degrees of power, following the rule of law, made the decisions for us. This is the biggest strength of democracy. We all play a part and, if change comes, the matter has gone through a lot of duplicate, chaotic and often unnecessary processes but the people have had their say.

Can our democracy be better? Undoubtedly. If Maher has any suggestions on how to make these changes through democratic means, I am all ears. But China is neither a fair comparison nor particularly relevant. China is not a democracy and we can glean little from studying their processes. That they can put up a building overnight is neither something to value nor emulate if it came about from the whim of one person.

This leaves us with a difficult and a messy bunch of often unfair democratic institutions that we need to plow through in order to make changes. Democracy is extremely hard work and, if you are looking for quick changes, it is likely to meet with failure more often than not. Democracy is neither efficient nor particularly fast. It is certainly messy but in the end it is always better than a dictatorship. And I mean always.