In Powerful, Different, Equal: Overcoming the Misconceptions and Differences Between China and the US (2019), Peter B. Walker argues that each country is deeply rooted in its own governance model, making it unrealistic to expect one to adopt the other’s system or worldview. He emphasizes that fostering mutual understanding, rather than enforcing conformity, is essential for effective cooperation and the reduction of conflict.
America: A Nation Defined by Civic Ideals, Not Ethnicity
The United States was established as an “idea nation,” where national identity is based not on ethnicity or culture but on shared political principles. Core values such as freedom, democracy, equality, and the Constitution define what it means to be American. Unlike many countries that derive identity from a common language, religion, or heritage, the U.S. is a multiracial and multiethnic nation united by civic ideology. In this sense, anyone who embraces these principles can be considered American, reflecting a supranational approach to nationhood.
Because American identity is grounded in political ideals rather than ethnicity, Americans often have difficulty understanding countries whose identities are centered on culture or civilization rather than political ideology. For instance, China is frequently perceived narrowly as a political rival rather than a civilization with its own rich historical and cultural traditions. This tendency illustrates a broader pattern of interpreting other nations through the lens of American norms and definitions of national identity.
Within the United States, the definition of “Americanness” has historically been debated. Political perspectives often shape how people view it. Conservatives generally emphasize tradition and continuity, linking being American to shared customs, the English language, respect for national symbols, and assimilation into a common culture. Conversely, a more inclusive vision of American identity focuses on adherence to civic ideals rather than ancestry or religion. Nonetheless, debates persist, and social and political tensions sometimes arise, fueled by unfounded ideas such as the “Great Replacement” theory, which falsely portrays demographic changes as threats to a particular ethnic group’s claim to being American.
The “Great Replacement” is a far-right, white nationalist conspiracy theory. It asserts that non-white, non-Protestant populations—including Latino/Hispanic Catholics, Black Americans, and immigrants—are intentionally supplanting the white, Protestant population in the U.S. and Europe.
Overall, the United States serves as an example of a nation defined by political ideology and civic values rather than race or religion. Its evolving identity highlights the ongoing negotiation between inclusion and preservation, demonstrating how an “idea nation” continuously grapples with questions of citizenship, belonging, and national identity in a diverse society.
How the Cold War Shaped Enduring Anti-Communist Sentiment in U.S.
Anti-communism in the United States became a powerful and enduring sentiment largely due to the Cold War (1947–1991), when the U.S. and the Soviet Union were rival superpowers competing for global influence. The American political and cultural ethos, rooted in individual freedom, private property, and capitalism, sharply contrasted with the Soviet model of state-controlled economies, collective ownership, and restricted political freedoms. This ideological clash led many Americans to view communism as a direct threat to their core values. However, anti-communism in the U.S. extends beyond the Cold War era, reflecting deeper cultural beliefs and national identity that equate economic freedom with personal liberty and national success.
For centuries, American society has embraced free markets and limited government, often equating socialism, welfare programs, or government intervention with laziness and a threat to work ethic. As a result, the U.S. has generally been averse not only to communism but also to broader left-wing economic models, including socialism, social democracy, and democratic socialism. Republican politics, in particular, has often emphasized demonizing socialism while promoting neoliberal policies—such as tax cuts, deregulation, and reductions in government welfare—as inherently beneficial. Consequently, adopting left-wing economic policies is framed as an extreme ideological and practical challenge in both theory and politics.
This right-wing economic philosophy places almost unlimited faith in individual initiative and market forces, often manifesting as “market fundamentalism,” a rigid belief in the efficiency of markets and hostility toward public intervention. Proponents argue that wealth generated by the most successful individuals will eventually “trickle down” to the broader population, creating jobs, investment, and overall societal prosperity. The logic suggests that as markets fully unleash human potential, entrepreneurship and innovation will flourish, gradually raising the living standards of all citizens.
Critics argue that this philosophy can produce harsh consequences during crises. For example, in February 2021, during a major power outage in Texas, Mayor Tim Boyd expressed frustration with citizens seeking assistance, stating publicly that local governments and service providers had no obligation to support families in need. His comments exemplify the extreme interpretation of market-oriented governance, where individual responsibility is emphasized over collective safety nets, even in times of widespread emergency.
China’s Homogeneous Population Shapes Culture Differently from U.S.
Immigration has long been a defining feature of U.S. culture, shaping its demographic composition, economic vitality, innovation ecosystem, and global outlook. The United States’ identity is closely tied to its diverse population, where multicultural influences drive creativity, technological advancement, and social dynamism. American society emphasizes constitutional principles, individual rights, and democratic governance, creating a framework in which cultural diversity and pluralism flourish.
By contrast, China is a civilization state with a dominant Han population accounting for over 90% of its citizens. Ethnic minorities in regions such as Tibet, Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia exist within the framework of centralized governance, with migration policies and government appointments reinforcing cultural cohesion and political stability. China’s demographic homogeneity, coupled with its long-standing Confucian traditions, fosters a shared set of values, social conformity, and continuity, while limiting the influence of multiculturalism that characterizes the United States.
Related articles:
The West’s Misreading of China’s Rise and Resilience
Misread: Western Bias, China’s Adaptive Political Economy
Complacency’s Cost: How Western Assumptions Fueled Vulnerability
China’s identity is deeply rooted in its extensive historical and cultural heritage, encompassing a rich array of languages, traditions, literary works such as Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Tang and Song poetry, folklores, and philosophical concepts like the notion of great unity. This civilizational perspective contrasts sharply with the U.S. tendency to frame China primarily through the lens of contemporary political ideology. Labeling China as “communist” often overshadows its historical and cultural complexities, reducing a nuanced civilizational competition to a simplistic duel between capitalism and communism. Understanding China fully requires recognizing it as a civilization-state shaped by millennia of cultural continuity, rather than solely as a modern political system.
Binary Thinking in the U.S.: Moral Dualism and Worldview
The U.S. worldview often frames issues in binary terms, reflecting the legacy of its Protestant moral tradition, competitive capitalism, and legal system. This moral dualism manifests in the tendency to categorize nations, ideologies, and individuals as either “good” or “bad,” “capitalist” or “communist,” “democratic” or “authoritarian,” and “free” or “oppressed,” privileging stark contrasts over nuance.
China’s CPC: A Legacy Name Steering a Hybrid Economic Model
From the 1950s onward, the Soviet Union actively supported anti-colonial and leftist movements in the Third World, aiming to weaken Western colonial powers—especially Britain and France—while expanding its ideological and strategic influence. This support served multiple purposes: ideologically, it reflected the Marxist-Leninist view that colonialism was the highest stage of capitalism; geopolitically, it undermined Western influence and extended Soviet reach; economically, it created opportunities for access to resources and trade partners; and propagandistically, it allowed the USSR to present itself as a champion of oppressed peoples. While framed as the “export of communism,” Soviet assistance—through economic aid, military training, and ideological guidance—was often pragmatic, intended as much to pull postcolonial states away from Western alignment as to foster genuine communist revolutions.
China, under Mao Zedong, later emerged as a rival to Moscow for leadership of the global communist movement. Following Mao’s death, Deng Xiaoping’s “Reform and Opening Up” policy from 1978 marked a decisive shift: China embraced market-oriented economic reforms while retaining communism as the country’s official ideology. In practice, however, the Communist Party of China (CPC) functions largely as a legacy institution in name; it sets the long-term strategic direction through Five-Year Plans and Party Congress goals, while the economy operates under a hybrid system. Capitalist-style market mechanisms coexist with state planning and ownership, allowing the government to steer development, maintain stability, and pursue national priorities such as technological self-sufficiency and poverty reduction.
China’s model demonstrates that economic liberalization does not necessarily entail political liberalization. The Party maintains tight political control while permitting market openness, reflecting its belief that stability and sustained growth require a managed balance between economic freedom and political authority. This pragmatic approach stands in contrast to Francis Fukuyama’s “The End of History” thesis, which posits that liberal democracy combined with free-market capitalism represents the ultimate form of human governance. In China, the Communist Party remains the enduring framework of political authority, even as its economic practices diverge significantly from orthodox Marxist-Leninist principles, underscoring that its role today is rooted more in legacy and state guidance than in rigid ideological adherence.
Strong Central Government Run by CPC
At the core of China’s governance is the Communist Party of China (CPC), which exercises centralized control over political, social, and economic life. This system reflects thousands of years of Chinese history, in which strong, centralized authority—exemplified by imperial dynasties—was considered essential for maintaining order and stability across a vast and diverse land. In Chinese political culture, stability and national unity often take precedence over political pluralism, and the government is seen less as a “necessary evil” and more as a guardian of societal harmony and national progress.[1]
The CPC operates through a hierarchical yet structured system, ensuring that policy direction is consistently implemented across provinces and sectors. This continuity of central power stands in stark contrast to the pluralistic and often fragmented political system of the United States, highlighting a fundamental difference in governance philosophies. By prioritizing cohesion and long-term strategic planning, China emphasizes the maintenance of social stability and the pursuit of collective national goals.
Understanding the CPC as a Merit-Based, Results-Driven System
A clearer way to understand the Communist Party of China (CPC) is to view it through the framework of meritocracy rather than ideology. Historically, China has long relied on governance by an educated bureaucratic elite—first under imperial rule and later through a professional civil service. In contemporary China, the CPC functions in a comparable manner: progression within the Party is largely determined by competence, results, and proven ability.
For instance, admission to Tsinghua University—one of China’s most prestigious schools—is intensely competitive. Of the roughly 10 million students who take the national college entrance exam each year, only about 3,000 are accepted. Many of these graduates later assume key leadership roles across the country. This reflects a broader tradition in Chinese society that values rigorous examinations and academic achievement, a system that has shaped governance for over two thousand years and continues to underpin China’s meritocratic political structure.
To make a comparison familiar to Western audiences, the U.S. institution most similar to the CPC in terms of discipline, cohesion, and performance-based advancement might be the American military. Imagine a group of young people entering West Point together, dedicating their careers to the armed forces, and steadily rising through the hierarchy over several decades. By the time they reach top command positions, they would have spent a lifetime working alongside the same peers, developing deep trust, shared experience, and a common culture grounded in competition, performance, and accountability.[2]
From this perspective, the word “communist” in the “Communist Party of China” can be somewhat misleading to Western readers. The CPC today is less a traditional ideological or collectivist organization and more a highly organized, results-driven meritocracy.
Conclusion
In contrast to the individualistic, election-driven model of the United States, China’s system emphasizes collectivism, centralized governance, pragmatism, and historical continuity. Tensions between the two countries are driven not only by competing interests but also by these deep cultural and structural differences, which are often misunderstood in Western narratives. A sustainable future will depend on mutual understanding, respect, and realistic assessment rather than ideological confrontation.
References
[1] Powerful, Different, Equal: Overcoming the Misconceptions and Differences Between China and the US. Peter B. Walker, 2019
[2] “Distinguished Lecture: Navigating the Future of US-China Relations”, April 28, 2023, John Thornton, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgUX82Vh_8I