Franklin D. Roosevelt was able to serve four presidential terms. Similarly, it is plausible that Xi Jinping could serve four terms, especially against the backdrop of ongoing trade and technology tensions between the United States and China.
In some respects, Xi Jinping can be seen as a 2020s counterpart to Franklin D. Roosevelt. The analogy is most relevant in terms of state-led economic mobilization and strategic control, rather than in policies or ideology. Broadly speaking, when viewed through a structural and strategic lens, Roosevelt’s role in the 1930s–40s mirrors Xi Jinping’s position today, though the comparison requires careful nuance.
Extended Leadership and Crisis Context
Franklin D. Roosevelt and Xi Jinping exemplify leadership during periods of profound national and global transformation, characterized by extended tenures and centralized authority. Roosevelt, serving four presidential terms, guided the United States through the twin crises of the Great Depression and World War II. His prolonged executive authority enabled him to implement sweeping economic and industrial reforms, stabilizing the U.S. economy and mobilizing the nation for a global conflict. This continuity of leadership allowed for the sustained execution of long-term policy initiatives that might have been impossible under shorter, standard presidential terms.
In the 2020s, Xi Jinping’s leadership of China occurs amid a major geopolitical shift. As China rises and the United States seeks to maintain its global dominance, the international landscape mirrors other historical transitions of great power — yet in a far more interconnected world. Unlike the Cold War era, many nations today maintain strong economic ties with both the U.S. and China, creating a complex web of dependencies that shape global decision-making. Within this context, Xi has consolidated power and is likely to serve multiple terms, positioning himself to navigate trade tensions, technological competition, and global economic uncertainty while pursuing long-term strategic initiatives.
Both leaders illustrate how extended, centralized authority can be pivotal in times of national and global crisis. By maintaining continuity in office, Roosevelt and Xi were able to implement transformative policies that addressed immediate challenges while also shaping long-term trajectories for their respective nations. Their leadership underscores the interplay between individual authority and structural circumstances, demonstrating how prolonged executive power can be leveraged to achieve sustained national objectives in periods of turbulence and uncertainty.
Concrete Examples
During World War II, the United States leveraged its industrial capacity to support the Allied war effort, exemplifying the critical role of civilian industry in times of national crisis. Major automakers, such as Ford Motor Company and General Motors, transformed their civilian manufacturing operations into wartime production facilities. Rather than producing passenger cars, these companies mass-produced military vehicles, including trucks, jeeps, and tanks, as well as aircraft engines, weapons, ammunition, and other essential equipment. Ford’s Willow Run plant, for instance, became renowned for assembling Consolidated B-24 Liberator bombers at unprecedented speeds, while General Motors manufactured everything from armored vehicles to aircraft engines. This rapid industrial conversion became a cornerstone of the so-called “Arsenal of Democracy,” a phrase popularized by Franklin D. Roosevelt that underscored how U.S. manufacturing strength was harnessed to supply Allied forces.
A parallel can be observed in contemporary China, where industrial and technological mobilization is central to national strategy, particularly in high-tech sectors. Huawei exemplifies this approach through its focus on indigenous innovation in telecommunications and semiconductors. Its growth and research and development strategies align closely with China’s broader national objectives, including reducing dependence on foreign technology and promoting domestic champions in strategically critical sectors. Huawei has played a pivotal role in national infrastructure projects, such as the rollout of 5G networks, which are vital both economically and for national security.
Through heavy investment in in-house R&D, Huawei has developed core technologies, including chips, base stations, and software, supporting China’s “Indigenous Innovation” policy. This policy encourages domestic companies to design and produce their own technology rather than rely on imports, thereby strengthening national industrial capabilities. Huawei’s leadership in 5G deployment, along with ongoing investment in 6G research, positions China at the forefront of next-generation telecommunications standards. By controlling proprietary technology, China reduces geopolitical vulnerabilities amid U.S.-China tech tensions, while simultaneously promoting domestic industrial growth and global influence in high-tech sectors.
Both historical and contemporary examples illustrate how strategic coordination between state policy and industrial capacity can drive national objectives during periods of crisis or strategic competition. Just as U.S. automakers were mobilized to support wartime production, companies like Huawei are leveraged to achieve technological self-reliance and global competitiveness. These cases underscore the power of aligning industry with national priorities to achieve sustained, transformative outcomes.
State-Led Economic Intervention
Franklin D. Roosevelt and Xi Jinping, separated by time and context, share a strikingly similar approach to state-led economic intervention. Roosevelt expanded government power during the Great Depression through the New Deal, employing public works, banking regulation, industrial planning, and social welfare programs to stimulate production, employment, and national recovery. Similarly, Xi emphasizes state guidance over the economy, using industrial policy, strategic investment in state-owned enterprises (SOEs), and initiatives like “common prosperity” to achieve national objectives. In both cases, the state is positioned as the central engine of economic strength and societal stability, directing capital, labor, and technology to serve national priorities.
The concept of state-led economic mobilization further underscores this parallel. Roosevelt leveraged the New Deal, infrastructure projects, and industrial coordination to restore economic stability and build national capacity, culminating in the rapid and massive mobilization of U.S. industry during World War II. The wartime shipbuilding effort, for instance, prioritized quantity over sophistication, enabling the United States to shift from peacetime production to full-scale war mobilization. The federal government orchestrated investments and industrial planning at an unprecedented scale, creating a navy capable of supporting global operations and sustaining forces afloat under extreme conditions.
China’s industrial strategy under Xi Jinping echoes this approach, albeit in a modern context. By directing SOEs, prioritizing high-tech investment, and shaping industrial policy, China seeks to strengthen economic resilience and enhance global competitiveness. In the naval domain, this strategy has yielded extraordinary results: according to the Office of Naval Intelligence, China’s shipbuilding capacity now exceeds that of the United States by more than 200 times in terms of surface warships and submarines. While China’s focus blends global commercial dominance with the production of high-tech military vessels, the United States during WWII demonstrated unmatched rapid wartime mobilization, highlighting the differences between sheer industrial scale and surge capacity under crisis conditions.
Ultimately, both Roosevelt and Xi illustrate the enduring power of state-led economic intervention as a tool for national development and strategic advantage. Whether restoring a nation from economic depression or building global economic and military influence, their policies reveal a consistent belief that effective governance requires the state to actively coordinate and mobilize resources, ensuring societal stability and long-term national strength.
Strategic National Projects
Throughout history, national leaders have leveraged large-scale strategic projects to strengthen their countries’ competitiveness and ensure long-term survival. Franklin D. Roosevelt exemplified this approach during his presidency by launching massive infrastructure programs, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, as well as highway and electrification projects. These initiatives not only modernized the United States’ industrial base but also laid the groundwork for scientific and technological advancements, including early wartime research and development efforts that would later culminate in the Manhattan Project. Roosevelt’s strategy linked state-directed projects directly to national survival and international competitiveness, demonstrating the power of coordinated investment in infrastructure, industry, and science.
Similarly, Xi Jinping has pursued an ambitious agenda of strategic national projects aimed at securing China’s global industrial and technological leadership. Initiatives such as the Made in China 2025 program, high-speed rail expansion, semiconductor development, artificial intelligence research, and green energy investment reflect a deliberate effort to reduce China’s reliance on foreign technology while cultivating homegrown innovation. By prioritizing sectors critical to the future economy, China seeks to strengthen its technological sovereignty and position itself as a global powerhouse in high-tech industries.
This strategy is reinforced by China’s dual circulation approach, which emphasizes both expanding domestic consumption and reducing dependence on developed countries. By fostering resilience in key sectors such as semiconductors, finance, and high-end machinery, China mitigates vulnerability to external shocks, including trade conflicts, sanctions, and global financial instability. Much like Roosevelt, Xi links national projects directly to long-term survival and international positioning, using state-led initiatives to shape the nation’s industrial, technological, and economic trajectory in a rapidly changing global landscape.
Social Mobilization and Legitimacy
During periods of national crisis, both Franklin D. Roosevelt in the United States and Xi Jinping in China have employed strategies of social mobilization to reinforce political legitimacy, albeit in very different contexts. Roosevelt, particularly during the Great Depression and World War II, cultivated legitimacy through appeals to collective recovery, national solidarity, and shared sacrifice. By framing government intervention as a patriotic duty, he fostered social cohesion around bold programs such as the New Deal, creating widespread public support for transformative policies in times of economic and military crisis. Similarly, Xi Jinping emphasizes collective responsibility, party leadership, and patriotic messaging, linking social stability and economic modernization to state authority. Both leaders strategically align public sentiment with long-term national objectives, using state-led narratives to cultivate legitimacy and societal cooperation.
In Roosevelt’s case, the demands of World War II required unprecedented government mobilization of resources. Following the U.S. entry into the war after Pearl Harbor in December 1941, financing the war effort became a central policy challenge. The Revenue Act of 1942 and subsequent legislation dramatically increased income taxes on wealthy Americans, with the top marginal rate rising from 63% in 1941 to 94% by 1944. Corporate taxes and taxes on excess profits were also significantly raised, ensuring that the financial burden of war was distributed in a way that emphasized collective responsibility. Through these measures, Roosevelt not only secured the necessary funding for the war but also reinforced the moral narrative of shared sacrifice, linking economic contribution directly to national defense and societal unity.
Xi Jinping similarly frames policy initiatives within narratives of national duty and collective achievement. By promoting patriotic messaging, emphasizing the party’s leadership role, and linking economic development to the broader goal of national rejuvenation, Xi aligns public support with long-term strategic priorities. The rhetoric surrounding the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese civilization” highlights the achievement of restoring China’s historical stature and underscores the importance of social cohesion and compliance with state objectives. In both cases, the leaders’ legitimacy derives not only from institutional authority but from their ability to mobilize public sentiment in support of transformative policies during periods of profound challenge.
Ultimately, both Roosevelt and Xi illustrate how appeals to shared responsibility, patriotic duty, and national purpose can reinforce political legitimacy and social cohesion. While their historical and cultural contexts differ, the underlying strategy is remarkably similar: using state-led narratives to cultivate societal mobilization, align public support with government objectives, and enable ambitious, long-term programs of economic and social transformation.
Contrast
Franklin D. Roosevelt and Xi Jinping operate within fundamentally different political systems that shape their approaches to governance. Roosevelt worked within a democratic framework defined by checks and balances, separation of powers, and a strong emphasis on individual rights and the rule of law. In contrast, Xi exercises centralized authority under a one-party system, reflecting China’s historical experiences of instability, foreign invasions, internal disorder, and a Confucian legacy that prioritizes harmony, collectivism, stability, and hierarchical order. These divergent political contexts influence not only domestic policy but also the broader strategies each leader employs on the global stage.
Their approaches to global and economic challenges also differ markedly. Roosevelt’s policies were largely reactive, responding to the economic collapse of the Great Depression and the exigencies of wartime mobilization. By contrast, Xi’s policies are proactive, designed to enhance China’s long-term strategic position through initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative and a focus on technological sovereignty. This contrast extends to the role of markets: Roosevelt maintained a system in which private enterprise retained significant autonomy, though under regulatory oversight, whereas Xi actively coordinates private, public, and state-owned enterprises to achieve strategic national objectives. China’s model of state-led capitalism illustrates a deliberate blending of market mechanisms with centralized direction, reflecting the government’s broader vision of national strength and global competitiveness.
Summary
Franklin D. Roosevelt and Xi Jinping exhibit notable parallels in their approaches to leadership, economic development, and societal mobilization. Both leaders have leveraged the power of the state to drive national strength through strategic projects, targeted investment, and efforts to maintain social legitimacy. They share traits of extended leadership, crisis-driven intervention, and the implementation of transformative initiatives aimed at securing long-term national stability and prosperity. In these ways, Roosevelt’s role in navigating the United States through the Great Depression and World War II finds structural resonance with Xi’s efforts to position China as a globally competitive, technologically advanced, and socially cohesive state in the 21st century.
Despite these similarities, significant differences arise from the political and historical contexts in which each leader operates. Roosevelt functioned within a democratic framework that required negotiation, compromise, and reactive governance, whereas Xi exercises authority in a centralized, one-party system capable of proactive, top-down policy implementation. Furthermore, Roosevelt’s era was defined by industrialization and mid-20th-century global upheaval, while Xi’s leadership unfolds in a highly interconnected, technologically advanced, and globally competitive environment. These distinctions underscore the ways in which context shapes leadership strategies, even when the overarching objectives—national development, social stability, and the consolidation of political legitimacy—are analogous.