Western societies tend to prioritize core principles such as individual rights, democratic decision-making, the rule of law, competitive markets, transparency, minimal government corruption, independent media, and freedoms of thought, conscience, and expression. While these principles are cherished in Western societies, there is a tendency to assume that others, such as the Chinese, share the same values or would prioritize them in the same way. This perspective reflects a narrow, Western-centric worldview that fails to grasp the complexities of non-Western societies. Such an outlook can lead to misinterpretations of countries like China, viewing them through outdated Cold War or imperialist lenses, and ultimately reinforces the limitations of a Western-centric analytical framework.
Bridging the Divide: Understanding the Political, Economic, and Social Models of China and the U.S.
In Powerful, Different, Equal: Overcoming the Misconceptions and Differences Between China and the US (2019), Peter B. Walker argues that both the U.S. and China’s political, economic, and social models are not inherently right or wrong, but rather the product of their distinct histories, cultures, and priorities. These models are “powerful, different, equal” in the sense that each has its own strengths, enduring qualities, and legitimacy. Walker emphasizes that China’s contemporary approach, shaped by centuries of instability, foreign invasions, internal disorder, and a strong Confucian legacy, values harmony, collectivism, and social stability. The Confucian focus on moral governance and order continues to influence modern practices, particularly in the state-led provision of public goods such as infrastructure, education, health, and social welfare. For China, political stability and unity are viewed as collective goods essential for the well-being of the nation.
In contrast, the U.S. model has been shaped by ideals of individualism, rule of law, and democratic governance, with a system of separation of powers and checks and balances. This framework prioritizes personal freedoms and limits government intervention in citizens’ lives. Walker notes that many misunderstandings arise from these differences, particularly when critics of China view its system as purely authoritarian and opaque. Such critics often overlook the effectiveness of China’s governance in achieving large-scale infrastructure development, poverty reduction, and rapid economic transitions. Ultimately, Walker argues that both countries’ systems have unique merits and challenges, and the key to understanding them lies in appreciating the historical and cultural contexts that shape their governance models.
Contrasting Civilizational Foundations: Confucian Collectivism and American Individualism
In The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel P. Huntington describes a broad Confucian cultural outlook shared across many Asian societies. This worldview places strong emphasis on respect for authority, clearly defined hierarchies, collective harmony, and the prioritization of group interests over individual rights. It also favors avoiding open conflict, maintaining “face,” and elevating the role of the state above that of society, and society above the individual. Moreover, Asian perspectives often frame social development in terms of centuries or even millennia, encouraging decisions that secure long-term benefits.[1]
Huntington contrasts this with core American values, which highlight personal freedom, equality, democracy, and individual autonomy. Americans, he argues, are more inclined to question government power, resist authoritative structures, value institutional checks and balances, promote competition, uphold human rights, disregard historical burdens, and concentrate on short-term outcomes. In his view, these deep-rooted differences in cultural foundations and social organization are key sources of conflict between civilizations.
Divergent Traditions of Governance: Western Liberal Pluralism and Chinese Confucian State-Society Integration
In the Western, and particularly American, political tradition, civil society is understood as a sphere independent of the state, composed of associations, NGOs, media, religious communities, and other social groups. This separation is intentional and reflects a deep historical distrust of concentrated power, rooted in thinkers such as Locke, Madison, and Tocqueville. Tension between the state and society is therefore viewed not as destructive but as a vital feature of liberal democracy—an essential safeguard for individual freedom. Citizens are expected to monitor and restrain government authority through elections, public debate, activism, and civic engagement, ensuring that power remains accountable and limited.
By contrast, the Chinese political tradition, shaped by centuries of Confucian thought, views the state as the central source of social order and moral authority. Rather than positioning society in opposition to the government, Chinese political culture perceives the two as organically connected and mutually reinforcing. Governance is conceived as a moral and relational undertaking aimed at preserving harmony, stability, and collective well-being. In modern Chinese political theory, especially under the CPC(the Communist Party of China), this view is expressed through the notion of a “community of shared destiny,” in which the state and society are partners rather than competitors. This framework emphasizes unity, social cohesion, and the belief that effective governance arises from cooperation rather than adversarial oversight.
Individualism vs. Collectivism: Bridging the Cultural Divide Between Western and Chinese Political Thought
In modern Western (especially Anglo-American and Western European) political thought, individualism is a cornerstone, with the individual regarded as the primary unit of moral value and political rights. In this framework, rights are considered inherent—belonging to individuals by virtue of their humanity, not because of their membership in any particular group or state. The state and social institutions exist to protect individual freedom, not to prescribe a person’s place within a moral hierarchy. This orientation traces its roots to the Enlightenment, where philosophers like Locke, Mill, Kant, and Rousseau emphasized autonomy, reason, and self-determination. The idea that the individual holds the highest position in the moral hierarchy encapsulates the essence of liberal humanism, a concept that, while foundational, requires constant negotiation in practice, particularly when balancing individual freedom with collective responsibilities such as taxation, public health, and environmental protection.
A key distinction in Western liberal thought is the division between negative and positive rights. Negative rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and property, focus on the protection of individuals from interference, particularly from the state. Positive rights, on the other hand, pertain to entitlements to certain goods and services, like education, healthcare, and housing. Historically, Western liberal democracies, particularly the U.S., have emphasized negative rights, viewing the protection of individual liberty from government intrusion as paramount. This conceptual divide is fundamental to Anglo-American political culture, where individual freedom from governmental overreach is seen as the primary objective.
In contrast, Chinese political thought, deeply influenced by Confucian philosophy, prioritizes collectivism and relational ethics. The focus is not on the autonomous individual but on the person-in-relation—connected to family, community, and the state. The central question is not “What are my rights?” but “What is my role?” and “How can I fulfill it responsibly?” Harmony, according to this worldview, arises when individuals meet their respective roles within the social order, creating a moral ecology rather than a contest of rights. Confucian principles such as “Cultivate oneself, regulate one’s family, govern the state, and bring peace to the world” emphasize the importance of social roles and moral conduct in maintaining stability and harmony. This contrasts with the Western focus on individual autonomy and self-determination. While traditional Chinese political culture emphasizes these collective values, modern Chinese society is not without liberal and individualist elements, especially among younger generations, urban populations, and online communities. This evolving landscape reflects a dynamic interplay between Confucian collectivism and modern individualism.
One of the key challenges in bridging these cultural divides is Western universalism—the belief that Western values, particularly individual rights and freedoms, are universally applicable. From a Western-centric perspective, the assumption is that all people around the world share the same desire for individual autonomy and self-determination. When individuals in non-Western societies do not assert their individual rights in the same manner, this often leads to a series of misinterpretations. The Western assumption is that if someone does not assert their rights, it must be because they are either uncivilized, unenlightened, or ignorant. They may be seen as lacking understanding and beyond help, or alternatively, as having been brainwashed from childhood, with minds too stubborn to change. In some cases, the individual is perceived as simply “faking it”—not daring to speak up, but inwardly desiring to assert their rights. This view reflects a profound misunderstanding of non-Western cultural norms and fails to appreciate the deep historical, social, and philosophical contexts that shape how individuals relate to their government and society.
This universalizing assumption is not unique to individual Westerners but reflects the broader colonial and missionary legacies of Western civilization, which often viewed Western modernity as a universal model of progress. Western political thought, influenced by Enlightenment ideals, tends to assume that all rational individuals naturally aspire to the same forms of liberty and autonomy. When others do not exhibit the same behaviors or values, it is often explained through lenses of ignorance, oppression, or fear. This perspective fails to acknowledge the rich diversity of global political and moral systems and overlooks the fact that different societies may prioritize values such as collective well-being, social harmony, or familial duty over individual rights. As a result, the assumption that all people should desire individual freedom and autonomy can create significant barriers to understanding and dialogue between Western and non-Western cultures.
From Revolution to Rivalry: The Ideological Roots of U.S.–China Tensions
The United States is a multi-ethnic and multicultural nation, uniquely unified not by ethnicity or language but by a shared commitment to political ideology, most notably the Constitution and democratic governance. Citizenship and national identity are attainable for anyone who embraces these ideals, making the U.S. a supra-national polity in which ideology serves as a central form of belonging. This ideological framework, however, is not static; American society continually debates what it means to be “truly American,” reflecting ongoing tensions over the interpretation of core political principles. In contrast, China, while diverse, has a majority Han population and a deeply rooted civilizational identity encompassing millennia of history, cultural traditions, and shared values. Whereas the U.S. often conceptualizes itself primarily as a political community, China’s national identity integrates historical, linguistic, cultural, and moral dimensions that predate contemporary political systems.
A foundational principle of American political thought is the notion that government is a “necessary evil,” famously articulated by Thomas Paine in Common Sense (1776). Government is required to prevent chaos and protect life, liberty, and property, yet it inherently threatens individual freedom. This suspicion of concentrated authority underpins much of the U.S.’s libertarian, individualist, and anti-authoritarian traditions, establishing the principle that freedom is contingent upon limiting government power. When communism emerged, first in 1917 and later in the Cold War context, Americans interpreted it through this lens: communism represented maximal government control over economy, property, and thought, the opposite of the limited-government ideal. The philosophical root of anti-communism, therefore, was not solely geopolitical but moral, reflecting a deep-seated fear that collectivist systems posed an existential threat to individual liberty.
During the Cold War, this ideological framework became institutionalized. The Soviet Union symbolized ultimate tyranny, and the U.S. positioned itself as the defender of freedom and leader of the “free world.” Anti-communism justified interventions abroad, domestic surveillance programs, loyalty oaths, and even McCarthyism—a paradox in which a nation founded on the principle of limited government expanded its own power to combat what it perceived as totalitarianism abroad. Although the USSR collapsed in 1991, the anti-communist ethos persisted as a cultural and political reflex. It evolved into a broader opposition to collectivist economics, authoritarian governance, and any system that subordinated the individual to the state, forming a core element of both mainstream liberal and conservative thought in the United States.
In the 21st century, this Cold War framework has been extended to China. Despite China’s hybrid political economy—state capitalism rather than pure communism—U.S. discourse frequently emphasizes its Communist Party governance, framing it as an ideological adversary. Politicians and media often depict the U.S.–China rivalry as a contest between democracy, individual rights, and market freedom on one side, and authoritarian control and state dominance on the other. This framing echoes the historical through-line of American political thought: the Enlightenment and revolutionary ideal that government is a necessary evil fostered a profound distrust of concentrated power, which informed anti-communist ideology during the Cold War, and now underpins contemporary perceptions of China. In essence, the U.S.’s suspicion of government and its defense of individual liberty have produced a durable ideological lens through which China is often viewed, transforming a complex civilizational and political landscape into a simplified narrative of democratic freedom versus authoritarianism.
Conclusion
The United States must move beyond the simplistic “communism vs. capitalism” framing that often characterizes discussions of its economic and geopolitical relations with China. Such zero-sum thinking only heightens fear and anxiety about China’s rise, while failing to recognize the complexity of the global landscape. Rather than offering prescriptive advice on China’s domestic policies, the U.S. should prioritize dialogue, mutual understanding, and respectful communication. By fostering a more nuanced understanding of China’s motivations and actions, the United States can engage with China in a way that promotes constructive cooperation rather than exacerbating tensions.
References
[1] The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel P. Huntington