If Like Attracts Like And The Law Of Attraction Is Not Nonsense, Then The West Has Lost To Chinatown - 4Star General, Dr. Master_chef NobuNaga. Prince Of Orion.

 If Like Attracts Like And The Law Of Attraction Is Not Nonsense, Then The West Has Lost To Chinatown

Emerging states can, perhaps, afford to mess around with their people's destiny. They are emerging, after all, and, as unpalatable as it sounds, they are accustomed to a certain standard of reality. They have time—perhaps all the time in the world—to remain where they are or eventually emerge.

Bluntly speaking, in the 21st century, with less internal sabotage, almost any country from the Sahara to Antarctica could do better than the current levels of corruption, national apathy and institutional dysfunction that we continue to tolerate.

But states that describe themselves as first-world, advanced or fully developed cannot afford to mess around—not in an era of China's emergence and its increasingly formidable global influence.

China's rise is, in many respects, something that a natural process of development allows. The West therefore needs to study the active ingredients in that rise rather than dismissing it, romanticising it or explaining it away.

And yes, there is an uncomfortable historical dimension to all of this. Western powers carry an obvious historical record of slavery, imperialism and colonial domination. Whatever one thinks of China's present-day political system or its own conduct abroad, the West cannot simply assume that its historical record gives it an automatic moral or intellectual advantage in the eyes of the rest of the world.

So what is one of the most obvious ingredients?

Education.

It is rare to encounter an illiterate or completely buffoonish Chinese politician, even at a relatively local level. Many are highly educated, whether technically, academically or through the country's extensive administrative and political structures. Whatever one's opinion of the Communist Party, its political system, or the manner in which power is exercised, there is clearly an emphasis on competence, education and the ability to understand how the machinery of a modern state works.

And this raises a much bigger question.

Regardless of funding, party support or political machinery, I doubt that the current level of adult suffrage and general intellectual sophistication in China, Japan and some other Asian societies would allow just any rubbish or idiot to be continuously foisted upon the population—at least not indefinitely.

It simply would not work.

The average citizen in some of these societies, even if they do not fit Western definitions of being handsome, sophisticated or "civilised", may nevertheless possess a considerably more developed understanding of how the world works. In places such as Cuba, one could even argue that the system itself has historically forced ordinary people to acquire a certain level of political and intellectual awareness simply because they have had to understand the ideological, economic and geopolitical forces surrounding them.

Perhaps, then, one uncomfortable solution is to rethink the criteria by which people are permitted to stand for public office—or even, more radically, the intellectual demands placed upon the electorate itself.

Could some form of demonstrated cognitive competence or intelligence quotient—IQ, form part of the criteria for eligibility for public office?

That proposition immediately raises enormous questions about democracy, equality, discrimination, who determines intelligence, and whether intelligence actually translates into wisdom or good government. But the question itself should not be dismissed simply because it is uncomfortable.

Perhaps the deeper problem is that where a nation's general intellectual and civic sophistication is weak, its electorate can repeatedly choose outdated buffoons with a two-minute political lifespan: people devoid of basic common sense at the holistic level where it actually matters.

And then those people appoint, promote or empower others like themselves.

Like attracts like.

If that principle is not complete nonsense, then perhaps we should ask whether political systems eventually reproduce the intellectual characteristics of the societies that operate them.

A low-information electorate can produce low-information politics.

Low-information politics can produce low-quality leadership.

Low-quality leadership can produce weak institutions.

Weak institutions can produce national apathy.

And national apathy then makes it easier for the entire cycle to repeat itself.

So perhaps the real question is not simply whether democracy works.

Perhaps the question is whether democracy can remain healthy when the intellectual and civic foundations beneath it deteriorate.

If the answer is no—and if other societies continue to invest relentlessly in education, competence, technical capacity, institutional discipline and long-term thinking—then the West has a very serious problem.

Because while some countries are still arguing about yesterday, others are building tomorrow.

And if "like attracts like" really does apply to nations as much as it does to individuals, then perhaps the West has already lost to Chinatown.