Gut vs. Numbers: Wang Huning's 'America Against America' (kinda) predicted the loss of institutional trust

From UCLA grads to Expanded Child Tax Credits: How a 40-year-old warning from a member of the CCP's Politburo about America's 'gut feeling' came true

In the late 1980s, Wang Huning wrote about his experiences visiting the United States in "America Against America" - a work so shocking in its predictions that reading it today feels less like historical analysis and more like a prediction of our current crisis. Wang's crucial insight that for some reason escape American pundits that "the public does not judge the merits of society from the point of view of institutions, structures, ideas, spirituality, human nature, etc., but from their own daily life, or from the gut, not from the brain."

Wang's journey from a curious young political scientist to one of China's most influential political theorists (and now a top member of the CCP's Politburo Standing Committee - you know, the kind of strong government leadership that Elon only seems to respect) began with a six-month tour of America in the 1980s. While Western observers fixated on America's apparent strengths - military might, economic power, technological edge - Wang focused instead on a more "holistic" approach, taking an interest in how ordinary citizens experienced democracy day-to-day.

This ground-level approach, combined with his expertise in both Eastern and Western political thought, led him to spot cracks in the system that most American experts completely missed but understand if issues in the 80s were left unchecked, along with the help of severe recessions, radicals will gain support and Americans will be increasingly unable to handle matters.

Election Clichés

As the 2024 election unfolds, the smug little line that 'elections have consequences' rings hollow for voters who see no change in their daily lives or, in many cases, a deterioration since the 2022 midterms. Before you take issue, Huning would point out that this has been an issue since the 80s and even before. Heck, personally, it feels almost Hegelian, i.e., failure only leads to swings in the pendulum. Sometimes, you must accept historical facts rather than cling to smug lines with long track records of failure.

Fat-sharing

Huning described American democracy as a "fat-sharing system" - a complex network of political patronage and interest groups that maintained legitimacy by delivering concrete benefits to citizens (which I am going to use throughout the article). When people saw their children climb the economic ladder or their communities prosper, they tolerated the system's inefficiencies.

Deming's Customer Satisfaction Paradox

This insight into systemic legitimacy finds a powerful parallel in the business principles of W. Edwards Deming, who revolutionized thinking about quality and customer satisfaction. Deming observed, "It will not suffice to have customers that are merely satisfied. An unhappy customer will switch. Unfortunately, a satisfied customer may also switch, on the theory that he could not lose much, and might gain. Profit in business comes from repeat customers, customers that boast about your product and service, and that bring friends with them."

Just as businesses cannot survive on mere adequacy—they must delight customers enough to create loyal advocates—democratic systems cannot maintain legitimacy through minimal functionality alone. When Deming warned that "a satisfied customer may switch, thinking they could not lose much," he unknowingly described the current crisis in democratic governance: Citizens who are merely "satisfied" with system performance have little reason to defend it against radical alternatives.

The Core Truth

Together, Wang's analysis of systemic legitimacy and Deming's principles of quality management reveals a crucial truth: the sustainability of democratic governance depends not on abstract metrics of progress but on its ability to consistently deliver experiences that transform citizens from passive participants into active defenders of the system. When this connection breaks down - when daily experience contradicts official narratives of success - the foundation of democratic legitimacy begins to crack.

That said, I will be focused on the Democrats right now (else the article will get waayyyyy tooo long). At the same time, the Republicans will have their separate article looking through the same (very critical) lens.

The Erosion of Systemic Legitimacy: From Theory to Daily Experience

The intersection of Wang's "gut-level judgment" and Deming's quality principles becomes starkly visible in today's mounting system failures. Each breakdown demonstrates how institutional inadequacy transforms citizens from system defenders into potential defectors.

Urban Spaces

Consider urban spaces, where the system's inability to address homelessness has created a cascading crisis of legitimacy. With 771,480 Americans experiencing homelessness—more than Seattle's entire population—the failure manifests not just in statistics but in the daily experience of both the unhoused and the broader public. When public spaces become unwelcoming due to increased antisocial behavior, the system loses legitimacy twice: first, by failing to provide basic security for its most vulnerable, and second, by diminishing the quality of shared spaces that once helped build community support for public services.

The cynical response from political figures across the spectrum—from Jesse Watters' demonization to Gavin Newsom's passionate approaches (which he doesn't bring the same pepper to build housing)—only reinforces Wang's observation that the system judges itself through results, not rhetoric.

NIMBYism and Housing Shortages

The housing crisis exemplifies how inadequate solutions erode system legitimacy when New Jersey's Josh Gottheimer promises to "make New Jersey affordable again" through tax cuts while ignoring zoning reform.

In California, Newsom's signing of 30+ housing bills that merely patch loopholes in previous legislation reveals a system more focused on appearing functional than delivering results.

When Katie Hobbs acknowledges Arizona's housing crisis as something wholly different from historical patterns, only to veto bills that would enable more construction, she creates exactly the kind of disconnect between rhetoric and results that Wang identified as fatal to system legitimacy.

Education System

The education system's response to pandemic learning loss provides perhaps the starkest example of this dynamic. Despite a massive $123 billion federal investment, national test scores reveal devastating declines: 5-point drops in reading across both 4th and 8th grades, and math performance plummeting by 3 and 8 points, respectively.

This gap between investment and results exemplifies Deming's warning about the inadequacy of mere satisfaction. When parents see their children falling behind despite unprecedented spending, they lose faith in the system's basic competence.

Congestion Pricing

Even apparent successes often reveal deeper legitimacy problems. New York's congestion pricing implementation demonstrates how the system struggles to deliver improvements. We see that New York Governor Hochul messed around with congestion pricing, and only when it was finally implemented did commute time, jam reductions, and public transit ridership see mass improvements.

Yet, "centrist Democrats" from New Jersey and more progressive entities in New York alike are waging war to ensure that NYC is affordable and accessible, not for New Yorkers but for New Jerseyians. Gonna beat the horse again about Wang's observation of the fat-sharing system's dysfunction: even when solutions exist, the system's inability to implement them effectively undermines its legitimacy.

In each case, we see the same pattern: the system's failure to deliver quality outcomes in daily life creates exactly the kind of legitimacy crisis that both Wang and Deming predicted. Citizens don't just see individual policy failures—they experience a system incapable of meeting their needs. This gap between capability and delivery doesn't just disappoint; it actively delegitimizes the entire governance framework.

Deming's Warning in Action

Deming's warning about customer satisfaction reveals a profound truth about democratic legitimacy: systems that aim for mere adequacy create the conditions for their own replacement. His insight—that "a satisfied customer may switch, thinking they could not lose much"—illuminates why today's political instability runs deeper than partisan shifts.

This dynamic explains why the "fat-sharing system's" strategy of maintaining baseline satisfaction no longer works. Like a once-dominant company that mistakes brand loyalty for permanent customer allegiance, American governance has failed to recognize that transactional contentment cannot sustain institutional legitimacy.

The evidence appears in shifting political allegiances: young voters, who once formed a reliable Democratic base, now show unprecedented disillusionment. Hispanic and Black men, historically anchored to traditional political affiliations, increasingly explore populist alternatives.

The stakes transcend partisan realignment. When citizens conclude that playing by the rules yields nothing but adequacy—or worse, steady deterioration—they don't just switch parties; they question the fundamental promise of democratic governance. The fat-sharing system maintained legitimacy by delivering tangible prosperity.

As that promise breaks down, we face something far more dangerous than vote switching: we risk unraveling the basic social contract that makes democratic governance possible. You know, this sounds really familiar;*snaps fingers* it sounds like what a lot of young folks, especially Gen Z, are complaining about the economy.

The Gut-Level Reality of Systemic Failure: The Youth Perspective

The paradox of America's current labor market crystallizes in the experience of young job seekers, revealing exactly what Wang Huning warned about regarding systemic disappointment. A 24-year-old UCLA graduate known as Femcel captures this disconnect in her viral essay, WHY ARE THERE NO FUCKING JOBS?.

Despite graduating from America's top public university with substantial work experience – including roles as a teacher's assistant, executive assistant to a publisher, and production credits on professional projects – she is trapped in an endless cycle of job hunting, networking, and rejection. Her frustration echoes through a generation: "There are no fucking jobs... The only 'job finding resource' or 'tip' I want at this point is an actual job offer."

This visceral experience reflects a profound market dysfunction hidden behind seemingly positive statistics. Today's job seekers can observe their peers from 2020-2022 who succeeded with identical credentials. When someone watches their slightly older classmate receive multiple offers and signing bonuses while they face a job market similar to what millennials suffered through in the Great Recession, statistical arguments about "overall progress" become actively delegitimizing.

While the unemployment rate hovers around 4%—American economists' consensus on "full employment—the hiring rate has plummeted to levels typically associated with severe recessions. This 3.3% hiring rate, last seen when unemployment was double today's level at 8.2%, creates a peculiar form of economic purgatory: jobs exist, but getting hired feels nearly impossible (and for some, is impossible).

This isn't about failing to see progress—it's about witnessing regression in real-time. Especially as current statistics paint a bleak picture for young job seekers:

• Job searches now stretch to six months, a month longer than in the post-2008 era.

• 51% of employed workers actively seeking new positions, creating intense competition

• Recent graduates facing 5.3% unemployment, higher than the national average

• The hiring rate remains at recession levels (3.3%) despite "good" unemployment numbers, which are made even worse by longer and longer job searches.

• 1.7 million people have been searching for work for at least 27 weeks

This creates exactly the kind of systemic disappointment that Wang Huning warned would destabilize democratic systems. The gap between official statistics showing a "healthy" job market and the lived experience of endless job searches and rejection creates deep cynicism about institutional competence.

When even those with degrees from prestigious universities struggle – as Femcel notes, citing a Brown University engineering graduate's prolonged job search – we see the perfect conditions for what "America Against America" identified as precursors to political instability.

The low hiring rate acts as jet fuel to these frustrations, not to mention an extreme short-term economic threat. As Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell admits, with hiring rates this low, any economic shock could rapidly deteriorate conditions, making the system particularly vulnerable to the kind of crisis that breeds radical alternatives.

Femcel's observation that "we are in such late stage capitalism that even the people... who have done everything right... are screwed" captures what Wang Huning warned about (yes, I am going to beat this horse): when daily experience consistently contradicts official narratives about system success, people judge the system "from the gut, not from the brain" – and their gut tells them the system is failing.

The Limits of Progress Narratives: Beyond Statistical Optimism

Critics will inevitably dismiss this analysis as "declinism" - a reflexive focus on systemic failures that overlook genuine progress. They'll cite impressive statistics: historically low unemployment, rising wages, infrastructure investments, and policy achievements. But this defense fundamentally misunderstands both Wang Huning's insight and Deming's principles: system legitimacy depends not on statistical achievements but on delivered experience, especially when there is a ton of variation when it comes to delivered experience.

This misunderstanding creates a dangerous paradox in governance. When officials respond to doubled child poverty rates (from 5.2% to 12.4%) with assertions that "things are getting better," they don't just fail to build trust—they actively signal the system's acceptance of mediocrity.

Progress narratives celebrating mere adequacy inadvertently confirm Deming's warning: systems that don't pursue quality create their own opposition. Citizens who are merely "satisfied" rather than genuinely impressed have little reason to defend existing institutions against radical alternatives.

Beating Dead Horses: The Expanded Child Tax Credit

The Child Tax Credit illustrates this dynamic perfectly. The policy didn't fail—it succeeded spectacularly, achieving the lowest child poverty rate ever recorded. Its discontinuation despite 71% voter support reveals not system limitation but system choice (of indulging in Joe Manchin's fetish at the cost of millions of kids, but certain folks would instead toss every other dem under the bus before Manchin).

This pattern of abandoning proven solutions while maintaining progress narratives breeds the cynicism Wang Huning identified as corrosive to democratic legitimacy. Just as businesses lose customers when they tout "improving metrics" while delivering mediocre experiences, governance systems lose legitimacy when prioritizing statistical optimization over tangible improvement in citizens' lives.

Bottomline

However, while a business risks only its profits, democratic systems risk their foundational legitimacy. As both Wang and Deming understood, when daily experience consistently contradicts official success narratives, those narratives don't just fail to persuade—they actively accelerate system collapse.

Hopefully, people will learn from the mistakes of 2024 and turn things around. *Watches DNC Chair election videos*

Never mind