Yet, for historians—if not for political scientists or economists—there is reason for cautious optimism. On the one hand, the historical record suggests that democracies can be slow to mobilize their strength, but better able to mobilize that strength over the long haul. If one looks at (or, much worse, had to live through) the period from 1930 to 1942, one could easily believe that the liberal system had shot its bolt. Economic depression, the collapse of new democracies, the appeasement of authoritarian nations, and military defeat slammed confidence in the Western system. Three years later Berlin and Tokyo stood in smoking ruins.
Second, “there’s a great deal of ruin in a nation.” The recent unpleasantness at the end of the Trump presidency led journalists and public intellectuals to invoke the example of the disputed presidential election of 1876. Squalid though as were those events, they also helped settle a period of deep division within the United States and helped bring on a long period of rising power and prosperity.
American business may be resistant to government guidance on China policy, but it is resistant to government policy on many things. Usually, the outcome is satisfactory to most people. American society is immensely creative and innovative. The rapid development of two vaccines for Covid 19 demonstrate that old truth. Conversely, the many problems with distributing the vaccine fall to the responsibility of the state and federal governments. Hardly cause for business to defer to the state. During the pandemic, American businesses have moved rapidly ahead with collaboration software (like Zoom), direct delivery bypassing stores, and cloud computing to manage all of it. Compare this with the PRC’s treatment of Jack Ma, the entrepreneur who created Alibaba and Ant. He got “disappeared” for a while after he suggested that entrepreneurial innovation outstrips old ideas. About the subordination of business to the state for example.
America remains remarkably open to immigration. Immigration helps off-set the aging of the native-born population, while admitting large numbers of people eager to work and to create their own futures. In contrast, the PRC oppresses its own people and violates international agreements, like the Anglo-Chinese agreement on Hong Kong, in order to get more people to oppress. China is not a country of voluntary immigration.
By any standard, China’s economic progress since the death of Mao has been extraordinary in statistical terms. However, much of that progress came from moving peasants out of low productivity rural farming and into higher urban productivity manufacturing. The government has used subsidies, entry into the world market, and massive intellectual property theft to push China so far forward so fast. There is good reason to wonder if the PRC has reached the limits of what can be obtained by such methods. Just when they’ve alarmed the US.
 This is a central theme of Gordon Wright, The Ordeal of Total War, 1939-1945 (1968). It remains the best single volume history of the Second World War.
 Adam Smith. I forget where I read it, but it stuck with me.
 Richard White, the author of The Republic for Which It Stands: The United States During Reconstruction and the Gilded Age, 1865-1896 (2017), would wish to qualify this view if it ever came to his attention.
 In 2017, 2018, and 2019, an average of 1,085,181 people obtained lawful permanent resident status each year. In 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, an average of 1,060,401 people obtained lawful permanent resident status each year. See: https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2019/table1