Probably agree on some points here (not sure how the U.S. specifically is leading the way, but whatever), but insofar as I do, it kind of takes the force out of your original point. Differences can be justified by saying "oh they are Chinese, they are just like this," but then you also want to say, "well we can transcend it too". Why can't the Chinese or the Russians? It's wholly unfalsifiable, it gives nothing but justification to nationalistic thinking where its convenient, while still allowing you to drop that as well when that's also convenient. It doesn't say anything at all other than "they are bad because of history/geography, but we can be good despite our history/geography." It is, to be frank, childish nonlogic at best, and potential fuel for fascist tendencies at worst.

And just to recapitualate, this is all just for you to say that the U.S.A and China are distinct enough that the former would never use surveillance on citizens (or whatever) like they do in China. And ultimately proves my point that you can't make that claim without nationalistic thinking!

1) I never said the U.S. is "leading the way". Just using it as and example. China and Russia also had their own civil wars/struggles and are now more united than thousands of years ago. 2) I don't get where you got the statement "they are bad" since I never said that. "They are bad" is a statement that always oversimplifies the situation when applied to a whole country. The problem is the very small percentage of people in position of power in China/Russia that are hoarding the power/money and there is no mechanism (i.e. popular elections) for the populace to remove them from power.

Im sorry, I can't really follow how this point is related to any of your others. Regardless, on its face, I would say this new story is maybe a good answer: that because of real democracy, the United States and others are less likely to use surveillance like Russia and China, because those in power who would benefit from such things fear they will lose the vote. But can you honestly tell me, just say over the past 20 years, that this idea checks out? There is already some facts we know that troubles it at least..

And for another thing, intelligence agencies are by design resistant to electoral turnover. And regardless, such agencies for the most part have broad bipartisan support, because in fact, both parties have ultimately the same incentives with stuff like this.

So I'll accept this new thing as a good argument, but history as it has unfolded has made me weary to put such total trust in even the finest examples of democracy and statehood. Because, again, incentive and efficiency are powerful forces to even the most principled people.