Before you brand me as a Communist and damn me to Hell forever, please at least read the next paragraph.

“By the year 2019, China will be the proud owner of the world’s largest Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Moreover, in 2009, China sold 13.5 million cars just to its own citizens. U.S. sales for this same period were just slightly over 10 million cars. And by the year 2020, it is projected that China will spend more on luxury goods than any other country on earth.”

I could go on --- for example, the Chinese “middle-class” will exceed 400 million people by the year 2015; thus making this a “middle-class” that dwarfs the very population of the U.S.

And it is this halcyonic growth of China that has me both perplexed and astounded. Just the other day, I was speaking with my good friend Dave Iwinski about his adopted home. I say this because Dave travels to and from China as much as anyone that I personally know. I’d say that he now spends at least 35% of his total year at his permanent office in Shanghai.

One of the stories that Dave just told me related to the construction of a downtown highway in Shanghai (a city, by the way, of 20 million). And yes, I did just use the words “downtown” and “highway” in the same sentence.

In order to keep things moving along, the business leaders of this great city went to the Chinese government to ask for assistance in building a five-level, limited-access, high-speed road right through the middle of town.

Pittsburghers 40 years old and over will likely remember the East Street Valley Expressway. This is the road that we currently refer to as “I-279 North.” This particular highway took more than four decades to build, with much of this time spent debating with various entities about everything from high-speed lanes (now hardly used) to eminent domain.

These kinds of impediments to progress just don’t happen in China. Instead, the government looks at all sides of all issues and then just “makes the call”. All sides agree in advance that the government’s decision will be full and final.

Now I can hear you out there saying, “Ron, have you lost your mind? You’re saying that you prefer that government determine where, when, and how such things as fast roads be built? Remember too, that this is a Communist government.

But China also has a strong, centralized government, a government that (for all intents and purposes) appoints its most talented managers as Governors. Is not this approach actually preferable to the charade that we call the “election” of leaders?”

Please --- stop and open up your mind before you knee-jerk your response to this question.

As for me, I’m just not sure. I’ve been voting for over 40 years now, and I’m just not entirely convinced that we’re “electing” people who have even the slightest clue as to what they’re doing.

Hell, I do a radio talk show every day and during that show I sit and read the comments of some very bright people who almost never laud the performance of our elected officials. In fact, I can give you the names of at least a dozen such listeners who have never once, and in five plus years, said even one positive thing about any one of our politicians.

It’s true.

Think about this: in the United States of America, one “runs for office,” by first raising a ton of money from (typically) well-heeled “supporters.”

I would guess that very few of us are naive enough to believe that this “support money” is given without at least some strings attached. The dirty little truth of the matter is that everyone giving money to any U.S. politician gives it with the specific expectation that they will ultimately have access to that politician.

And we all know what the word “access” really means. Don’t we?

So, are these “governors” (remember, their job is to be the wise and objective decision-makers who take into account everyone’s interests before making their ruling) really behaving objectively? Or, are they merely puppets at the end of some donor’s string?

Some of the most influential legislation in this country is created and passed by individuals with two-year terms. Two years. This is hardly even enough time to:

• Get elected the first time, then
• Find your office in the Capital Building, and finally
• Begin raising money for your next election.

So, how much experience can an elected leader really have in terms of governing? Which is exactly what we want that elected official to do --- never lose sight of the fact that his or her job is to govern.

Let’s now compare this system to the way the Chinese do it.

In China, governors are trained in the art of governing. Once their talent as communicators, engineers, and teachers is discerned (generally, this occurs when the “politician” is in his early 20’s), he is sent to some remote and outlying province where he, and in effect, “practices” his craft for so long as it takes to become proficient at the art of managing.

Unless the American politician is already a manager, he or she must learn this very difficult craft “on the fly”. And while I don’t know about you, I do know that it took me close to two decades to learn how to be an effective manager. Hell, I’m still learning.

Now, perhaps you are worried that, and by no longer electing our representatives, we will get “bad government”?

But do these elected officials listen to the general populace in the first place? Of course not. They dream and scheme and generally wind up doing what is best for them (e.g. re-election) --- certainly not us.

Stated another way, “the first politician I meet who cares more about me than himself will be the first politician I meet who cares more about me than himself.” (Wish I could tell you who actually once said this to me.)

So, if we’re not getting people who will do our bidding anyway, why not at least get people who do know how to:

• Resolve the kinds of problems that result from a growing economy/populous, and,
• Work closely with the central government, for the overall good of the state itself?

To be honest, when I first thought of this idea I thought that I had lost my mind. “Ron”, I said to myself, “how can you propose permanent, appointed professional managers to the citizens of a country that has done quite well for itself by electing its leaders over the past 250 years?”

It is worth bringing up. And I say this because I have been watching our government for nearly forty years, and upon reflection, it now seems to me that the greater good of the nation-state is served when a strong centralized government supports the cultural, business, societal, and health-related needs of its people.

There’s a whole lot of thinking that must go along with making a change as radical as this. And we would have to be extremely careful to put in place the kinds of rules and laws that insure all constituencies their full rights and opportunities.

But as each election happens, I find myself more and more disappointed by how quickly our “newbies” become co-opted by “the system.” Worse, I see countries like China and India, with governments that truly respond to the needs of all constituencies fairly and equally, passing us by in so many ways.

Now, I’m going to go and hide somewhere.