Someone reading this in the US or Europe may find these comments obvious, but the fact that living in China things feel free, it is easy to forget that they are not. Publicly laughing at the flaws of politicians is a no-no in China, and yet it is an important function of the press in the West. Take for example Saturday Night Live‘s brutal depiction of Sarah Palin getting interviewed by Katie Couric:

Essentially the clip says that Sarah Palin, potentially the next vice president of America, is a totally clueless, ill-informed moron. In open societies, this is perfectly acceptable. Furthermore, political satire helps crystallize the absurdities of her political double-speak. The Palin sketch rips apart her preposterous claim that living in a state that has desolate islands vaguely in the vicinity of Russia give her foreign policy knowledge. In a closed society such nonesense might go generally unquestioned.

For all of the problems of the American political system-and the fact that it produced two terms of W Bush are all the proof you need that it has some-the existence of political satire, which helps society question the claims and policies of its leaders, is an amazing and beautiful outlet for dissent. Furthermore, it is interesting that in a system with such a clear channel to voice differences with political leaders, there have been virtually no serious attempts to overthrow the government in well over 100 years (much longer depending on how you classify the Civil War).

The 2000 election is the classic example of how America’s strength comes from its ability to handle dissent and disagreement within the bounds of an open political system. Although the decision not to finish the Florida recount was disgraceful and wrong-headed, Americans were generally able to watch what was happening in a transparent environment, which ultimately gave them the confidence in the system to accept the decision. Satirists were harsh on the ultimate verdict, but this criticism did nothing to de-legitimize the Supreme Court’s decision. If anything, the fact that it so easily held up against such a backlash is the best case for open discourse.

There is a diversity of views in open societies that is not only healthy, but critical to progress and the emergence of informed viewpoints. When Sarah Palin was selected as John McCain’s running mate a little research resulted in appalling discoveries: she was a governor for fewer than two years, went to five colleges in five years and only got her passport last year. The idea of her running the country was frightening. And yet her electrifying speech at the Republican National Convention made her an instant celebrity. As the polls went up for McCain, some might have been disheartened that people bought into someone with so little capacity to run a country so quickly.

Despite the initial bump in support that Palin received, in an open society emptiness is only convincing for so long. There is a requirement of accountability and explanation. As Governor Palin has withered under the scrutiny of interviews, and as the focus of the political debate has turned serious with the developing financial crisis, people have begun to doubt her ability to lead–and McCain’s judgment for choosing her. What was once a short-term boon is now looking like a lead weight on his poll numbers.

With Palin’s full background and knowledge coming into focus, even conservatives have begun to question here credentials. Here is a snippet from a National Review article:

Some of the passionately feminist critics of Palin who attacked her personally deserved some of the backlash they received. But circumstances have changed since Palin was introduced as just a hockey mom with lipstick — what a difference a financial crisis makes — and a more complicated picture has emerged…

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do.

The point is not that Palin was a poor pick or that she lacks the knowledge to lead. The real lesson is that in a society with a functioning press–as flawed as it is–the truth is much more likely to emerge. One could point out that Bush managed to win two elections, but many of his lies and deeds of incompetence have now come to light. He won’t be up for election again, but his historically low approval ratings have prevented him from pursuing any of his agenda for the last three years. Furthermore, it has forced him to make smarter appointments (like Gates and Paulson).

Sometimes I forget what a closed society China is in some regards. For 98% of the population it feels open. Unless you are openly criticizing the government on a tiny handful of issues, you are essentially free to say what you want. And yet there is something fundamentally problematic that remains systemic in Chinese society. You can go up to the line, but you can never cross it.

In contrast, if you look at shows like The Daily Show, The Cobert Report, or Real Time with Bill Maher, it becomes clear that nothing is off-limits in an open society. On the contrary, it is the very issues that would be most sensitive in China–corruption, misleading statements from officials and social injustice–that are the most regularly attacked topics in America. If there are only 2% of all issues that are off-limits in China, it is those same 2%, the most controversial and critical in the West, that get 85% of the political coverage when it comes to American politics.

America is a country with many flaws. However, it is difficult to return to America without realizing what a critical and important piece of our societal fabric political satire is. Without it, what would American political discourse, and American society itself, be? Imagine if I couldn’t say that George W Bush is a horse’s ass and war criminal. I shudder to think.