The Unipolar paradigm is a myth. The last attempt at it was by PNAC, when they reasoned that the US could become the world's only superpower, now that a power vacuum existed (at that time). Needless to say, it didn't work out. China has a sphere of power, so do the South American nations, and so do a couple of other areas of the world. True, the US is still the most powerful nation in the world, but it does not have the power to influence the entire world, as PNAC had hoped. In fact, the US is now experiencing a decline of it's influence in the world.
Actually, the U.S. has been the sole superpower since World War II. Certainly the Soviet Union had been a challenge, but they had nowhere near the level of power and influence as the United States. The Soviets were spending exorbitant amounts compared to the U.S. just trying to keep a slight edge in space travel firsts, while we consistently had the edge in the more strategic aspects of space power like spy satellites. What the Soviets always lacked was power projection. For the United States power projection has not been an issue since the 1940's. Our naval assets far outclassed anything the Soviets brought to bear.
Rather, at present we are actually seeing the U.S. status as sole superpower become challenged. China, the European Union, and Russia are making global plays while other countries like Iran and Venezuela make regional plays that also serve to erode American power. To a great extent the collapse of the Soviet Union has actually increased Russia's potential as a rival power.
If you lived in Taiwan or any number of other regional states that feel threatened by China's rising military, you may feel differently. Of course, once again leave it to you to take the side of a totalitarian dictatorship...
It is only natural for Taiwan to feel threatened by the mainland's increasing military power. The limitations of Chinese military power have always been linked with Taiwan's de-facto independence. So long as the local power dynamic allows for some determined resistance there is always the chance of deflecting a forceful assertion of China's sovereignty over the territory. However, in my opinion, that dynamic has already shifted in China's favor as at its present state they have enough offensive power to overwhelm Taiwan's defenses and methodically decimate its military capabilities. For Taiwan it is just a matter of years before any prospect of U.S. intervention can be definitively discounted. Certainly the majority of Taiwanese who favor the present state of affairs and undoubtedly those who want de jure independence fret at the idea of their fate being entirely at the mercy of China.
Beyond that I can think of no country that would be particularly fearful of China. Any rising power is likely to create reservations just as several countries in the region become apprehensive over talk of Japanese militarization. Still, from what I can tell those countries most concerned about China have an obvious investment in a matter directly impacted by that changing power dynamic or a history of hostility with China. Japan and Vietnam both certainly have that history of hostility and so their reservations are to be expected. The same goes for India.
Aside from those countries I cannot think of many that have serious reservations. Even South Korea is more receptive of China's rise.
If only DOL and others knew what the Chinese REALLY thought of the U.S., Japan and other states...
While I have not met someone from mainland China in person I have talked to enough people from there online to understand that attitudes in China are not really that hostile. Given the history of U.S. relations with China or Japanese relations with China it would be unreasonable to expect there to not be some ill will.
In general, democratic systems have far greater capacity for recovery and renewal in the face of changing environments than non-democratic ones do.
I agreed with you up to this point. My opinion is that democratic systems mainly serve the purpose of ameliorating abuses by authority. While shaping policy does represent an integral part of such a purpose this does not mean a democratic system will be inherently more capable of responding to dynamic situations. That has everything to do with the structure of the system itself. Here in the U.S. our political system does provide key democratic checks on power, but it also inhibits the responsiveness of government at times to both external and internal forces including popular opinion. We can see in Europe that its democratic system, though allowing it to make certain decisive gains in areas like energy and the environment, inhibit its ability to respond to financial pressures and regional concerns.
Rather the main element that determines a government's ability to respond is its ideological openness and ability to arrive at consensus measures. This is actually where China excels and, in my opinion, constitute democratic aspects of its system that are in some ways better than those of Western-style democratic systems. Of course, I presume when you say democratic systems you are specifically referring to the Western-style system.
Having been to China on numerous occasions, I'm well aware of the actual and perceived grievances (for lack of a better term) and latent nationalism that exist in some sectors of Chinese society. Bad management of the bilateral relationship can well tap those more negative perceptions and nurture a more hostile bilateral trajectory. That is not the only outcome nor is it the assured outcome. Broad shared interests can, if they are focused on to mutual benefit, avoid that course. The ultimate outcome will depend on the choices made by the Chinese and U.S. leaders today and tomorrow.
Efforts to rein in or contain China as some pundits recommend or to otherwise humiliate China will be very destructive to the bilateral relationship, not to mention very likely unsuccessful. That's a course the U.S. should avoid, as it is that course that creates perhaps the greatest prospect of a hostile China even as China's power is growing both in absolute and relative terms. Differences should be handled carefully through diplomatic channels, but both parties will need to be cognizant of one another's critical interests and constraints. Some careful balancing will be required.
My opinion is that the U.S. likely will pursue containment of China, but that it will not be enough to override our convergent interests. I mean, the U.S. is actually trying to contain the EU yet it still manages to work with it when there are common goals. With China our mutual interests are so numerous as to provide a disincentive for any direct hostility.
The risk of such an outcome would increase beyond the medium-term, but at this point in time that outcome is not assured. Much latitude for choice still exists. There also remains a prospect that a transformational leader could be elected at some point down the road, make some very difficult choices, and shift the nation's overall trajectory.
Furthermore, as the political leadership largely reflects the attitudes of the public that elects it, I agree with you that the electorate is a big part of the problem or solution, depending on how things play out. The electorate is not some helpless group of bystanders who have no influence or voice. Whether the electorate choose that role is a different matter, but ultimate responsibility still resides in the electorate even if the electorate chooses to neglect its obligations.
While the people are certainly responsible for how government behaves to an extent you cannot neglect the levels to which those in power will resort to in order to keep the people from exercising their authority in a way detrimental to entrenched interests. The current state of affairs is beneficial to many people in the unaccountable bureaucratic and corporate world and they will use whatever levers are available to them in order to impede popular opposition to that state of affairs. Most of the sources of information people consult on matters of public interest are under the control of those people and so ultimately the authorities instruct the people in such a manner as to provide a beneficial solution for them no matter the outcome of the election,
Right now, I don't believe the U.S. needs true national renewal (a kind of internal revolution that shatters existing institutions/norms and fashions new ones), though difficult choices are needed in some areas. Some of those choices will entail a measure of sacrifice and pain. When the country's fate is much less a matter of choice e.g., an undereducated workforce has resulted in its having lost competitiveness, degrading living standards (relative to many other countries), and loss of economic/military capacity due to technology gaps, then such renewal will be needed. The pain during that period would be much greater than what is required if the nation tackles some of its difficult choices in the near-term and medium-term. Moreover, prospects for success would be much less certain than if the U.S. addresses its great problems prior to the onset of such a situation.
I think a sort of revolution like you described is needed in this country. Most people would not see it because most people are simply not confronted with the inherent problems in our system. The masses are indoctrinated with so many ideas by the system that they cannot even begin to understand what should be done to resolve these problems.