The discussion has begun to turn to the final aspect of Josh’s book: the question of what the US should be doing in response to China’s growing international influence. As I have been studying China for the last few years, my thinking has moved from the view that the US should work to aggressively assert the appeal of democratic liberalism in order to counter China’s advances in the Third World to the more sanguine perspective that China’s rise could bring with it real benefits that the US should find a way to celebrate.

Viewed in the best light possible, American commitment to the values of democratic liberalism at home and abroad is predicated on the idealistic notion that it represents the most just and effective way to organize a society and its compact with government. Pragmatically, American foreign policy comes face-to-face today with new forms of governance that challenge various aspects of liberal democracy—such as Chinese-style illiberal capitalism, Latin American resource nationalism, and Islamic jihadism. When deciding how to interact with such alternative governance systems, most US policymakers hold the implicit view that they are simply not as sustainable, durable, or desirable as liberal democracy. Imagine if that assumption was meaningfully challenged by the increasing success of China’s governance model abroad.

Some of my Berkeley colleagues and I carried out a series of foreign policy workshops in a few major cities around the world earlier this year. And it became clear very quickly that other parts of the world have extremely different ideas about the resilience of alternative governance systems, their sources of strength, their comparative advantage versus democratic liberalism, and their attractiveness to the non-Western, developing world. [Closer to home, last week on TPM Cafe we saw the vigorous debate around the universality of American ideals provoked by Anne-Marie Slaughter’s new book.]

Our global participants saw the potential strengths of an alternative governance message that emphasizes the values of order and stability regardless of other ideological content over a narrative that proselytizes democracy and good governance. Many highlighted the attractiveness to the developing world of a message that places collective-oriented economic growth and poverty reduction front and center over individualistic political liberties. Indeed, many felt that a country—read: China—that could articulate a clear ideological stance around a message of economic success with stability would find willing followers in the rest of the world.

So consider the following hypothetical: China announces a unilateral program to improve basic health and education in sub-Saharan Africa, supported by massive unconditional grants and technical assistance on strategies of state-controlled capitalism to incumbent governments. And allow the possibility that the program’s results prove remarkable within five to ten years. How should the US respond to this? Should we applaud China’s success and encourage other countries to sign on to the Beijing Consensus on economic development? Or would American policymakers deem it necessary to counter China in this realm? Proponents of democratic liberalism who assert its universalism and the interdependence of its values to make their case are going to face gut-wrenching decisions when some of its goals are met at the expense of others. To put it simply: suppose China helps a country like Zimbabwe reduce child mortality and increase basic education enrollment. Is it enough for the US that such unarguably worthwhile goals are being achieved; or is it more important for the US that Zimbabwe reach such goals by following a liberal political-economic model?