First off, I would like to say how strange it was that the group of men that were at the same restaurant as Lou Lei and his family were all not wearing shirts. Cheng Cheng didn’t seem to fond of his shirt either.

But I think that this example of democracy in action is telling of two things: one being that Machiavelli’s theories about the behaviors of an ideal prince seem to be the most effective in this democratic game, and the second being that the system of democracy may be more flawed than one may initially think. Cheng Cheng showed aspects of Machiavelli politics, but he did not fully manage the balance of assertion and trust. The students definitely thought that he was powerful, but they were not sure what to expect and or if they could trust him. Lou Lei on the other hand, established the trust and support of his fellow classmates through his bribes, but also demanded respect and obedience. For this reason, Lou Lei was more of a master of Machiavellian techniques, and this resulted in his victory. However, this democracy in action goes to show that the process is not always as fair and equal as it appears. Though in theory, all three candidates have an equal chance to win, the second that the two boys ganged up on Xiaofei, her chances of winning were diminished as she was made to appear unworthy and unqualified. The fact of the matter is she played the game in the most fair and respectable way, and defeat was the outcome.

To me, Zakaria’s point makes clear the largest with democracy in America while at the same time underlines the flaws of the presidential system. Democracy is ongoing while liberalism is disappearing, and this in turn is creating a government defined by polarized parties and distrust. However, I think that there is a larger truth about the United States that contributes to these problems, which both Zakaria and Foa and Mounk neglect to extensively factor in to their analyses, is the aspect of diversity and differencing beliefs, practices, and cultures that can comprise a state. Zakaria briefly touches upon what I am talking about when he writes, “The whole point of liberal democracy is to create a system that reflects and addresses popular passions but also allows for some deliberation, for some consideration of liberal values like the rights of minorities and free expression and private property” (Zakaria, 12). Perhaps the larger issue with democracy today is not a direct product of it becoming less liberal, but is a more direct product of a fragmented society. The “popular passions” that Zakaria refers to may be the majority, but they go against a huge percentage of other Americans, including minorities and underrepresented citizens. This then would explain the dangerous trend towards populism. A party that claims to represent the common people is not representing the interests of nearly enough citizens, and thus the winner-take-all aspect of the presidential system ensures the dissatisfaction with democracy, because too many people’s voices are being neglected.

From this parable, one of the most interesting things to consider is the dynamic between power and attitude. As everyone has previously said, this story is an example of a small desolate town being altered by modern industrialization and capitalism. However, what I find even more significant than this transformation is the complacency of the Chief versus the yearning for change in the Grocer. The Chief maintained his position of power in both accounts of Balgat, and both interviewers seemed to portray the Chief as someone satisfied with living in Balgat, regardless of what it looked like. In contrast to this, the Grocer wanted nothing more then “to get out of his hole” (Lerner, 49). Power creates contentment, and being stripped of power creates longing. I also find it very interesting that hope and America are always connected for people living outside of its context. It seems that more often than not people who lack power in their own society long to come to America and make something of themselves: “I have heard that its is a nice country, and with possibilities to be rich even for the simplest person” (Lerner). I have to wonder if this outsider view of America still persists today, or if it is better understood that America is a place with low social mobility, and little chance to gain power if you don’t already have it.

In her article, “The Dying Russians,” Masha Gessen juxtaposes the research techniques of two professionals eager to identify the source of the heightened death rate in Russia. As others have said, and as I concur, this piece aligns nicely with Ziblatt’s article on the Middle Range Theory. Parsons represents what Zilbatt refers to as a hedgehog, as she was on the quest “for a single grand synthesis of politics,” in her goal to explore the cultural context of the Russian mortality crisis. Her scope of study manages to be simultaneously too broad and too narrow. To study the “cultural context” as a whole is both unrealistic and almost unachievable given Parson’s limited cultural context. She lives in the very context that she attempts to study, and because of this, she is blind to certain truths about Russian culture. Gessen makes this clear when she writes, “Parsons and her subjects, whom she quotes at length, seem to have an acute understanding of the first two forces shaping Soviet society but are almost completely blind to the last.” Conversely, Nicholas Eberstadt works inductively which allows him to identify the more gradual changes that have been underway well before 1991. Though his methodology is more fox-like, and thus (as said by Ziblatt) becomes superior, I think that he is missing a key part of study. A lot of students have expressed a distrust in Parsons interviewing of Russian middle-aged citizens, I think that it adds a crucial element to this investigation. You cannot come to a conclusion about a culture without what Geertz describes as a “thick description.” And in order to gain a thick description one has to immerse themselves in that culture, and realize their own bias as an analysis. I feel that Eberstadt does not do enough to immerse himself in this culture, and seems to miss key interactions with the very people who live in this context. But in conclusion, I would say that it is hard to know if there is a truth that lies beyond the grasp of social or even medical science. I say this because it is hard to prove something to the point where it can never be disproven, and it is easy to say that something is law and have it later uncovered. This does not meant that we should stop trying, because I think that parts of the objective truth are being uncovered everyday.