China’s state media has interpreted America’s midterm upheaval as evidence against the system that made it possible. The Global Times argues that dissatisfaction with elected governments exposes the declining appeal of Western democracy.

The editorial cites surveys showing widespread frustration across the United States and Europe. Its central contention is that voting loses credibility when citizens see little connection between casting ballots and improving their lives. It also accuses Western governments of invoking democracy to justify ideological confrontation abroad.

An uncomfortable truth lies beneath the propaganda. Elections can replace officeholders without making housing affordable, improving public services, or diminishing the influence of wealthy interests. Citizens repeatedly promised change may reasonably doubt whether established parties can deliver it.

But Beijing draws a conclusion its evidence cannot sustain. Disappointment with democratic government does not establish a preference for Chinese authoritarianism. Nor does an election that removes an unpopular majority demonstrate that elections are meaningless. Americans have repeatedly used their dissatisfaction to dismiss politicians, while China’s citizens cannot similarly remove the Communist Party through an election.

Beijing’s argument gains traction the more mainstream parties lose credibility and voters seek more radical alternatives. The Democratic Socialists of America’s appeal illustrates the pressure from the left: promises such as Zohran Mamdani’s rent freeze offer concrete relief where conventional economic assurances have disappointed…

This man just got inside a Cybercab, Elon Musk’s new car that has no steering wheel or pedals.

What happens next will shock everyone.

Click here to see this exclusive footage.

Parts of the right draw a different lesson, favoring leaders willing to override institutional resistance. A 2024 PRRI survey found that 44% of Republicans supported a leader prepared to break rules to put the country right. That is a substantial constituency, though hardly evidence that all conservatives favor authoritarian government.

These movements should not be conflated, as seeking public ownership through elections is a fundamentally different approach from dispensing with constitutional restraints. Their common opportunity is dissatisfaction with what established politicians have delivered.

China exploits that frustration while overlooking democracy’s mechanism for correcting failure. Yet Western governments cannot answer complaints about unaffordable homes merely by pointing to Chinese repression. Their strongest rebuttal would be institutions that protect political freedom while proving capable of addressing the grievances driving voters toward the extremes.

Your freedom to dismiss a government matters most when its policies have failed you. But that freedom becomes harder to defend if each election produces new promises while the same problems persist. Voters should expect more than false promises and a reassurance that their frustrations would be worse under a dictatorship.

Frustration makes any promise of radical change more attractive. But a president empowered to sidestep Congress will eventually be replaced by one his supporters oppose. Anyone who wants protection from government overreach cannot make that protection dependent upon winning every election.

Beijing is right that public patience wears thin when voting changes the government but scarcely improves daily life. Yet it offers no convincing remedy. China’s rulers cannot be voted out when their policies fail. America’s can. The midterms exercised that power; the politicians who benefited must now justify the confidence placed in them. Voters have supplied the change of government. Better government remains the unfinished business.