> "China went from communism into capitalism with single party system, without revolution."
I'm not sure Deng Xiaoping would agree with this framing, though he was eventually able to shift things after Mao. There was a lot of violence during the cultural revolution. Deng reversed a lot of this, but it was in a revolutionary context (right after the cultural revolution).
"And introducing a solution just for pragmatic reasons without any pretense of idealism doesn't vilify it."
I agree that it doesn't necessarily vilify it (pragmatism is good), but if it's done only as an illusion/lie to maintain authoritarian control by one group then that is villainous. This is also not what occurs in the USG (and the underlying suggestion that it is, is what I took issue with).
> "Stumbling upon a pragmatic solution while pursuing idealistic goals doesn't sanctify the solution."
No, but the thing I'm taking issue with is the 'pragmatic solution' being a dead locked two party system that exists only for stability. That's the cynical view I think is wrong. I think the US is a democratic system with rule of law where policy moves forward via arguing. Though recently, party risk and extremism has made this less effective and entrenched incentives make these issues hard to fix. This is a bug though and not by design. Parties form because it's an effective way to coordinate even though there are risks.
> "That's a very low bar. It happens in single party systems as well."
I'd argue that it's not as resilient in single party systems, both because unelected leaders that serve infinite terms gives some short term advantage at the increased risk of long term instability and because the amount of control used against the public leads to resentment. Wild swings in policy can cause problems, making year over year progress which culminates in big changes over decades is a stable way to improve things. Particularly if it happens in a context where new politicians are being elected all of the time and power is peacefully changing.
If you're not stress testing that system (even if you are) with peaceful changes of power, then you're unlikely to survive your first attempt. One party governments can be more efficient at doing things in the short-term, but long term they fail. Without elections the failures are violent.