I read this similarly. In the US, there are lots of things that the government doesn't control, and even for things the government does control the federal, state and local governments can be controlled by different parties that have conflicting priorities. Also, the way that the political parties are structured in the US is very different, where there are national party organizations, but also local party organizations that do as much influencing over the national parties as vice versa.

To reduce the difference between China's political situation and the US's to be the difference between 2 parties and 1 is not accurate.

This somehow misses the Supreme Court.

The American Supreme Court can basically make up interpretations on essentially whatever, and it has and will so long as the Democratic and Republican party agree on it.

China also has local CCP organizations, and they have a significant level of influence on the national party (and vice-versa), but ultimately just like in the US the DNC and RNC chair can basically make up whatever arcane rules for nomination and get an agreeable candidate.

The US is designed with the idea of checks and balances. It is a half-truth that the Supreme Court can make up whatever interpretations it wants. It can only consider cases that come before it, and it can only take so many cases in a year. With the cases before it, in practice, there are a whole host of things limiting what interpretations are possible, such as precedent, the desire to reach consensus on a more limited ruling, the possibility of setting a precedent that could later be used against the justice's goal, and the fact that justices have to work together even though they strongly disagree with each other. These are in addition to the other checks and balances spelled out in the Constitution, such as the possibility of impeachment of justices.

The issue is that literally every single check and balance in the US is controlled by either the Democrat or Republican Party.

In effect, these are checks and balances between two parties.

The desire to reach consensus is yet again a mechanism of partisan conflict resolution. Impeachment of justices is a partisan political process. The lower courts are also at the mercy of either of the two parties.

Ultimately, there is literally no process in the entirety of the USA to legally prevent something that both parties durably agree on.

Again, your summary is a simplistic half truth. There are lots of prominent examples of intra-party checks.

Trump recently was opposed in political processes by his own Vice President and Supreme Court nominees, as well as some members of Congress.

Within the Democratic party, there are also examples of these checks happening within the party. DeBlasio (mayor of NY) and Cuomo (governor of the state of NY) have been fighting against each other for years.

More generally though, not everything in the US is a political decision. There are other practical checks on the political process itself, like the freedom of speech Many Americans either don't like either party, or at least don't like the leadership if either party right now. We don't have songs like "Without the Communist Party, There Would Be No New China" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Without_the_Communist_Party,...). While unlikely, in the US parties can go, and have gone, extinct through the normal political process. And every four years (depending on who wins the Presidential election) there are opinion pieces considering one party or the other's demise. If people disappear for comparing the CCP's leader to Winnie the Pooh, I can't imagine it's very safe to write about the CCP's demise within China.

> Who exactly is controlling everything of value in this theory?

In US? Same as everywhere. Network of people who make the laws and people who amass capital thanks to those laws.

It wasn't meant as whataboutism or as a critique of US. It was meant as praise of US and potential direction China should evolve towards to protect their rulers with less fragility.