>Xi outmaneuvered his rivals.

He outmaneuvered them by being compromised candidate that no one had any objection to. And no one objected because Xi was the kind of person LKI compared to Nelson Mendella calibre of person. CIA dossier concluding Xi's incorruptible by money suggests Xi had the reputation to and disposition to negotiate the gilded age left by Deng's policies that Hu couldn't stem. Xi had the qualities to at least direct PRC in right direction vs Bo.

>that sounds delusional

PRC can trade lives for progress. It's harnessing the capital part of human capital. Bluntly frontloading a few million deaths to quickly set up the right conditions for future growth is the correct decision. Of course there were missteps, but overall Mao did the right things considering external factors. Again, look to India for a comparable alternative. It's a fucking mess because it can't break eggs to create omelette. Mao's mess was MASSIVELY beneficial, even if it led to excesses like CR and GLF, which bluntly are drop in the bucket tragedies on PRC historic scales.

>He is centralizing control and power.

A competent leader gaining power during interesting times isn't bad. It's not about efficiency but building comprehensive national power, many things simply do not get built or changes cannot be made without massive state directed attention even if less efficient. Recentralizing is not bad either - it's industrial policy - which is what made the west strong in the first place. Policies US abandoned and now is trying to rapidly regain. The ability to recentralize when needed is relative nimbleness the alternative is institutional stagnance west finds itself trapped in.

>Xi just copied a bad US habit
...
> If it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck; it's a duck.

Xi modernized the PRC military on a modest 2% budget. It's what NATO ought to spend. The amount of procurement PRC has made under Xi doesn't suggest there's massive waste - one of Xi's first efforts was cleaning out notoriously corrupt PLA brass, which Bo was associated with. Again he wasn’t up to the task, Xi was the best choice in the timeline we had. Matching US deterrence post pivot to Asia was incredibly difficult undertaking. Obama/Clinton already didn't buy Hide & Bide. Xi's a very impressive duck. Even centralizing power is a hard trick that requires acumen. Don’t have to praise it, but recognize that Xi got a lot of hard things done, fast.

> One China Two Systems was working

No it wasn't. HK existed for 23 years of NSL exception and being exploited by the west as the spy capital of Asia to undermine PRC interest - it was never a sustainable arrangement. HK only ever paid 1C2S lip service, and cultural shift as old demographics with memory of KMT/PRC relations die out, 1C2S wouldn't have been viable in TW either. No one had any pretensions that TW would return to PRC on a 10/20 year timeline. 1C2S ran its course like Deng’s development model or hide&bide and (eventually) no first use, 1C2S was a policy out of weakness, there will be alternative models as a result of PRC gaining strength. Xi is nimble enough to move past uneasy and untenuous policies. While the future of TW is debatable, Xi successfully secured HK, XJ, Tibet and built enough hard power to challenge the US when Trump decided to set eyes on PRC after covid drama. Wolf-warrior last year showed very few countries willing to step on PRC toes on internal issues, that PRC can effectively do what she pleases on core interests with relative impunity. Again, no small part thanks to Xi’s military modernization efforts. Xi has been great for PRC national interests.