No, that is not correct. Democracy worked, and a President was elected that had vision that matched the desires of the electorate.
And herein lies the problem. The US democracy is in such a shape that if new elections were to be held the new President will be the guy who promises most handouts and entitlements at cost of everything else (including reason, reality and laws of physics.) Life is hard; but the electorate doesn't want to hear that message. Obama was elected because he promised what the voters wanted.
China is free of these democratic experiments, of course. China is ruled by a closed society. Once you are in you are set for life, just like US Supreme Court judges. This frees the party bosses from the need to appease voters. The party simply asks their analysts "What is the rational thing to do in this and that situation?" and does what analysts come up with. These may be unpopular decisions, but China has enough tanks to deal with that little problem. In the end, however, the country is ruled by reason - even though it tramples the rights and needs of an individual. (That's how Communism was supposed to be anyway.) A country that is ruled by reason of course will overtake a country that is ruled by populism.
Well, that problem is self correcting in the long run. See Kipling's 'Gods of the Copybook Headings'.
Sure, it takes time. But water is wet, fire burns, and there isn't anything libs can do to change that.
/johnny