nixon goes to china
In 1972 the ardent anti-communist, President Richard Nixon, went to China. This meeting marked the end of a 25-year period of silence between Washington and Beijing. In the middle of the Cold War the United States was looking for allies anywhere they could find it and trying to cool the situation in Vietnam, contact with China was one way that could be achieved. Many before Nixon had contemplated a similar visit, but were prevented by the political reality that a visit would be construed as a sign of Communism sympathy — and in the real way. Not in the “I like libraries and am therefore a Communist” type of way.
This visit spawned the phrase “Only Nixon could go to China”, a metaphor used to communicate that only those with a well-established record of opposition could accomplish a goal. Only Nixon could go to China because he had a history of anti-Communist behaviors in his long political career. No one could credibly accuse him being a Communist sympathizer, so he had the flexibility to make the politically correct decision.
The premise of a Nixon to China moment is incredibly frustrating. It highlights a sense of hypocrisy in American political life, that it doesn’t matter the idea being presented but the vibes of who is presenting it. Let’s take healthy food in schools for an example.
In 2010 Congress passed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. This bill, among other things, set higher nutritional standards for school lunches, and increased the availability of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains…while also probably contributing to a vending machine being taken from your cafeteria. That sounds…annoying. Overly intrusive. Paternalistic. Generally, things Americans hate. All of this compounded by the fact that it was championed by Michelle Obama, a deeply unliked person on the Right1.
If you don’t remember that period in public education, everyone was dunking on this policy. I recall in 2007ish there was an ice cream vending machine in my middle school, and by 2012 when I would go back to volunteer it was gone. From a certain perspective this is good — but as a 14-year-old boy it could make you want to riot. Just take this ABC story from 2012 where serious professionals are taking the kids word seriously. One of the big take-aways is “kids don’t easy vegetables”…and duh.
There were serious and well-considered arguments against the policy, but the core argument — that kids should be served healthier lunch options is true. And yet the criticism was everywhere.
Unfortunately for the narrative, this just played into a bunch of democratic weaknesses: feminine, nagging, parental, and centralized control. If Democrats are the Mommy Party and Republicans the Daddy Party, this policy just reeked of your mom forcing you to eat your vegetables. Enter Trump, who in 2017 repealed many of the provisions that were put in place as part of that 2010 act. But that was 2017…8 years later conservatives are singing a different tune.
Now, to be fair, RFK Jr. was a democrat and even floated as EPA administrator back in 2008, so it would be intellectually consistent for him to retain this view. But it’s the fervor for which the conservative right, and the MAHA movement has taken this same issue and changed the framing.
When it was Democrats — parental, nagging, controlling. Now that it is Republicans? Smart, sensible, proactive, healthy.
It took Nixon to go to China, and RFK Jr. to make our kids eat vegetables…and take vaccines.
But I’m not here to write about a relatively small point of disagreement between political ideologies, I’m more concerned that this dynamic is at play everywhere in the second Trump administration.
Oh, you care about delivering efficient government outcomes for people? We can only trust Republicans to do that because for years they’ve told us government was the enemy.
Oh, you care about being strong on defense? Traditionally we would see leaving NATO as weak-on-defense, but Republicans have been warmongers since Bush so we can trust them to not leave us vulnerable.
Care about a strong economy? Trump many be threatening and enacting tariffs causing the stock market to decline…but so what! Trump’s a business man, he must care about the stock market.
Oh, you care about energy production? Surely we can trust Republicans because they say “drill baby drill” while they refuse to embrace market-supported energy production.
It seems that folks are giving the Trump administration a pass on performance to date (although no-so-much) based on a preconceived notion that Republicans wouldn’t just switch positions for no good reason, so they must be acting based on facts and prudent position taking.
I think that’s wrong —
The Trump Administration is not trying to make the government more efficient so you, the taxpayer, receive more bang-for-your-buck. They want to provide tax cuts for the rich, cut Medicaid, and create an impoundment crisis.
The Trump Administration and their lackies are supporting Russia because Trump is enamored with Putin. Not because they think it will make America safer or stronger.
The Trump Administration probably does care about the stock market but cares more about the avenues for direct payments like his DJT 0.00%↑ equity, and his shitcoins $TRUMP and $MELANIA — which are both concerningly corrupt products that allow for direct bribery.
The Trump Administration might theoretically care about energy production but are too mired in anti-woke ideology to realize that wind and solar are good actually and can be used in tandem with fossil fuels for an abundant energy future.
All of this meets at a fundamental difference between the parties. Democrats generally want to do things. They want to provide services, they want to preserve the environment, they want to create change such that America is different and better. Republicans, alternatively, want to preserve what was. It is a philosophically backwards-looking movement (there are good things that can come from that point of view, not everything needs to be new). But if your entire party’s position is “I don’t want to do things, I want to RETVRN” — Nixonian logic dictates that you’re the only ones qualified to do something. That is concerning.
We can’t be a productive country or engage in a constructive dialog if this is the only power dynamic at play. I hope more people can realize this and think about their political opinions on an issues-first basis. Unlikely? Sure. But we can’t bottleneck progress by only letting Nixon go to China.
The fact that she’s that close to Hillary Clinton is deeply concerning; like woah. Nobody is hated as much a HRC is.