Nixon Bows to Mao, February, 1972.
The Obama administration's political guru David Axelrod appears painfully on the defensive re the unexpected bow by POTUS to Hirohito's son Akhito during the state visit to Tokyo. Coincidentally perhaps, the deep bench of Obama supporters have ordered up a Youtube clip of Richard Nixon's foreign policy triumph on his premier visit to Beijing in 1972. Why? The Chinese film crew that covered the Nixon meets Mao audience on the first day captured a momentary bow by RMN to Mao. See for yourself. Not a deep bow. Not much of a bow. Closer to a head nod with an overripe, stagey deference to an obviously swollen, stooped, decrepit, predatory and self-conscious potentate. Nixon was in high spirits for the camera. Kissinger was right beside him. This Mao audience was not arranged for the American cameras; but later the film was passed to the White House. The bulk of the clip features historian Winston Lord and administration op Chuck (pre Watergate) Colson in what looked to have been constructed as a campaign '72 promotional film
Nixon in China 1972
What is most impressive to me is that Nixon and his team understood Mao's weakness and exploited it perfectly. China is vain. It is obsessively self-regarding. It calls itself the Middle Kingdom, the center of the Earth. For China, the world revolves around its GPS. And for the degenerate Mao, who confused his own fate with China's fate, the performance by the all-powerful Cold Warrior POTUS Nixon was blinding, persuasive, overwhelming. The brief scene we have here of Nixon and Kissinger and Mao demonstrates that Nixon understood that by traveling to the Forbidden City, by flattering and toasting Mao, by carrying on agreeably and respectfully, he was cracking open the fear and loathing that Mao's regime felt and creating an opening for the West, for the consumer culture of capitalism and individualism. It was a long play. Nixon was certainly also playing for the short term gain in Vietnam, and against the dull thugs in Moscow. Perhaps the law of unintended consequences provided the answers.
Obama In China 2009
POTUS performance the last days has demonstrated the unusually passive courtliness that marked his trips to Europe and the Middle East. It has been called apology touring. The still mysterious greeting to Saudi King Abdullah in London last Winter -- was it a bow? a stumble? -- now joins the clearly unexpected and remarkable bow to Japanese Emperor Ahkito last week as examples of peculiar POTUS conduct. To my knowledge, POTUS did not bow to President Hu of China. It was the bow to Akhito that has made the headlines. It is too close to an apology; it might be an apology; and that is unacceptable, anachronistic history. POTUS in China with Hu was not in an apologetic or even amiable temper. Late reports from the traveling media are incomplete but distinctly laced with disappointment about the visit. The final media event was a parallel appearance by POTUS and Hu, during which no questions were taken, no agreement was demonstrated, and observers believed that the two executives appeared discomfited by one another. The list of disagreements was not short: the dollar deterioration, the fixed yuan, trade balance, protectionist tariffs, internet transparency, Iran sanctions and then the raft of human rights crises in China and in the conquered territory of Tibet and Xinjiang all caused by Chinese imperialism and backwardness. Tibet and Xinjiang abuses sting especially. We are told that POTUS approached China softly, softly in order to encourage cooperation, in order to illustrate his administration's change of temperature from the Bush administration. The legend has been that the Obama team will find diplomatic successes where the Bush team found conflict and failure. The results of the first occasion are forgettable. The pugnacious Robert Gibbs tried sarcasm (and cynicism), quipping to the media that the White House hadn't expected, "the waters would part and everything would change over the course of almost 2 1/2 days in China."
Nixon in China 2009.
Reviewing again the video on Nixon's first trip to visit Mao, I am astonished at the scale of the challenge. Nixon knew that he was entreating a grotesquely demonic tyrant. Still Nixon handled himself with zeal and a kind of operatic joy. We know now that Mao was defeated in a profound fashion. The Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution were Apocalyptic delusions, the triggers for murder cults and a still unaccounted for mass murder. Mao's regime would destroy itself with back-stabbing, and Mao's heirs would wither, so that what is today the Standing Committee of the Politburo is a diluted rat poison made up of kleptocrats, gangsters, sharpies, whiners. What bursts with energy is the China that will shove aside the Beijing bullies. Nixon saw it, or at least Nixon deserves credit for making it possible to see. Does POTUS see it? The future of China is in the hands of those men and women POTUS denied by not speaking loudly for Tibet, for the Uyghurs of Xinjiang, for the Christians, the democrats, the bloggers, the freedom lovers. Nixon trusted freedom to win. Does POTUS?
(1)
Today, B. Raman writes that Obama clearly seems to be favoring China over India and lists his reasons. He notes this as being a change from Bush administration’s policies.
In the past, a country's democratic credentials held some sway when it came to being seen by America in a favorable light. All that ended when Obama came into office. It not only ended, but actually reversed the equation. American President Barrack Hussein Obama seems much more at ease with despots, dictators and oligarchs than with the democratically elected representatives of a people. He clearly favors Iran over Israel; Venezuela over (constitutionally grounded) Honduras and (as B. Raman says) China over India. Neither can we say that any of this is pragmatic or strategic. Instead, it is becoming increasingly clear that Obama's agenda is solely ideologically driven. He is at heart a Marxist (which he hid from the American electorate) and aims to turn the U.S. in a hard Left direction and/or destroy it altogether.
In this way he seeks to curry favor with the kindred of Cain who continue to despise him; not, as he believes, for not moving fast and/or decisively enough to eliminate what is commonly regarded as a cancer in those ideological quarters but, quite simply, for being a traitor. In almost every case ‘traitor’ trumps ‘dogma’ as applies to the hierarchy of reasons usually put forth as an excuse to shun a person, as it speaks of a cold but erratically beating heart that is adversely affected by some kind of virulent affliction.
http://peterkoelliker.blogspot.com/
"He [Obama] is at heart a Marxist..." blah blah blah.
Peter, seriously, you and Lou (and a few others on this page) need a new slogan to vent your fear and loathing of this president. Most of the time I just roll my eyes at some of the hyperbolic assertions on this page.
And by the way, why didn't Dear Leader Bush have the "moral clarity" to have the U.S. boycott the 2008 Olympics in China?
Yeh, it's ridiculous... now, the PotUS is a traitor, too.
And when someone makes sense of this "you're actually being serious" sentence, please, let me know:
"In almost every case ‘traitor’ trumps ‘dogma’ as applies to the hierarchy of reasons usually put forth as an excuse to shun a person, as it speaks of a cold but erratically beating heart that is adversely affected by some kind of virulent affliction."
Huh??? Balderdash!!
I just hate that this FERAL refuse is being flung and sticking to the walls of Mr B's place.
I take issue with one statment of Peter K's: "He is at heart a Marxist (which he hid from the American electorate) and aims...."
It was not unclear to me he was marxist. He listened to rev wright for 20 yrs and wright is clearly a "liberation marxist" by training in South America.
BO's less reported statements over the years could only be labeled as so. I think the real issue is he may not actually understand that is the case. It is just the way he was brought up and the path he followed.
So you guys can take umbrage to the label, but if you want cred I suggest you present a reasoned argument for why his career and public statements are so literally marxist. As Dr. Freud said, "sometimes a cigar is a just a cigar." These are not just insulting, incendiary epithets. They are reasoned conclusions from the facts. i am open to persuasion but BO passed the duck test long ago. Now maybe he will be redeemed in my eyes as simply a progressive, or a socialist. I guess those are a bit up the scale from whaleshit but not far enough to matter to me. He is a clear and present danger to the future of the USA.
and next time, don't leave out my name when you slur Peter and Lou.
Actually, he may be a fabian socialist.
an ancient Vulcan proverb" by Captain Spock in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country: And Nixon went to china...or something like that. Obama isn't Nixon and he doesn't have a Kissinger.
Jim L--thanks for the lead. I've read several articles on this "variation" and it tracks very well with current but also past events. One could argue the beginnings were long ago as lib's chip away at the foundations, infiltrate the universities (esp journalism depts). All that could be just my convenient post hoc analysis but it sure connects many dots.
It doesn't matter what PotUS says or does... the fERALs will counter with the same old argument that has been keeping this sordid, delusional escapade from fading. And that is the PotUS will do and say anything as long as it furthers the agenda of all the co-conspirators who are purposely destroying the Nation.
Like the bigmouth says (paraphrasing)- "So what if I (bigmouth) get it all wrong... you know he (PotUS) believes it anyway!!"
PotUS touts the exceptional dream and hope of the American experience, free market capitalism, justice, amity and goodwill, etc to all who will listen and all of the time.
Sadly, there are those who choose to warp the message and twist it into an enterprise of their own making to further enrich themselves by pawning off on gullible people who, for some reason, would rather believe liars instead of recognizing the truth.
And about those "bows" to the Emperor and King of - The State Dept has a division called *Office of Protocol* which determines appropriate conduct for our emissaries traveling abroad.
"So you guys can take umbrage to the label, but if you want cred I suggest you present a reasoned argument for why his career and public statements are so literally marxist. As Dr. Freud said, "sometimes a cigar is a just a cigar." These are not just insulting, incendiary epithets. They are reasoned conclusions from the facts."
To even bother responding to your fatuous claims about Obama is akin to answering a question such as "How often do you beat up your wife?"
The burden of proof about Obama's alleged "Marxism" lies with you and others who claim to be more patriotic than Obama. Mercifully, this was settled during the election when the voters rejected it as demagoguery, and even McCain had to contradict (http://tinyurl.com/3wrv44) voters who claimed to be scared about Obama being a "secret Muslim." That's the real issue, and that's the sentiment that Palin was pandering to with her glib campaign remarks about the "Real America" as opposed to those "traitors" and "appeasers" who reside in the big cities and have "corrupted" the universities.
I'm more into bashing Pelosi these days than Obama. And I've got good company.
I really don't think Obama's a Marxist, but he is very, very, very pro-big government. He even admits that himself on a fairly regular basis.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who complain about the ridiculous statements being made about Obama. He brings alot of it on himself. To wit and vis: Reverend Wright and Anita Dunn. Now, these folks aren't exactly the type of company you'd want to keep if you wanted to portray yourself as mainstream American. But, to Obama's credit, he gave ol' Anita the heave-ho at least a month ahead of time. The other reason I don't have a lot of sympathy is that I had to listen to the liberals in this country destroy GWB with words and actions over an 8 year period. Take whatever anger you feel about unjust criticism of Obama over the last year, and multiply that by 8, and that's the kind of baggage I have over what you all did to Bush. And I realize that carrying a grudge is non-productive, so I try and tone it down, but still, come on. After 8 years of hearing that Bush = Hitler, let us vent for a year or two.
Having said all that, I will point out some things I see as positives in Obama's term so far:
(i) I liked how he settled the Ethiopian pirate hostage crisis.
(ii) I like the fact that he's a White Sox fan and clearly disdains the Flubs.
(iii) He's done a terrific job of keeping the health care reform debate moving along. The fact that I absolutely loathe the bills in question notwithstanding, I can still compliment a worthwhile adversary.
(iv) He gets up, puts on a happy face, and goes to work every day and doesn't hide from his problems. That's more than I can say for Bush's last 2 years, although again, I think he was ganged up on so badly by that point that we'll see how Obama handles the same criticism.
So, in summary, do I think Obama is evil, do I think he hates the U.S. and has some sinister plot to Muslimize us? Absolutely not. Do I disagree with practically every single thing he stands for politically? Absolutely. And I can give sound reasons for all my points of disagreement. Others may not agree with those reasons, but that's precisely why we have double-digit unemployment and an iffy foreign policy situation and a failing dollar now - because the electorate in general was dumb enough to elect this current crop of morons in Congress.
An example of what a bunch of morons the Democrats who voted /will vote for the Health Care bills are: Medicare is going to run out of money in 2017. The American Academy of Actuaries, based on recent CMM valuation numbers, indicates that Medicare has a long-term unfunded liability of $28.1 Trillion Dollars. We have 10%+ nominal unemployment and probably really a lot higher than that. In California and other places it's much worse.
In other words, even if nobody does anything to make things worse, we might just be able to right this ship before it goes down.
And into the face of all this comes Pelosi and Reid whistling like the Seven Dwarves on their way to work in the morning, "Hi-Ho! Hi-Ho! It's a-raising taxes I go!!" If I didn't see it with my own eyes I wouldn't believe it.
By the way, guys, now that you brought it up, how often do you beat up your wives?
"next time don't leave out my name when you slur Peter and Lou"...
Don't feel bad, it's because your handle has over 5 letters in it ... never expect 'em to remember all that.
This gives a little more context: http://the-right-guy.blogspot.com/2009/09/is-president-really-fascist-socialist.html