the uses of 'china' (was Re: US SECRET POLICE EPISODES)

t byfield tbyfield at panix.com
Mon Jun 14 07:51:18 PDT 1999



> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:08:52 -0400
> From: "Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu at mindspring.com>
> Subject: Re: US SECRET POLICE EPISODES
>
> Whoever sits in the White House will have to promote US-China relations as a
> key matter of US national interest. Yet, Clinton in the 1992 election made
> China a partisan campaign issue, breaking the already tenuous bipartisan
> foreign policy tradition of Senator Vandenburg.

this is a troll, right? *clinton* 'made china a partisan campaign issue'? and before that, 'china'--scare quotes to distinguish it from the Thing Itself--was some imaginary neutral object that neither exerted nor was susceptible to being used as a polemical force on the US political scene? no 'chi-coms,' no 'veitnam,' no 'china hands,' no 'who lost china' (to say nothing of the endless spew of self-serving lies that elder sta^W sociopaths RN and HK have spoon- fed to the US foreign policy establishent): we've never heard these phrases before, they make no sense. you will permit me to politely suggest that you're rather off-base, i hope.

as a methodological note, i'll add: i love claims like 'so-and-so made it a partisan campaign issue' because they serve as a remarkably accurate index--a proportional index--for the inability to comment coherently on how US politics works.


> Now the converted Clinton, along with his Democrat successor, will have to
> take his own medicine from the Republicans. China will be a domestic

better: one more installment in the two parties duking it out.


> political issue back to the Truman days and that lasted until Nixon.
> There are still cool heads in both parties, but they will lay low during
> election time every four years.

oh yeah--bush jr, son of bush, sr., who has no interest whatsoever in perpetuating a certain historiography of US/PRC relations. I'm So Sure.

cheers, ted



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list