Only in America

[Hermit]

The saying is purely in the American context, I think, suggesting that only a hard-nosed republican could do it, not a wishy-washy democrat...

Yes. It has been quasi-proverbial for decades - and wrong for the entire duration* precisely because its context is limited to the US environment.


*Tom Foley, said as much (parenthetically) in 1977 before the sentiment made its way into the 1991 Star Trek VI production.

[Joe]

Richard and Chou, at Tanagra.

Spiro, when the walls fell.

[Tero]

Not just Trump, Amazon pays no domestic tax.
https://m.sfgate.com/business/tech/arti ... o-14907241

[Brian Peacock]

Richard and Chou, at Tanagra.

Spiro, when the walls fell.

Nerds

[Forty Two]

Only Nixon could go to China.

Orly? Nixon followed our soon-to-be Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam's, footsteps. He made an official 12-day visit to China as Australia's leader of the opposition and met China's Premier, Zhou Enlai, even before Nixon's envoy, Henry Kissinger, had turned up to prepare for Nixon's. That was in July 1971, seven months before the anti-communist "Only Nixon could..." turned up.

It's a saying. It's an "old Vulcan proverb." (see Start Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country).

A saying that does not fit Nixon. End of

It fits perfectly. It's a staunch anti-communist, anti-maoist making the overture to communist China, and Mao Tse Tung, toward peace and reconciliation. We had, until that point, not even recognized communist China as legitimate.

Other than Watergate, incidentally, Nixon was a wildly popular and competent President. He had been Vice President under Eisenhower, and he was a long-time Senator. Watergate, rightly, becomes the elephant in the room regarding Nixon, and his conduct was abysmal and unacceptable and warranted his resignation. However, much of what he did which was thought to be so horrible later became commonplace and normal.

The "illegal war" in Cambodia and Laos, for example. There are myriad Cambodias and Laos type operations going on, not just by the US but by many countries. And his "enemies list" and that sort of thing - https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/? ... oogle.com/

[Forty Two]

The saying is purely in the American context, I think, suggesting that only a hard-nosed republican could do it, not a wishy-washy democrat...

That's not the import or implication of the saying. Back in that day, Democrats were no more wishy-washy than Republicans, and Democrats were the war and intervention party. It was Johnson and the Democrats that escalated Vietnam, with more Republicans opposing, and Nixon running in 1968 on a peace with honor type message, looking for a way to get the US out of Vietnam. He first announced the ending of the Vietnam War in December, 1969, when he announced his plan to turn over responsibility to South Vietnamese forces gradually. That was just 10 months after he took office. However, it took until 1973 for Nixon to finally get to the point where we were really leaving.

It was the Democrats who spearheaded US involvement in World War 1, a colonial war that had nothing at all to do with the US. It was the Democrats who were the party of Jim Crow and Racism in the 1950s and early 1960s. It was the Republicans who were the party of human liberty, the party of federal intervention to stop racist state laws and segregation, etc.

Viewing the Democrats and Republicans of the late 1960s through the lens of the present day political divide is not really relevant.

So, the meaning of the saying the ability of a politician with an unassailable reputation among his or her supporters for representing and defending their values to take actions that would draw their criticism and even opposition if taken by someone without those credentials. I.e., Republicans would be four-square against such a move, if it 'twerent for Nixon's Republican street-cred at the time.

It's almost a political hypocrisy, like when Democrats lauded Obama for increasing deportations. If the same thing were done by a Republican, it'd be hatred and racism. However, it takes an Obama to increase deportations.... that kind of thing.

[Seabass]

Lmao. Nixon ran on peace while sabotaging LBJ's efforts to broker a ceasefire, in one of the most heinous and cynical transgressions ever perpetrated by an American politician. Nixon, like Trump, was a truly depraved and downright villainous individual. And let's not forget that Nixon also gave us the calamitous War on Drugs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/opin ... chery.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/p ... -show.html
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ion-215461

Also, no one lauded Obama for increasing deportations. That was one of the most heavily criticized aspects of his presidency.

[pErvinalia]

Lmao. Nixon ran on peace while sabotaging LBJ's efforts to broker a ceasefire, in one of the most heinous and cynical transgressions ever perpetrated by an American politician. Nixon, like Trump, was a truly depraved and downright villainous individual. And let's not forget that Nixon also gave us the calamitous War on Drugs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/opin ... chery.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/p ... -show.html
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ion-215461

Also, no one lauded Obama for increasing deportations. That was one of the most heavily criticized aspects of his presidency.

You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying!

[Hermit]

Only Nixon could go to China.

Orly? Nixon followed our soon-to-be Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam's, footsteps. He made an official 12-day visit to China as Australia's leader of the opposition and met China's Premier, Zhou Enlai, even before Nixon's envoy, Henry Kissinger, had turned up to prepare for Nixon's. That was in July 1971, seven months before the anti-communist "Only Nixon could..." turned up.

It's a saying. It's an "old Vulcan proverb." (see Start Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country).

A saying that does not fit Nixon. End of

It fits perfectly. It's a staunch anti-communist, anti-maoist making the overture to communist China, and Mao Tse Tung, toward peace and reconciliation. We had, until that point, not even recognized communist China as legitimate.

The opposite applied in Australia. Our leftie opposition leader made an official visit to "Red China" with an entourage of 40+ politicians and media personnel, while our conservative Prime Minister was appalled and steadfastly refused the communist government as an official representative of China. In the election the following year the same Prime Minister was turfed out and the same opposition leader succeeded him. "Only Whitlam could go to China"?

[pErvinalia]

Well Labor, like the Democrats, are communists. So it's not surprising.

[Seabass]

[Forty Two]

The opposite applied in Australia. Our leftie opposition leader made an official visit to "Red China" with an entourage of 40+ politicians and media personnel, while our conservative Prime Minister was appalled and steadfastly refused the communist government as an official representative of China. In the election the following year the same Prime Minister was turfed out and the same opposition leader succeeded him. "Only Whitlam could go to China"?

It's a proverb, dude. There's no reason to get all bunged up about it.

[Hermit]

The opposite applied in Australia. Our leftie opposition leader made an official visit to "Red China" with an entourage of 40+ politicians and media personnel, while our conservative Prime Minister was appalled and steadfastly refused the communist government as an official representative of China. In the election the following year the same Prime Minister was turfed out and the same opposition leader succeeded him. "Only Whitlam could go to China"?

It's a proverb, dude. There's no reason to get all bunged up about it.

I know it's a proverb. And it's wrong. Since when does pointing that out equal being bunged up about it?

[Forty Two]

The opposite applied in Australia. Our leftie opposition leader made an official visit to "Red China" with an entourage of 40+ politicians and media personnel, while our conservative Prime Minister was appalled and steadfastly refused the communist government as an official representative of China. In the election the following year the same Prime Minister was turfed out and the same opposition leader succeeded him. "Only Whitlam could go to China"?

It's a proverb, dude. There's no reason to get all bunged up about it.

I know it's a proverb. And it's wrong. Since when does pointing that out equal being bunged up about it?

It's not wrong, because it's in an American context. Neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican party had the apparent political will or ability to treat with communist China. The saying relates to the best person to engage in such an activity is the last person you'd think would be good for that job.

Maybe that wasn't the case with Australia, because you had some pro-communist factions in greater numbers there. It doesn't change the applicability of the proverb to situations where a person who is least expected, is the best person for the job.

Like in Start Trek VI, when they sent Captain Kirk, who loathed the Klingons, to make peace with them.

[Hermit]

The opposite applied in Australia. Our leftie opposition leader made an official visit to "Red China" with an entourage of 40+ politicians and media personnel, while our conservative Prime Minister was appalled and steadfastly refused the communist government as an official representative of China. In the election the following year the same Prime Minister was turfed out and the same opposition leader succeeded him. "Only Whitlam could go to China"?

It's a proverb, dude. There's no reason to get all bunged up about it.

I know it's a proverb. And it's wrong. Since when does pointing that out equal being bunged up about it?

It's not wrong, because it's in an American context.

Ah yes, exceptionalism raises its ugly head again. I commented on the arrogance at the top of this page.

Neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican party had the apparent political will or ability to treat with communist China. The saying relates to the best person to engage in such an activity is the last person you'd think would be good for that job. Maybe that wasn't the case with Australia, because you had some pro-communist factions in greater numbers there.

Formally recognising the existence of mainland China, and treating with it, is not a sign of pro-communism. It was not the case with Whitlam, nor was it the case with Nixon. Both foresaw the burgeoning economic power that a single nation consisting of a quarter of the world's population was about to become. Both knew it was of vital interest to their respective countries to deal with that future power. I'm sure you actually know that. As for the political and social lay of Australia I should point out to you that if anything, Australia was even more conservative than the US. The Petrov Affair, and the anti-communist hysteria it whipped up, was still fresh in the people's memory, thanks to the persistence of the Democratic Labor Party (a faction that had split from the Australian Labor Party over the issue of communist sympathisers). When Whitlam visited China the coalition of the conservative, misnamed Liberal Party and the even more conservative Country Party had been continuously in government for 22 years. They had won five elections in a row.

It doesn't change the applicability of the proverb to situations where a person who is least expected, is the best person for the job.

Here I agree with you. Generally speaking we are all more inclined to at least consider, perhaps accept and maybe even approve opinions, attitudes or actions if they come from someone whose other views, opinions and attitudes we favour than if they come from someone we disagree with about everything. This is not a peculiarity of any one nation.

My contrariness is due to the fact that the proverb is historically, factually wrong. Hiding behind the walls of "the American context" does not make it right. It just illustrates the arrogance of some US citizens.