Talk:Nixon goes to China

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Origin of phrase[edit]

Wasn't this phrase and this concept pretty much coined in the star trek movie? Or did it exist beforehand? --Xyzzyplugh 13:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It existed beforehand. AnonMoos 21:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My search of Google News Archives shows this phrase to go back to the late 1970s. "It took a Nixon to go to China, and it may take a Democrat to balance the budget." Tom Foley, Time, May 16, 1977. The same phrase was quoted a couple of weeks earlier in New York Times [1]. (I'm sure the Star Trek movie had the effect of popularizing the phrase, though.) Hope this helps. Peter G Werner (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Universal understanding[edit]

I was thinking of adding into the article the fact that it's a phrase that (as far as I know) never used outside the US and thus other English speakers wouldn't understand it. I can't quite see how to work it in at the moment without making it sound like I'm just bolting on a sentence. violet/riga (t) 08:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect[edit]

This page was blanked and turned into a redirect to 1972 Nixon visit to China by User:Mgekelly, which I have just reverted. Whether or not this currrent article should exist, it should only be deleted if it goes through the proper AfD channel. Joshdboz (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not by User:Mgekelly, by User:Esperant Shenme (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Sacred Cow[edit]

"challenging a conservative sacred cow"

What does this mean, exactly? I can gather the general meaning from context, but this idiom escapes me, and the linked article (the literal Sacred Cow) does not illuminate. 154.5.46.28 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In 1972, the Luce crowd and some other U.S. conservatives viewed any lessening of support for Taiwan as a betrayal... AnonMoos (talk) 00:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sacred cow (idiom) —Wiki Wikardo 22:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fed Reference[edit]

I removed the point relating to Wilson's creation of the Fed. Republicans in 1913 did indeed push for a national bank, as they had been doing since Andrew Jackson nixed the Second Banks of the US; however, this bank was private in nature, funded by US tax dollars. It was proposed in 1913 alongside the Fed plan by Republican Senator Nelson B. Aldrich. Republicans uproariously pushed for this plan, and not Wilson's public Federal Reserve. Although the Fed is non-governmental in nature (i.e. it is an independent entity that isn't subject to the whims of voters), it is in fact a public institution, and Republicans rallied against such a bank. The claim made was inaccurate. Daveroo69 (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This editorial might be relevant.[edit]

Andrew Gelman challenged the idea that only "a Nixon" could 'open the door to China' in his editorial about Obama and Cuba: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/12/22/only-nixon-could-go-to-cuba-not/.211.225.33.104 (talk) 11:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When in '72?[edit]

It matters, '72 being a Pres election year. 74.60.161.158 (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article 1972 Nixon visit to China says of the visit "Occurring from February 21 to 28, 1972, ...", so several months before the November elections, but not entirely unrelated I think. It has been stated elsewhere that Nixon was paranoid about winning the elections, quite all out of proportion with the actual trends and certainly the results. Thus the ongoing campaign dirty tricks and the Watergate scandal break-in in June. Given those extremes, how far-fetched is it to conclude that this decision to break with all conservative precedent was due to the prospect of personal popularity? It won't be the last time a politician buffed their reputation for personal gain, to the detriment of the people they 'represented'. Shenme (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton and Obama[edit]

I fail to see how these two items can be compared to Nixon going to China:

  • U.S. President Bill Clinton in 1996 signed legislation reforming the welfare system in the United States.
  • U.S. President Barack Obama embracing Social Security reform in 2011.

Without more context to explain why those should be in that section, I think they should be removed. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nixon goes to China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam[edit]

Kenixkil (talk) 06:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nixon_goes_to_China&oldid=1205023099"