Another big difference is that nobody was saying that Nixon had received assistance from the Russians or the Chinese during his election campaign. So Nixon could say he was making a disinterested foreign policy decision rather than paying back a debt he owed.
Which really isn’t to Nixon’s credit. Nixon was a leader in the anti-communist hysteria that had made it impossible for other American politicians to meet with the Chinese government. It wasn’t a big deal when the United Kingdom offered to recognize China in 1950; there’s no real reason why the United States couldn’t have done the same.
Making exploratory overtures toward world peace is much different from exhibiting fawning obeisance towards a notorious dictator. Thus, Nixon vs. Trump.
IIRC, Nixon was criticized, to be sure, but also praised for his efforts. Trump, not so much.
I was there at the time, in college, and I don’t remember any flak about meeting with the Russians. Meeting with your enemy is something important to do, unless it validates them like Trump meeting with Kim.
One might disagree with the realist worldview of Nixon and Kissinger, but no one doubted that Nixon knew what he was doing. Nixon listened to and understood his briefings, unlike Trump. Nixon could see a few moves ahead, unlike Trump. Nixon had a reasonably consistent strategic philosophy, unlike Trump. And Nixon never, ever would think about selling out American intelligence as Trump offered to, whether out of malice or ignorance we don’t know.
And going to China was a stroke of brilliance, which separated China from Russia and opened China to a major extent. Kind of like Trump and Putin are separating the US from our allies.
To say it’s a “false analogy” is a massive understatement, like saying sure, Trump may be Putin’s lap dog and a traitor to the United States, but Obama once ate borscht, so it’s exactly the same!
These superficial false equivalencies are absurd. Nixon had many, many serious faults, but in foreign policy he was indeed a statesman, and like every American president in history until Trump, he was genuinely concerned with promoting the best interests of the United States. Trump, OTOH, is both clueless and relentlessly self-serving, with personal interests entangled with Russia and with protecting some of the more sordid aspects of that relationship, with his admiration of dictators like Kim and Putin as an extra added motivation. There is no equivalence that I know of with any other president in history.
Not did Nixon ever have to say, after a major political backlash, “what I actually said was ‘I see no reason to believe Secretary Brezhnev’. What sounded like “not to” was just some static that the microphones picked up. Fake news! Sad!”
I just want to add to the above that while I’m not in any way suggesting that anyone asking questions about the difference between Trump and any other president in this aspect of foreign policy is necessarily implying an equivalence, there is, in fact, no equivalence whatsoever. On more than one occasion I’ve heard from feebleminded Trump-supporting imbeciles that all those danged leftists who object to Trump’s sycophantic relationship with Putin must all just want war. No, there is a vast difference between a president who negotiates peaceful solutions from a position of strength and credibility, and one who explicitly colludes with the policy objectives of one of America’s most dangerous enemies because he’s too stupid to know what he’s doing, and because his pathological narcissism drives him to establish himself as an equal with the world’s most ruthless dictators.
When Nixon went to China, it’s easy to point to the advantages both countries gained from the meeting. We both saw the Soviet Union as a potential opponent and by working together we were able to reduce that threat.
What did Trump get from buddying up with Putin? We weakened NATO which weakens our own defenses. We didn’t get any agreements from Russia to work with us on other issues. Russia hasn’t agreed to any disarmament.
It’s easy to see what Putin got; Trump publicly denouncing his own government in support of Putin. Even if he tried to walk it back the next day.
I don’t remember the flack (whatever it might have been) when Nixon went to the USSR, but I do remember the flack when he went to China. I was a kid, so I can’t speak to the serious content. But people were shocked and anxious about Nixon going to China.
Even so, no one doubted that he was going to China in the interests of the US. It was seen as risky, but bold, and with potential – vast US trade potential, for instance. Trump is seen more as paying his piper than as opening markets.
I’m so tired of people trying to draw false equivalence while deliberately ignoring the substance of the actual criticism. Nobody cares if the President participates in diplomacy. We care very much when the President turns into an utter coward and licks the boots of America’s enemies.
Did Mao have video evidence of Nixon having sex with children, or proof that Nixon engaged in various financial crimes with the help of Chinese nationals that he could use to manipulate and control Nixon?
Also did Nixon declare war on democracy but have nothing but good things to say about China and Mao?
If not, then it isn’t the same thing.
THIS is how bad trump is.
He causes die hard liberals to defend Nixon!
In today’s world, Nixon would be a liberal. He started the EPA after all.
He was crazy, but his crazy is not half as dangerous to the country as Trump’s crazy.
Nixon was also a lot smarter than Trump, but a doorknob is smarter than Trump.
That doesn’t make any sense. You want to know if people reacted to a completely different set of circumstances in the same way as the current set of circumstances? Why would they?