In the early 70s, why did Liberals think Nixon going to China was good?

Offshoring jobs, which started after Nixon's little trip, is one of the bad things.

Never mind that China is now in the position where they could exterminate us economically if they chose.

What are the good things that happened because of Nixon's trip?

Protectionism was more an idea of various labor and "progressive" movements. Today, you will find protectionist conservatives, such as Buchanan, and many free-trade liberals.

we give them the means to do it all themselves.

WE have to create and manufacture the products to send their way. When they can do it all themselves, we are not needed anymore.

It's a virtually irrefutable fact that trading partners don't go to war. It's an incredibly rare occurance, for more than a millenia, for countries engaged in mutual commerce, to war against one another.

So, for liberals who oppose war as a solution to international conflict, creating the bridge to allow some commerce seemed a good way to harbor peace.

That's what i prefer, anyway.
The Professor

Border conflicts and embargoes proceeded that war on several fronts. Trade between Germany and France was falling at nearly 10% per month in 1914.
The Professor

and you stated clearly "trading partners don't go to war", there's a slight info gap here that i'm sure you'll attempt to address.

no dis-respect meant

Yes, of course, on the continent nearly everyone traded with everyone else. But, in the wave of nationalism that swept Europe leading into that war, the ridiculous increase in tarriffs and duties started to create trade wars even between normal trading partners.

Interestingly, that didn't happen to any significant extent between France and Britain (even though they had been more or less at odds for over 400 years) so when the big boom happened in Sarajevo, they became natural allies.

Germany and France were slowly but surely withdrawing trade across the Rhine starting in about 1911. (Browne's "An Economic History of Europe" is a good source. It starts in about 1700 and moves to just after WWII and the Marshall Plan. It's long and detailed, but a great source. Sorry, i can't remember his first name. Might be Phillip, but not positive.)

As i said in my first post, it's not universally true, so your exception is certainly valid. But, embagoes, tarriffs and duties have a way of minimizing trade, and certainly not expanding or encouraging it. So, as everyone turned chauvanistically inward, the economies of those countries began to suffer. The leadership scapegoated other countries. ("If not for their embargoes, our life would be better. . ." and so on.) So, given the border disputes, the unresolved issues from 19th century conflicts, and growing nationalism, the whole continent was a powder keg.

Britain had almost completely stopped trading with Germany by 1914. The disputes with Bismarckian Germany have never fully healed, and when Germany began talking nationalism and expansion, the British withdrew from many trade agreements, both formal and informal.

Like you said, trade may not have completely ceased, but marginal business across borders is hardly business at all, especially if said biz is trending downward.

I'm not attributing much to Nixon in this regard. I am opining why liberals, like me for instance, would support such outreach. The U.S. didn't really have much of a problem with Japan until we reacted to Manchuria by embargoing oil and rubber. Then, suddenly, we interrupted their plans and WE became the enemy. We broke away from England in the 1770's, but 45 years later, we were trading partners and have been allies ever since. There is loads of evidence, even in causation is a matter of opinion.
The Professor

it was NAFTA, and CAFTA, and all the other trade negotiators on both the repuke and democratic side who sealed the fate

unless one is an isolationist, it was the natural thing to do.

The whole world recognized China, we ignored her until Nixon

Pretending that a major power does NOT exist is not a good thing

the stalemate created by the "cold war". It was a general relief that the hair trigger China represented had been eased up.
Nixon's approach to speak with his "enemies" was a bold step that the current administration refuses to learn from.

I remember Nixon's trip in '72 vividly. I felt it was a campaign ploy, but it was also fascinating. Remember, "Red" China had been a closed society to this country. I had read about the Great Wall, but seen only old black & white photos. I was rivited to the live TV coverage (using new satellite technology)...showing the richness of China to me for the first time.

Also, geo-politically, creating a rift between China & the USSR was a smart move that IMHO was one of Nixon's few brilliant moves. It kept those two in competition and suspect of one another which led the Chinese to adopt a capitalist economy while the Soviets bankrupted themselves in their own largess.

It also opened up a back channel to North Vietnam that put pressure on Hanoi to give Nixon his "Peace With Honor" that allowed us to get our last troops out of there in '73.

Don't confuse the China of '72 when everyone wore Mao suits and carried red books with them vs. the capitalistic China of today. That change didn't really kick off until the Raygun years in the 80's...when China's cheap labor looked attractive vs. the Japanese (who were the "big threat" then)...and really took off under the former Chinese ambassador...George Herbert Walker Boooooooooosh.

Why would China want to economically exterminate us? It takes no sense to kill a market that pours so much money into your economy. If anything it benefits them to keep us very happy. It's our own corporate culture that is doing the destroying...they are so obsessed with profits and wealth to destroy the consumer market that keeps it going.

Peace...

China is the natural enemy of many our allies in that region. It's increase in strength is frightening in this regard.

Should we have a Democratic president again, we will.

Before Nixon's trip, the USA pretended that "Red China" did not exist. It was a matter of peace rather than war.

If you were not alive then, or were not a "Liberal"--here's one source of info.

www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/china/index.html

for Nixon going to China.
At the time US and China could accurately be described as enemies.
People on the left and others who hoped to avoid being vaporized in an exchange of nukes felt Nixon going to China was a good thing because it would lead to further dialog and arms agreements along the lines of the SALT talks.

In the '70s trade with China was something to be hoped for because it represented the opening of Chinese society and Chinese involvement in the world community. The Chinese really had been behind a wall much like N.Korea today.

Hell, nobody ever thought China would be an economic giant, the idea would have been laughable.

and only a democrat would do such a thing.

Dems thought engagement was a good idea, because if you start trading with them they might not be so inclined to shoot thermonuclear weapons at you.

China, at that time, could barely feed its population.

The issue at hand was that we did not recognize mainline China. We had no relations with them since 1948, despite the fact that Chinese and Americans were killing each other in Korea.

The very fact that we had no relations with the largest country in the world was troubling. Taking a step to end that silent treatment was good.

It was also good in the sense that it through the USSR for a loop. Democrats were always good Cold Warriors. Creating an ally out of the country that scared the hell out of the Soviets was a fantastic move. It moved us a step closer to the glasnost era, I think.

just saying.

Kissinger inspired, I think, to do just that: Scare hell out of the Soviets. At the time, it was the Soviet Union, not China, that was supporting and arming the North Vietnamese. The Soviets and the Chinese had been circling each other warily for a quarter of a century, cooperating a little when both sides could clearly benefit, but mostly maintaining an arm's length non-antipathy.

Nixon went to China because, as Gore Vidal said, he was "the" Nixon. History had assigned him that role, and he played it perfectly. Nixon didn't have to worry about what Nixon would say about a president going to China. Had Johnson gone to China, you can hear that tremulous baritone doing the voiceover for footage of Johnson at a state dinner or walking along the Great Wall: "Now, I'm not saying that Johnson is pink, or even that he's a card-carrying communist. I'm not saying that at all. No, but what I wonder is . . ."

What Nixon did was necessary for loing term survival survival. China and the US hated each other, and there was almost no interaction other than mutual demonization. That was a recipe for disaster.

China's entry into the world community causes a lot of problem now, obviously. But it's a lot less dangerous in terms of pure survival and peace.

The economic problems we have with China are OUR OWN FAULT. If the corporate hogs sell out our jobs and productive capacity to China, and if the idiot pioliticians of both parties choose to sell out our interests in the name of phony corporate "free trade," you can't blame China.

1. To open up diplomatic relations with a country that had been close to the west for a very long time, but had also been developing modern weapons. This is what I think is the main reason liberals and moderates supported Nixon's work with China.
2. To stick a wedge between the USSR and China.
3. To sell our goods there and make money.