The observation about “the political laws of reality apply to other people” is right on the money IMO. Trump seems to be zeroed in on legacy enactment with very few other priorities besides, and viewed from that lens the visit coheres as the kind of Milestone Moments he wants to put in his collection shelf.
Jordan and Julian, this was an energetic and often illuminating attempt to interpret a state visit with remarkably little substantive content arranged in advance. Your most revealing fact may be that only 17 percent of Americans view Xi favorably. That suggests the central question was not simply what symbolism Trump would give Xi in exchange for substance, but whether the American public—or the American media—would participate in producing that symbolism at all.
The escalating conflict between Trump and the press appears to have changed the nature of the visit. Without the customary television-pool coverage, an elaborate diplomatic show becomes a dog-and-pony show in the dark: Xi loses much of the American audience he presumably expected, while Trump’s exclusion of news organizations becomes part of the story. The discussion ranges thoughtfully across China policy and even a post-Xi future, but it misses this immediate domestic dynamic. In a visit built around optics, control of the cameras may prove more consequential than almost anything discussed behind closed doors.
The observation about “the political laws of reality apply to other people” is right on the money IMO. Trump seems to be zeroed in on legacy enactment with very few other priorities besides, and viewed from that lens the visit coheres as the kind of Milestone Moments he wants to put in his collection shelf.
If a tree falls on a deserted island, does it make a sound?
If no national political news outlets cover a major summit, did the summit actually happen?
TIL the scholars author were Straussian pilled
Jordan and Julian, this was an energetic and often illuminating attempt to interpret a state visit with remarkably little substantive content arranged in advance. Your most revealing fact may be that only 17 percent of Americans view Xi favorably. That suggests the central question was not simply what symbolism Trump would give Xi in exchange for substance, but whether the American public—or the American media—would participate in producing that symbolism at all.
The escalating conflict between Trump and the press appears to have changed the nature of the visit. Without the customary television-pool coverage, an elaborate diplomatic show becomes a dog-and-pony show in the dark: Xi loses much of the American audience he presumably expected, while Trump’s exclusion of news organizations becomes part of the story. The discussion ranges thoughtfully across China policy and even a post-Xi future, but it misses this immediate domestic dynamic. In a visit built around optics, control of the cameras may prove more consequential than almost anything discussed behind closed doors.