Can Only Brun Go To China?

HEM

former
Jorts Connoisseur
Honoured Citizen
Citizen
Pronouns
he / him / his
"Can Only Brun Go To China?"
Kylia Quilor
Guest Contributor

I'm not much of a student of recent US political history - my historical interests tend to go much farther back, and even in terms of the US, I prefer other periods than recent times. But Nixon, as President, is known for a number of things. Watergate, of course, the one that overshadows everything, not to mention some of the other shady shit he got up to, but another thing he's known for is going to China, for re-orienting Sino-American relations, recognizing the PRC as the legitimate government of China, et cetera et cetera.

It was said at the time, and later, in various ways and forms, that only Nixon could go to China, that only a man with Nixon's 'strong anti-communist history' could do something like going to China without being accused of being 'too soft' on communism. A similar thing happened with Eisenhower and Korea - a decorated general and war hero, he could end the war with the border being more or less the same in a way Truman couldn't get away with.

So we come to the current Presidential campaign. We have two candidates who have two different plans for CAIN. We have Brun, who believes that CAIN is unfixable - she was pained to admit it, but when asked about it, about whether or not she'd keep Europeia in CAIN, she says

Brunhilde said:
But CAIN is not what it was, nor is it what I wanted it to be. It's not even a semblance of what it could be. As it exists now, there's no real benefit for us being a part. If there is no way to improve it, no way to reshape it to gain some semblance of what it lost, I will be advocating for our withdrawal by the end of the term.
(Source)

This is the position I lean towards, perhaps unsurprisingly, given my known positions on CAIN, even when I started to understand and appreciate its use and value, I'm still not its greatest fan.

That doesn't mean, necessarily, that Brun and I are right that the current state of CAIN is an unfixable mess. That the best option is to leave.

Cat, after all, is proposing that CAIN can be fixed, that CAIN can still work, that CAIN might be salvageable. Specifically, she says: "I will not be advocating for removing our region for CAIN." and goes on to discuss some of her plans for reorienting and altering the organization and making it work once more, citing ideas such as utilizing the Security Council further, and moving CAIN beyond just the battlefield. An interesting set of ideas, and one I'd be curious to see if it works if Cat becomes President. ( Source)

Neither candidate is proposing we go soft on Nazis or abandon our stance on the subject of Nazis. It would be insane to believe that Brun would be against the ERN fighting Nazis, against working with other regions against Nazis in a less formalized venue and way than CAIN. This is Brun, her opinions on the subject of NS Nazis are well known, and Cat is of course proposing we fix CAIN and make it work. Its just a question of tactics.

But could the reverse work? If Brun were proposing we try and fix CAIN, no one would be surprised. CAIN is her baby, her project. When I think of CAIN, I think of Brun, when I think of Brun, I think of CAIN. I doubt I'm alone in this. With Cat, I think Radio. I don't think of a strong record of anti-Nazism. Obviously, like any decent person, she hates Nazis, but she doesn't have the resume Brun does. Not here, and not elsewhere. For better or for worse, Brun has a very clear reputation for being hardline against Nazis in NationStates.

The question then, to bring this back around, is is Brun Nixon? If leaving CAIN is 'going to China', is Brun Nixon? Is Brun the only candidate, the only Europeian, who has the credibility, internally and externally, to take Europeia out of CAIN? If, for the sake of argument, Cat tried it, would it lead to a political backlash? Too much of one to withstand, or that might cost her a lot of political capital, a cost she might not be able or willing to afford. The debates we had surrounding Liberate Nazi Europe and Repeal Liberate Nazi Europe can certainly show how Europeians don't always like those of us who end up taking stances that can be construed (inaccurately) as being 'softer' on Nazis, rather than simply having other ideas about tactics and emphasis.

Now I'm not saying that Cat is only saying she wants to try to fix CAIN because she thinks she can't get away with leaving it - that could be it, we're all politicians here - but maybe she genuinely thinks it can be salvaged. Or maybe she's taking a different position than Brun to draw a starker contrast between the candidacies? Or combination of all three?

At the end of a Brun term, assuming nothing happens to change her mind, Europeia is gone from CAIN, and the organization is probably dead and buried soon after. The optics might not be great, but this is Brun we're talking about - could Brun, with her credibility, sell Europeia leaving CAIN because it isn't accomplishing the goal of fighting Nazis?

At the end of a Cat term, assuming nothing happens to change her mind, and assuming she can pull off what she intends, CAIN is reinvigorated, salvaged, a new age for the organization, operating in new ways and still achieving the goal of reducing the reach of Nazism in NS, though liberating their holds, invading their regions and politically, diplomatically and militarily isolating them by making the cost of working with Nazi regions rise. That was the idea of CAIN. If Cat can pull it off, which in the interests of full disclosure, I personally that doubt anyone could, well,.. Then CAIN will be a crown jewel in our foreign policy agenda once more. That's something.

While I lean towards Brun on this one issue, I don't know who I'm voting for when the polls open. And I'm not saying either candidate is certain to be correct on CAIN - I think Brun is correct, but who knows.

The point here is this question: Are there some proposals that only certain people in the region could get away with pulling off, regardless of the specifics or merit of the idea (or lack thereof)? Are there some ideas where most people just wouldn't be able to pull it off because they lack the credibility? And if so, is leaving CAIN one of them?

CAIN hasn't been talked about much this campaign, or publicly in Europeia that much recently, and probably won't be the central issue of the campaign for most voters, but it is an interesting question. Could Cat pull off proposing to leave it, had she chosen to? Could anyone else have? Is the only one with the standing, internally and externally, to leave CAIN and not have too much blowback on herself or Europeia for doing it?

It's an interesting question and one I think it's worth all of us thinking about - both on the issue of CAIN specifically, and more broadly. Should we dismiss an idea just because who proposes it? Should we be more open to an idea because of who proposes it? Is this an inescapable fact of political life, or should we try to work against this notion, if it even exists?

Food for thought.
 
I liked the idea behind this article, but I feel the whole comparison is forced. It would make more sense if Brun was opening/deepening ties with another region than destroying an alliance!
 
Rach said:
I liked the idea behind this article, but I feel the whole comparison is forced. It would make more sense if Brun was opening/deepening ties with another region than destroying an alliance!
Rach, 'go to China' is a stand in for a specific political action that only certain people can get away with because 'only Nixon could go to China' is a term in the american political lexicon. If the action that had created the phrase was about healthcare policy or taxes or whatever, I'd have used that. And I explained that up front. I could have been talking about any Europeian issue with this metaphor, potentially.
 
This was a fantastic article and the sort which I'd like to see more of from the EBC.
 
Rach said:
Common-Sense Politics said:
This was a fantastic article and the sort which I'd like to see more of from the EBC.
This is the E-News Network.
Right...and I'd like to see more of this type of quality political commentary in...the EBC. I forgive you for your ill-thought outburst but it would be more efficient if you didn't cough up every thought that pops into your head. Just a thought.
 
Rach, I agree that metaphors are often awful ways of getting your idea across. Which is why I recommend you think about your anti SC campagin and your narrative that the SC is like a monarchy. As a fan of Orwell you might be able to apply some of his lessons to your own work.
 
Yes, well Orwell has no monopoly on good writing. The article would be significantly more cumbersome without the entirely appropriate political metaphor.

Edit: as for what you would know about op-ed writing, given some of your recent work in the field, it would seem the answer is very little.
 
PhDre said:
Rach, I agree that metaphors are often awful ways of getting your idea across. Which is why I recommend you think about your anti SC campagin and your narrative that the SC is like a monarchy. As a fan of Orwell you might be able to apply some of his lessons to your own work.
On phone, as I was for my last response but firstly; campaigning for an apolitical chancellery with higher standards is not anti Chancellery in any way. It is treating the Chancellery as an institution with the highest respect. Secondly and this is pedantic sorry, but you claim that me saying that the Chancellory is like a monarchy is a metaphor. This is incorrect, it is a simile :p
 
Rach said:
Personally, I am a fan of Orwell's rules for writing:

https://thoughtcapital.wordpress.com/2007/04/22/george-orwells-6-rules-for-writing/

And the New York Times : https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/opinion/tips-for-aspiring-op-ed-writers.html

In both cases; both Orwell and the Times dislike metaphors and cliches and I think that this article would have been stronger without the metaphor as I stated earlier. But what would I know about writing?
No. They don't dislike metaphors per se, they dislike dead metaphors. Fresh metaphors with vivid imagery --- Orwell like those.

And furthermore, I really liked this article. Your welcome to your views, though I think you find yourself alone.
 
Rach said:
PhDre said:
Rach, I agree that metaphors are often awful ways of getting your idea across. Which is why I recommend you think about your anti SC campagin and your narrative that the SC is like a monarchy. As a fan of Orwell you might be able to apply some of his lessons to your own work.
On phone, as I was for my last response but firstly; campaigning for an apolitical chancellery with higher standards is not anti Chancellery in any way. It is treating the Chancellery as an institution with the highest respect. Secondly and this is pedantic sorry, but you claim that me saying that the Chancellory is like a monarchy is a metaphor. This is incorrect, it is a simile :p
This is pedantic, but you don't follow the style guide you use to attack this article. I look forward to you learning from the style guide that you clearly value so highly and to higher quality articles from the Globe.
 
I wasn't even attacking the article! I said I didn't like the metaphor! Everything else, especially the ideas in it I liked! It's possible for me to like the article without liking the metaphor in it :p
 
Back
Top