3 ms·
It was Bush Senior, Clinton (with PNTR), Bush Junior. The story of why the US thought PNTR was a good move is long, and has to do with the events of 1989. Also
by lainga 3y ago
It was Bush Senior, Clinton (with PNTR), Bush Junior. The story of why the US thought PNTR was a good move is long, and has to do with the events of 1989.
Also... Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao were both very different from who we have today. China was not necessarily friendly, but they thought there was a good chance of them becoming friendly, especially if their market opened up. For several years after Tiananmen, the Democrats in Congress actually wanted sanctions against the PRC, but it kept getting vetoed, so as not to torpedo the chance.
- davoneus 3y agoI'd blame the prevailing economic mantra that "profits are the only things that matter" more than any set of UD presidents.
- nonethewiser 3y agoIts both though.
- CapstanRoller 3y agoIt's both in the sense that politicians are executives whose job it is to meet the demands of Capital. This also means that politicians are beholden to Capital and their personal ideological inclinations are largely irrelevant — the only options are to serve Capital or be ejected from their position. The individual executives serving Capital are interchangeable.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> China was not necessarily friendly It also wasn't a dictatorship. China under Xi is stupider, more short-term oriented and weaker than it was when it had internal competition for power.