After sitting down and chatting a little with the other guests at the table, Chinese President Xi Jinping was treated to a musical performance by the United States Army Chorus before his incoming meal of baby bok choy and roasted eggplant — pretty standard formalities for a US-China summit state dinner. 

That is until Xi recognizes the songs being sung: “One Day More” and “Do You Hear the People Sing?” from the musical “Les Misérables.” Both songs, which are about protesting and resisting authoritarian tyrants, have become songs of protest in Hong Kong, leading the latter song to be banned in China in 2020.

President Trump threw some strange, subliminal messages at President Xi, except having a harp rendition of “The Moon Represents My Heart,” a classic Taiwanese love song, played for the Chinese president, which was by no means subtle.

Other than that, the summit felt pretty normal. The two global powerhouses discussed topics from mutual peace, international security and trade. Xi even gifted two pandas to a zoo in Atlanta, Georgia. 

In spite of the peaceful visit, American reactions to this historic event were nothing short of bewildering. And of these reactions, I identify three large camps whose voices rung the loudest.

First are the “romanticists.” The romanticist sees China as the pinnacle of statehood, viewing the nation’s ability to construct tens of thousands of kilometers of high-speed rail as the epitome of Chinese technical excellence. The romanticist perceives America as having fallen behind, a consequence due to their commitment to capitalism, while China holds economic supremacy both domestically and internationally through its commitment to communism.

Second are the “chauvinists.” The chauvinist sees China as a farce, reducing the country’s  progress to a lack of innovation and entrenchment in sweatshop labor and counterfeits. The chauvinist still sees American exceptionalism as the driving force behind international politics with complete control over all aspects of development and economics.

Third are the “techno-orientalists.” The techno-orientalist sees China as a hivemind dystopia, committed to controlling the international masses through technology like TikTok algorithms, electric vehicles and supply chain domination. The techno-orientalist believes America is succumbing to Chinese technological control, a state manifestation of their fears regarding artificial intelligence.

While none of these beliefs truly hit the mark, none are completely wrong. At the end of the day, all of these camps are using China to project their own beliefs on American needs.

The romanticist wants the U.S. to be as progressive as China and is jealous of China’s ability to expedite public transportation while America’s infrastructure lags behind. The chauvinist can’t stand their country being second place, so they ignorantly dismiss China’s progress. The techno-orientalist fears American hegemony being stripped away alongside the stable, growing economy that comes with it.

The punchline of this story? Naturally, it’s to ask what any of this may have to do with us.

The way these three camps talk about China is largely projection. The first camp uses it as a stepping stone to reinforce anti-American sentiment, claiming Chinese superiority while refusing to acknowledge their historical labor abuse, years of deflation or geopolitical aggression. The other two camps use the country as a means of bolstering American exceptionalism, treating China like an imminent threat that must be squashed.

There exists a healthy middle ground in the way China is discussed. But that discussion in its entirety is a moot point, when the whole purpose of these debates should be for American growth, if not mutual growth among both countries.

The structure of the summit precisely achieved this outcome, but seemingly no one responded to the actual diplomatic developments that would benefit both countries. 

All the while, leftists criticize the U.S. housing crisis — while China is demolishing newly built empty homes. MAGA supporters criticize Trump for appeasing a “communist dictator,” despite China being arguably more capitalist than America today.

These culture wars detract from the discussions that actually matter, like Iran, Taiwan, AI, trade and tariffs.

While we treat China as a talking point in our culture war, CEOs like Jensen Huang, Sam Altman and Larry Fink sat across from Chinese state dignitaries in the White House. Most likely, they weren’t talking about their political ideologies or debating Chinese prowess. So why are we?

Your donation will support the student journalists of Boston University. Your contribution will allow us to purchase equipment and cover our annual website hosting costs.