Distorted Mirrors: Americans and Their Relations with Russia and China in the Twentieth Century (review)

This book offers snapshots of U.S. thinking about the two most significant rivals of recent times. It presents a clear contrast, insisting that Americans have looked unfavorably on Russia since the late nineteenth century when explorer George Kennan equated it with oppression and have looked favorably on China since William Rockhill admired its culture and potential. This comparison was popular in the 1970s but lost favor in the late 1980s and 1990s. Reviving it and arguing that it applies continuously for more than a century, the authors seek supporting evidence and explanations for the difference. Choosing the title Distorted Mirrors, they aspire to show how and why U.S. “cultural stereotypes were almost primitive” (p. xxi) and argue that such “unrestrained prejudices . . . could have dangerous consequences (p. xxii).

The quality of the snapshots—20–25 pages each—varies. Many are rich in detail, capturing important moments in bilateral relations. Yet, the preoccupation with the overall thesis of the book leads to dubious assertions. This is particularly the case in the chapters focused on Russia. They suffer from a lack of two-way analysis, overlooking the events on the Russia/Soviet side that may have elicited the perceptions under discussion. Implicit in much of the analysis is the view that Washington was primarily at fault in this relationship, demanding “conversion to American standards” (p. 126). Treatment of George F. Kennan and the “Kennanization” of U.S. foreign policy is particularly problematic, giving the impression Paul Nitze was his logical heir. In places a kind of Russian paranoia appears to take hold, coloring views of the United States in a manner that became common in the period of rising “anti-Americanism” under Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin. Rather than test the thesis through careful examination of changing images over the past quarter century, the book largely ignores this period while assuming that earlier negative views were fixed. This leaves an impression of Americans at all levels as easily gullible and stuck in old ways of thinking without taking into account new developments.

The various snapshots of China are seemingly divorced from the book’s generalizations despite the introductory remarks that “the restored love affair continues” and “America’s Chinese bonding, from the beginning to now, has rested on certain misconceptions and misunderstandings of China as perpetrated by a handful of people” (p. 178). We learn of Woodrow Wilson’s idealism, John Dewey’s pragmatism, Edgar Snow’s sympathy, Pearl Buck’s empathy, and the struggle over how to interpret Chiang Kai-shek at Time, where Theodore White battled with Henry Luce. Considerable detail is devoted to the meetings of Henry Kissinger with Zhou Enlai. These stories largely stand alone without clarification about the supposed “love affair” with China since 1949 or about how to determine the impact of admittedly influential figures on public opinion, media coverage, and academic analysis.

Many of the stories are worth retelling and benefit from not being tailored to illustrate a predetermined thesis, as in the case of the Russian snapshots. Yet, the authors make no effort to assess the complex U.S. views of a rising China since the end of the Cold War, which is presumably the primary test of the authors’ thesis.

This book suffers from methodological shortcomings besides the fact that the two countries are treated differently in regard to supporting the book’s generalizations. Comparisons are reserved for the overall conclusions rather than being raised in any systematic manner. Perceptions are judged by the views of selected observers or leaders but are not analyzed in any sustained way. The case for distortions is often implicit, not well supported by specific evidence despite the likelihood that many distortions have been present and deserve close scrutiny. Indeed, although summaries of the writings of individuals may be accurate, the authors’ grasp of the broader picture of reasoning in the United States is not convincing. This...