I know, you know, I know you know...

Every Olympics year, a familiar sport is played out, mainly in the United States.

That's how I tend to remember the presidential elections in the country.

Remember Usain Bolt? Barack Obama. (And a few other examples going back in time. Or vice versa.)

Remember Liu Xiang? Ouch, John McCain.

Other countries play it, too. Except their electoral cycles do not seem to be as much in perfect sync with the Olympics cycle as it is in the US.

So here we are, wondering if Bolt can repeat his feat. Or if Liu can reverse his fortunes. At around the time when the two main US parties have their conventions to confirm their presidential candidates.

But the other sport, which lasts a good deal longer than the 16 days of the Olympics, continues in the US in the Olympics year: China-bashing.

As the rhetoric rises and soars, the Olympic motto takes on a different meaning.

The presumptive Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, has vowed to take a tough line with China, if elected, warning that he would declare China a currency manipulator from Day 1. There have been plenty of other threats on related subjects.

Obama, whose administration has never sought to label China a currency manipulator (and neither did his predecessor), picked on other issues: that Romney was offshoring and outsourcing to China.

In true Olympic spirit, US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has suggested that the red, blue and white uniforms of the US Olympic team be burned - because they were made in China. Never mind that baby diapers, kitchen tools, iPhones and iPads, are mostly - if not totally - made in China. Or most American flags.

But here's the nub: US politicians pick on China in election years (at least more so than in other years), blaming it for many of their economic woes. And the US media, apart from those given to hyperbole, typically have experts/analysts saying that they actually don't mean what they say. If elected, it's back to business, is the message.

For example, says Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute in the US: "The good news is that the confrontational rhetoric and policy proposals have always receded once the election is over, and they have never done lasting damage to bilateral relations."

Carpenter has a whole list of precedents:

Ronald Reagan repeatedly criticized Jimmy Carter for establishing diplomatic relations with Beijing; yet, once elected president, adopted prudent and constructive policies toward Beijing. He even pledged to gradually end arms sales to Taiwan.

In 1992, Bill Clinton and Ross Perot took on George H. W. Bush for being "too soft" on China; yet nothing much changed later.

Clinton, the China-basher of 1992, came under attack in 2000 from Bush junior for being "too soft on China", who, it turned out, had one of the best relations a US president has had with China.

You get the drift.

And then there's the Chinese media.

This is how the narrative typically goes: US politicians are aggressive in election years yet most commentators in the country seem to suggest it's just electoral rhetoric. They have, as the market says, discounted it.

For example, Shi Yinhong, professor of international relations and director of the Center on American Studies at Renmin University of China, says: "I presume no matter what China does, there will be continued China slagging during the election year. And after being elected, the candidate will 'keep the campaign promise at a substantial discount'."

So here's the well-worn and accepted scenario: It's common for US presidential candidates to ramp up anti-China rhetoric during election year.

But the point is is it pointless?

Western analysts say they don't mean what they say.

Chinese analysts say they don't mean what they say.

So the politicians on both sides know the score.

So do the people.

So who's fooling who?

The author is an editor-at-large of China Daily. E-mail: ravi@chinadaily.com.cn

(China Daily 07/24/2012 page8)