I thought that this must be some kind of grotesque conservative exaggeration, but no, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn really did tell a graduating high school class to emulate Mao Tse-Tung's bold and imaginative attitude during his takeover of China. Most of us look at the tens of millions who died and maybe think twice about trying to imitate the late Chairman, but hey, think different!
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I would respect the Atlantic's intellectual integrity more if they fired McCardle and hired Michelle Malkin.
Where's the substance in your remark? Anita Dunn did call Mao Tse-Tung her favorite political philosopher. It wouldn't make any sense as a joke. And it wasn't a joke. (Juxtaposition of Mao and Mother Teresa could admittedly be a lame joke.)
They can't claim any intellectual honesty until they fire the magazine's leading Trig-truther.
Wow. There are some pretty ugly thoughts out there in liberal-land. McArdle should be FIRED for posting this video? And, let's see, in your words, because it lacks "intellectual integrity?"
You might want to examine the integrity of your own intellect, bas. You are very confused if you think there is something wrong with quoting a high Administration official, fully in context, saying something outrageous, something that shows at best an incredible indifference to the evil acts of the century's worst mass murderer. I have to assume that if she's been in the politics business for awhile, she must have taken polysci in college, and so I won't accept ignorance as an excuse. Although, sure, she's pretty dumb, and not just here.
People like you flyspecked Joe the Plumber who at least initially didn't ask to become a political figure. But you're willing to give the WH Communications Director a pass on this! And the way you want to give her that pass is to aggressively put down anyone who breaks the media wall of silence on this gaffe.
Wow. Liberal used to be the ones who defended freedom of speech. Liberals used to be the ones who spoke truth to power. Disgusting to see that change.
I've rarely seen a better reasoned and annunciation comment Vail. Well said.
The left has abandoned all pretense to speaking truth. They now have the power; and bas is the best example of how they will wield it.
They seek to kill the messenger. And not metaphorically.
Yes, "not metaphorically," because you've obviously seen lots of death threats in this thread.
You are "literally" the "stupidest person on the planet."
LOL
Hey, it's not like she parses words for a living (communications director), and anyway, it was just a one-off remark in an unguarded moment (prepared speech) - really this woman should be given the benefit of the doubt (she must have meant Pol Pot), and any way, it is not like Obama has a history of associating with communists (Van Jones), terrorists (Ayers and Dohrn) or radical conspiracy theorists( Rev. Wright). I think we should all just cool down, remember that we are Americans first (I'm actually an alien), and focus on the true threats to American democracy (Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin and the guy who owns Whole Foods).
'Wow. There are some pretty ugly thoughts out there in liberal-land. McArdle should be FIRED for posting this video? And, let's see, in your words, because it lacks "intellectual integrity?"'
No, the "leading Trig-truther" that comment refers to isn't Megan. It's Andrew Sullivan.
Since bas suggested substituting Michelle Malkin for Megan McCardle, I think you misunderstand him. I believe his point is that Ms. Malkin has been awake to the kind of revolutionary radical chic embraced by this administration a lot longer than the mainstream lefties at the sadly deteriorated Atlantic Monthly.
I, however, am always happy to see a liberal awakening to what has happening and is happening to their party. Better late than never, and glad to see Ms. McCardle joining the rest of us angry, terrified citizens watching the new thugocracy at work. But you, Megan, Ron Bloom favorably quoted Mao just last year. That tape is making the rounds today. He's the guy who thinks "free markets" are a bogus joke and that, like Mao The Magnificent, he believes "power comes from the barrel of a gun." Good to know, eh? Van Jones, Anita Dunn, Ron Bloom, FCC "diversity czar" (which, of course, means lack of political diversity)Mark Lloyd, who admires what Hugo Chavez has done with Venezuela's media. If you're a liberal, and not a new leftist, a neocom, you had better join those of us already awake before it's too late. Which will be soon.
Oh dear, I take it back. Reading Bas's later posts, I see he is indeed a lefty hater.
Vail,
I'll add to the "well said" comments.
Many pundits are starting to equate this administration as a US version of a Banana Republic, with a cult of personality at the head, surrounded by a phalanx of thought-thuggery.
Witness the attempt to marginalize Fox News (which, of course, is the outlet that broke this very story). You've never before seen something like this in the USA, at least not at the Federal level. Perhaps Huey Long got away with this kind of crap, back in the day, but even Nixon didn't war openly. He kept a private list, sure, but that's because he was nuts.
And even then... Nixon wasn't *this* crazy.
In normal times we'd all laugh at the White House for attempting something so stupid. Now?
Not so funny.
Oh get over yourself. Megan is repeating talking points from people whose only goal is to destroy a president. Do you really think that Anita Dunn is alright with the mass murder of a people? Did she say that? or could it likely that she is referring to the idea that he was a great man. That does not necessarily imply that she thinks he was a good one. Also, the people that Megan is getting her talking points from nowadays, equate Obama's attempt to overhaul healthcare to Hitler and the mass extinction of over millions of Jews. Were you equally upset about their intellectual integrity? If you were then forget about Anita Hill because the people that are so upset about her, are the same people who say Obama is just like the mass murderer's Stalin, Mao, and Hitler.
Bedmondon, don't plain words mean anything to you? "One of my two favorite philosophers" can't be parsed in very many different ways. No, I don't think Anita Dunn is "alright with the mass murder of a people." I just think she's a dunce who didn't think about the mass murder of a people when she inserted a long passage about Mao into her speech. If she'd made this speech in June of 1999 and Fox got ahold of it, I'd think it was unfair and absurd to make any kind of a deal about it. But she wrote and delivered this speech in June 2009, when she already held the title of Director of Communications for the POTUS. It's the intellectual and moral carelessness her speech displays -- the appalling shallowness that's what I get out of it.
The rest of your diatribe makes your invocation of the phrase "talking points" deeply ironic. Could you even keep yourself awake when you typed them? But in case that bilge just popped into your little mind like a fresh thought: Serious people aren't comparing Obama or his health plan to Hitler. The Obama-is-Hitler signs were brought to those rallies by LaRouchites, certified crazies. But I'll turn it back to you. Can you show me where you criticized your friends on the left for comparing Bush to Hitler during the past administration?
Reminds me of my high school social studies class where we studied in detail the 5 year plans of the soviet union.
Didn't work, but had a certain elegance.
Derek
To be fair to Mao, he was brilliant in his takeover of China, just not in his governing of it.
That was the point of the quote. Just like the point of every time that story gets told. And, if you say you haven't heard that story before told by any number of people (and not Maoists) then you're lying. There are any number of cases of Republicans telling that story, for example.
But, Megan McCardle is pretty much a mouthpiece for a particular kind of right wing activism. One that is being better articulated by people on less respectable websites who deserve a voice.
It was still a bone-headed quote.
By that measure, you could call Stalin, Hitler, Kim Jong Il, and Saddam Hussein among the "most important political philosophers" for their ability to remake their respective countries and create "change".
(Which is a big reason why the "change" slogan sucked so much. Many kinds of change are bad.)
Dude, I've heard this story used by lots of people. There are any number of Republican operatives who've used this story. This is pretty boilerplate management stuff. Haven't any of you ever had to sit through a motivational speech?
Bas,
1. Money quote: One of two "most important political philosophers".
2. Few Republicans would say that.
3. If they did, I would give them shit, too. It's a bone-headed quote. You don't use mass murderers as role models when talking to kids.
4. Just think for a minute about whether you just might be a tad partisan... And perhaps not objective on this matter.
Sure. And if a Republican had called Mao "one of his/her favorite political philosophers," he or she should be subjected to the same withering attacks. There's no hypocrisy here. Anita Dunn's idiocy is sui generis.
Well, here's a difference for you: Leftists are defending Anita Dunn's naming Mao as one of her favorite political philosophers.
What political group mocked George W. Bush for telling a national audience that one of his favorite philosophers is Jesus Christ?
The ever-discerning, subtle mind of the leftist can deftly defend the former but reflexively sneers at the latter.
1. Never heard it before.
2. You can't get away with saying that Hitler is one of your favorite political philosophers and then quote some of his not intrinsically evil thoughts on how to get power. Why? Because Hitler is an evil mass murdering tyrant dripping with the blood of the innocent. And Mao? Hitler could have taken his correspondence course.
Bas, it seems you're totally missing the point. The problem isn't the story she told or the point she made. There's nothing wrong with saying, for instance, that "Triumph of the Will" is a classic work of propaganda or even film making, for instance, or that the style in which it was made can teach us something. There would be something horribly wrong, however, with saying "Hitler is one of my favorite political philosophers." The difference between the two seems pretty blatant to me. Why not you? Do you think Mao's actions after he took over China were reasonable? Or are you just very committed to defending the Obama administration regardless of what its people say ?
No. I'd rather be fair to his victims.
Derek
To be fair to Hitler, he was brilliant in his takeober of Germany, just not in his governing of it.
Actually Winston, Mao was a blundering fool in his takeover of China. He only succeeded when, after WW2, the US denied Chaing's request for the air-transport required to move their troops to crush Mao. Had the US provided the support there would have been no Mao, no Communist China, and Anita Dunn would have to find another philosopher with which to make herself look foolish.
The MSM has done a poor job of reporting the fairly extreme views of many Obama appointees (and indeed, Obama himself in old speeches).
Conversely, the MSM did a pretty good job of exposing similarly extreme views in the other direction when Team Bush was in the White House. (e.g., Ashcroft covering a statue's lady bits.)
FYI - I met a fairly senior editor of a respected business media brand. He supports Obama, but he admits that there is a palpable concern about peer reaction to any negative stories on Obama and his administration. Therefore, the stories are not researched, written, edited, approved, or reported. And he felt awkward admitting that he had no idea about some of the very basic stories carried by Megan McArdle (economic impact of various policies) and Instapundit (poor vetting of appointees).
Actually they did a hatchet job on Ashcroft--the reason he covered the breasts was because it because a contest among the photographers to try to get the breasts in the picture with him, leading them to all sorts of contortions and odd camera angles.
Me, I'd have just started doing my press releases somewhere else, but when you're dealing with a press that hasn't matured since highschool...
(And I will admit Ashcroft was a bit of a prig).
I find it almost as significant a story that it took Glenn Beck to break the story and the only sources covering it are right-wing talk radio and blogs.
The right wing blowhards that you disapprove of so strongly are the only ones willing to break actual news unfavorable to the administration. What would we do without them?
Is your contention that Anita Dunn subscribes to the views of Chairman Mao?
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910150036
This is the most ridiculous accusation yet. This is a great opportunity to separate the people who are insane and have nothing to contribute to the discourse from thoughtful opponents of Obama's agenda. It's good to know where McCardle stands.
Yes, good opportunity to identify the insane.
'nuff said.
1. Of course there's a big difference between learning from Mao's tactics, as Goldwater and Rove did, and saying that he's one's "favorite political philosopher", as Ms. Dunn did.
2. I find it quite rich that Media Matters feels such a pressing need to put Ms. Dunn's quotes in context, a courtesy it's never extended to Limbaugh.
3. I find it even more rich that lefties like you are so eager to extend the benefit of the doubt to Ms. Dunn for a statement caught on video, while we still have yet to see apologies for the mass libeling of Limbaugh last week.
I don't mean to be rude, bas, but is it your contention that anything in that Media Matters post even tangentially addresses the issue here? Because all I'm seeing is that "lots of people read stuff by people they fundamentally disagree with". That's not the same as "lots of people say that one of their two favorite political philosophers is somebody they fundamentally disagree with".
Look, lots of people have read Mein Kampf without for a moment admiring Hitler. Lots of people have studied Hitler, without liking him one damn bit. Lots of military people have learned a lot from German land-warfare tactics in WWII without having anything but disgust for the aims of the Third Reich.
However, if somebody said Adolf Hitler was one of his two favorite political philosophers, the thought might cross your mind -- just for a fleeting moment -- that maybe, possibly, this was somebody who might have an idea or two that a lot of Americans might find objectionable in some way.
Does that help?
"Is it your contention that Anita Dunn subscribes to the views of Chairman Mao?"
No. It was Anita Dunn's contention that she subscribes to the views of her two favorite philosophers, Mao and Mother Theresa.
Now, I don't think she is part of an organized Communist movement. That would require intellectual depths that this twerp doesn't have. But although I'm amused by Media Matters' Cirque de Soleil act to spin her plain words, the fact is, it is completely fair and in-bounds for the mainstream media to report this and to make at least a minor big deal about it.
That they aren't doing this demonstrates hypocrisy of the first order. You know damn well that if it became known that Ari Fleisher had proclaimed -- at any time in his life, not just while he was serving the president -- that he took inspiration from a mass murdering dictator, he would have been run out of town by the media in 24 hours or less. There would have been onscreen graphics about the Fire Ari Watch. Gergen, Brooks, Begala, all of them would have been shouting in unison that Ari must go.
Bas, you're being dense in your loyalty to the administration. Go find your brain and put it back in. You're going to need it over the next three years.
"Is your contention that Anita Dunn subscribes to the views of Chairman Mao?"
No, but it's my contention that citing Mao as one of your favorite political philosophers should be considered as offensive and career-ending as citing Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot as one of your favorite political philosophers -- or do you deny that Mao belongs in that company?
Your risible argument is centered on Mr. Bush's suggestion to read a book about Chairman Mao. In case you weren't aware, the book Bush read and suggested to Rove was Mao: the Unknown Story. http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/20957.html That book savaged Mao as the murderer and anti-intellectual that he was.
Nobody denies that a political philosopher, even if they are a monster can cite a true principle. If A is A, then it so, regardless of who says it. However, that does not mean that one should exalt the monster instead of the principle.
"Is your contention that Anita Dunn subscribes to the views of Chairman Mao?"
Actually, bas, my contention is that Anita Dunn does not understand the distinction between "know thy enemy" and "worship thy enemy"
I find it almost as significant a story that it took Glenn Beck to break the story
As I read on another site--
"Beck must be an illegal alien, because he's doing the job American journalists won't..."
And now Megan is posting clips from Glenn Beck.
Wow.
It's very easy to spot a losing side in any argument. If you your only response is ad hominem attacks, you lose. It's completely irrelevant that Glenn Beck was the first to broadcast Dunn's speech. Have anything to say about Dunn's "favorite political philosopher"?
Can't talk now dude, the black helicopters are right over my house!!!
Communist sympathizers should be treated by polite society the same way Nazis and KKK members are treated now. (No, I don't mean sending them to Senate for 50 years.)
Actually, it's sadly relevant that Glenn Beck was the first to broadcast Dunn's speech.
It's sort of amazing (and frightening) how accurately the Harry Potter series summed up the political relevance of the media. But given the choice, I suppose I'd ruefully take Xenophilius Lovegood and The Quibler over Rita Skeeter and The Daily Prophet.
I get the feeling you're one of those people for whom a Keith Olbermann "special comment" is appointment television.
But you're being a bit coy. Are you saying that the video is a fake? From everything I've heard about this Beck fellow, that would seem like something he might do. If it's fake, I think the WH needs to call him on it immediately!
But if it's not fake, then it's irrelevant who posted it. The subject is Anita Dunn, not Glen Beck.
Everything you've heard? When has Glenn Beck ever faked a tape or anything else? He may be histrionic in his delivery, but he doesn't fake stuff. And even the consummately disingenuous Ms. Dunn herself has not claimed the video was fake.
The reason it is relevant that Glenn Beck was the one to break the tape, is the same reason it is relevant that he told us about who Van Jones was(is,) is now telling us who Ron Bloom is, broke the ACORN videos and so on. Because the mainstream media refuses to do so. They continue to hide who Obama really is.
My point was that it is entirely possible to hate Glenn Beck while being alarmed about Anita Dunn's beliefs.
I'll admit I don't watch Glenn Beck -- I find his act as tiresome as Hannity's. The opportunity Fox is missing is to put up a commentary show that doesn't merely preach to the choir but informs independents and disaffected Dems about things like Van Jones, ACORN and so on, without the histrionics and without the crudely stupid comments like "Obama is a racist." I only know about Dunn's embrace of Mao because she was dumb enough to try to spin it to CNN, and CNN ran an online story about it that got me search for the clip. If that hadn't have happened, I would have first heard about it here, because I think McArdle is a great blogger with an interesting mind.
So, when people try to intimidate McArdle by saying things like "McArdle is quoting Glenn Beck now. What a disgrace!" I feel like we're being failed by our news media that an extremist clown is the only guy on TV or in the mass news media with the news judgment to share this information with us. I still won't watch Glenn Beck, but I'll be grateful if he keeps evading the wall of silence the other media has thrown up to protect Obama and his administration.
The presence of Media Matters for America playing a reverse watchdog role is particularly malignant. Basically, its approach is, "Here, news editors, when someone complains that you didn't pick up the Anita Dunn/Mao story, here are some choice bits of obfuscation you can use to rationalize your continued silence and still appear to have integrity. And make sure that you use these talking points because we're watching you, too."
I feel as if I watch Fox News all the time, but I don't watch Glenn Beck (or even The O'Reilly Factor), since I also find them tiresome. It must be hard for them to fill up an entire hour every day - it takes a big ego and some shtick to be entertaining for that long, day after day.
You might want to try either Fox and Friends in the morning, or Special Report. With Tivo, I watch them whenever is convenient for me. I once made a special effort to compare Special Report to NPR for several months, to see who gave all of the relevant facts for the stories they covered. NPR simply leaves out details that don't fit the conclusion it prefers, while Fox News presents both sides. It may tend to favor one side, but so do all the others. At least one gets pretty much all of the relevant facts with Fox News, while the others selectively edit both the stories they cover and the facts that they discuss, to suit their worldview.
My my. The hordes are about.
Derek
Do you have something substantive to offer, Derek?
Drinking. The. Kool-Aid.
Guys, it was a moronic thing to say. That's all. This does not mean Obama is a communist, etc. It just means that his communications director said something moronic. And it was moronic. Beyond calling Chairman Mao one of her favorite political philosophers, her speech is borderline incoherent.
It was mockery directed at far less stupid statements that torpedoed Palin's candidacy. However, SNL's big political sketch two days ago was one portraying Obama as a Hulk-like figure who tore apart obstructionist Congressmen--a superhero. Nothing about Dunn, I think.
Of course there was nothing about Dunn. Why would SNL make fun of somebody that nobody has ever heard of?
By nobody, presumably you mean "nobody who writes for SNL". People who watch Glenn Beck, listen to Rush Limbaugh, or read blogs all heard about her--which is if not a majority of the country, at least a significant minority. Probably a larger number than those who know who Mitch McConnell is, who was targeted in the opening sketch.
I admit it.
I'm a conservative who is interested in politics, and I had to google to see who Mitch McConnell is.
And even after finding out who he is, I still had no idea what possible topic an SNL sketch could be about him.
Nathan-
The opening sketch featured Baucus, Snowe, and McConnell coming in for a meeting with Obama about health care reform. McConnell was portrayed as an extreme obstructionist Republican, with lines like, "We could be moved to support your health care reform, if you decide to oppose it." Obama then turns into "The Rock" Obama, played by Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, as a Hulk-like political superhero.
Wow. Can you IMAGINE if Palin had said this?
The mind boggles.
Also: One quote does not mean Obama is a communist, etc. But it's one more in a long, long string of evidence that he's an extreme leftist who's only moderated himself to appease the public. Appointees like Van Jones (who was actually a communist) and good friends like Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers don't exactly scream "moderate".
Either Obama is too incompetent to control what his subordinates are saying in his name, or he's too far left to find it abhorrent. Both are pretty bad.
Thank you. I was beginning to think that I was the only person wondering how the head of the White House's Communications operation could deliver an obviously prepared speech (watch her repeatedly checking her notes) that was so completely incoherent. That, in and of itself, calls for her ouster for incompetence.
Also, the way she kept sticking out her tongue like some hyperactive lizard was really freaky.
Exactly. I would never suggest Anita Dunn is a communist, nor a Communist. But to rise in liberal politics, she's had to adapt her apparently feeble mind to a form of discourse that is by its very nature incoherent. Anita Dunn is a victim of her own ambitions. Her brain has the consistency of instant oatmeal. Thoughts get stuck there. She was clearly in over her head giving a high school commencement address. How she got to be comm director is through her reliable adherence to the company line, not through intelligence.
It wasn't merely a moronic thing to say. Dunn's no genius, but she isn't a moron. Her statement is morally retarded because, as a member in good standing of the Lefty community, it's cool to be an anti-anti-Communist, even to the point of not caring about the millions of victims Glenn Beck referenced later in the show by holding up the book The Black Book of Communism. And there's also a sneaking admiration of the thug who takes direct action (combined with a willful blindness as to the full consequences of such action.)
Dunn's Irony or Conservatives Mentioned Mao Too defense is only semi-plausible if one focuses solely on the more fleeting "favorite political philosopher" remark, and ignores this:
A big part of Baby Boomer leftism is trendiness, coolness. And one badge of coolness for this generation is iconoclasm. Contrariness for its own sake, demonstrating the deep thinking ability of the iconoclast to see things ordinary others can't. It is descended from the European artiste community of the 19th Century. That, more than a coherent, even knowledgeable, commitment to Marxism, or Maoism, is why these people love to praise Mao, Castro and now Chavez. Because it's just so cool (and contrary) to what all the shallow thinkers believe. See, the shallow thinkers get hung up on things like 70 million dead, torture (real torture) in political prison, gulags and so on. But deep thinking iconoclasts see through those "broken eggs" to the sublime omelet these tyrants give lip service to, to cover their atrocities.
Poseurs like Dunn, and Obama, have spent their entire lives in circles where this sort of silliness is taken oh so seriously. The trouble is, they are now trying to implement it, which isn't silly.
Reminds me of this Kids in the Hall gem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yizpWta-5Uw
You guys are exactly right: Declaring Mao to be one of your two favorite political philosophers is exactly the same as quoting one of his pithier statements or reading a biography of him. We're all Maoists now!!!!!
Dolts.
Congratulations Megan,
It looks like Bas has joined the growing club of people who are so starstruck by you that they will say anything, even supporting the idea of mass-murderers as philosophers, just to get attention from you. Kind of like the 8 year old pulling the hair of the girl he likes.
Megan's right in the comments - it was an incoherent speech too.
Her great bit of advice from Mother Theresa may be one of the worst suggestions ever. Really? Calcutta didn't need any more help? Because Mother Theresa was there? That's all the millions of impoverished people there needed? One very dedicated lady?
Of course, if you take Anita Dunn's advice seriously, it sounds pretty libertarian to me. Basically, she says "figure out what you want to do... a do whatever the hell you want. Don't let others tell you what to do." And, amazingly, this approach is supported by a quote the Chairman Mao. Splendid.
Calcutta needs more help because Mother Teresa was there.
Read Hitchen's comments on the matter.
Mother Teresa was no saint.
You gotta admire that Mao guy. Hitler could have learned a thing or two from him about how to murder millions and remain so chic with American intellectuals.
It's only because of the libelous accusation Hitler was stuck with. I mean the one of being "right-wing".
It's safe to say that bas and company don't really find Chairman Mao to be a particularly disturbing character.
Perhaps they don't know that he was responsible for killing 50 million people, but more likely they think that he's basically a cool dude that other cool dudes wear on their t-shirts.
Hey, I am sure Mao would have supported Obama's public option healthcare proposal - that washes away a lot of sins.
The odd thing is that what seems to have impressed her as a deep political thought was this saying: "you fight your war, and I'll fight mine." She emphasizes it: "And think about that for a second. You don't have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don't have to follow other people's choices and paths. OK? It is about your choices and your paths."
That's it? That's her idea of profound political advice? Something so anodyne and banal ("follow your own path") that it has been featured in any number of after-school specials, pop songs, and so on ad nauseam? For that bit of triteness she had to look up one of history's most notorious mass murderers?
Yeah, but Mao REALLY meant it, not like some pantywaist on an NBC PSA.
(grinning)...statists who can't admit that some of the adminstration are subversive radicals even when fellow Obama supporters point it out to them....very entertaining. And so the satire begins, until the radicals are cut loose, be prepared for non-stop, indefensible derision:
http://02e56fa.netsolhost.com/blog1/index.php/2009/10/19/white-house-comm-director-anita-dunn-was
For a "communications director", Dunn seems pretty tone-deaf. Didn't anyone vet this speech? Didn't anyone tell her that quoting Mao might be a bad idea?
So many people in the Obama administration seem to be well-meaning (sorta, kinda) amateurs. These are the best and brightest around?
"you choices and your paths"--great slogan, but you know she means "Our choices and our paths."
"Didn't anyone vet this speech ..."
Didn't anyone vet this stupid bitch? How do these mental midgets make it into the White House?
Ms Dunn is dim, clearly. But you do wonder what circles she moves in that she doesn't have a glimmer of an understanding about why some people might object to her hero-worshipping of Mao. Unless she takes the view that, what the hell, his victims were just Chinese.
So, how would Mao have handled Fox News?
I think we should all ask ourselves: WWMD? There are so many problems in life and politics that can be solved with mass murder.
Here's a fun exercise: let's try to imagine a Bush White House Communications official had said the following:
"Two of my favorite political Philosophers Mao Tse-tung and Adolf Hitler ….The two people that I turn to the most."
And now try to imagine only Keith Olbermann notices...
Oh dear, I've accidentally analogized Mother Teresa to Hitler. Should read:
"Two of my favorite political Philosophers Adolf Hitler and Mother Theresa….The two people that I turn to the most."
Here's the quote:
The third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung and Mother Teresa
I can see Glenn Beck being dumb enough to think that the she was being perfectly serious and her two favorite political philosophers really are Mother Teresa and Mao. I'm going to show the rest of you the respect of thinking you're being disingenuous.
Oh, and when asked about it, she mentioned that she learned the Mao quote from Lee Atwater. As always, IOKIYAR.
She doesn't have the benefit of the doubt - she works for Barack Obama.
Look, first, I thought it was a joke that a US President could launch his political career in the home of two unrepentant left-wing terrorists. Turned out it wasn't a joke. I also thought it was a joke that for two decades a US President was going to a racist, conspiracy-mongering church. Turned out not a joke either.
So who did Lee Atwater work for?
If Lee Atwater claimed that Mao was his favorite political philosopher (and I bet he never said so since the Media Matters talking points don't mention it), he should have been tarred and feathered too.
Where in that statement, or in her reading of it, do you discern a joke, or even an attempt at a joke? Seriously. Where's the set up, where's the punchline, where's the twist? Even a bad joke has a few telltale signs.
No, the most logical reading, the only logical reading is that her statement was a lead-in for what she hoped the student body would find to be an inspirational comment.
This particular defense of Dunn is Orwellian. Petit Orwellian, to be sure since Anita Dunn is a person of little consequence. But the instinctive rush to find some way, any way to defend her does not speak well of the liberal base.
Vail -- The way she delivered the entire speech strongly suggests that she does not understand what a joke is. I can't understand how a communications director can be such a perfect blend of soporific and obnoxious.
Did you watch the whole clip? I would suggest doing that before you make yourself look like more of an idiot.
Derek
That's odd. For some reason, I thought this was an economics blog.
Is there any blog on the planet that sticks to one topic exclusively without straying? It's still more about economics than anything else.
@ Mario: Economics blog ?
It is becoming a _holistic_ economics blog,
one concerned with the psychological processes
within human minds which influence how humans
choose to allocate resources, as well as the
statistical mathematics which describe the
observable results.
Dunn is a representative example of the current
administration's policies on the allocation of
blood and money; Ours, not theirs.
"That's odd. For some reason, I thought this was an economics blog."
I agree totally.
I've got no problem at all with Ms Dunn as long as she does not try to buy a football team.
As Mao said, "Power begins at the barrel of a Dunn."
To paraphrase my two favorite comedians, Groucho Marx and Francisco Franco, "The party of the first part should be crushed like worms".
As my two favorite judges said, Learned Hand and Lucifer, you win!
Glenn Beck released another little gem from Anita on today's show. It's a youtube of her explaining how the Obama campaign completely controlled the media during the race and how they were able to make the media their complete bitch. I wonder if the sheeple press will take that one sitting down.
Oh, and Beck has now got the guy sitting next to the red phone, anxiously awaiting Anita's call to the super secret phone number, dressed up in a Mao suit. Beck is running circles around them. The White House needs to give up this fight before they embarrass themselves any more.
"I wonder if the sheeple press will take that one sitting down."
I would assume they will take it while on their knees, as was their wont during the campaign. Except of course for Chris Mathews - he clearly took it from behind.
The problem with it is the frame it gives the kids. As BennieJetz suggest above, it tells them that acceptable discourse and action comes from a far left point of view or attitude. Take that and the rest is forgiven, e.g. Mao's suppression of civil society. See our president bash insurance companies as gougers, pharmacetical companies as greedy. In that, he fights his fight. If you want to bash, say, food processing companies, well you're young go ahead, you know you need the practice, you can join us in the fighting the designated enemies of the people later.
That said, the Chinese have ways of saying things that have a novelty to us. Asked if the French Revolution was a good idea, the communist Chou-en-Lai, who could be seen as a representative of its ideas, said it 'was too early to tell' (nearly two centuries after it). In the turn to capitalism, Deng XaoPing said 'It doesn't matter if a cat is white or black as long as it catches mice.' My daughter asked a friend there if in lieu of a visit, she could call and was told 'When you see sun, I see moon.'
Notice the tactics here by the left. They accuse Megan of being suddenly beholden to right-wingers, telling her what topics she's allowed to blog about, or just issuing out ad hominems. Anything but deal with the issue at hand. Some would say it's a loser's tactics, but the left has been winning dirty for some time now.
They are desperately trying to deny Beck another scalp.
Although they seem to be like black flies in northern ontario. Hard to miss.
Derek
Radical commie chic is right. Look how popular the Che t-shirts/posters are with today's teen-set. I sure don't see many Reagan t-shirts out there, outside of maybe Utah.
Reading all of this, you'd think it was a big joke, except that many of you appear to be serious.
Have you ever heard of Sun Tzu? Probably. He wrote the Art of War, a classic ancient text on military strategy that has inspired thousands of business leaders and politicians. CEOs and asset managers quote him frequently, and some say The Art of War is among their favorite books. Should we assume these CEOs and asset managers also subscribe to all of Sun Tzu's political ideas? That they are in favor of brutal monarchies that constantly war with their neighbors?
It's incredible to read some of these comments. Do you REALLY think that Anita Dunn or any other poster on this thread is a Maoist? Do you REALLY think she thinks the Cultural Revolution was hunky-dory? Or is it possible, just possible, that she admires Mao for his philosophical insights about how to win popular support for an (initially) unpopular cause, and yet opposes the ends to which he worked?
The analogy with Mein Kampf is not apt, because Mein Kampf has no application outside of Nazi ideology. You know what does, though? Some of the propaganda techniques used by the Nazis, by people like Goebbels and Leni Riefenstahl. And you know what? Their techniques have been extensively copied by people who were impressed by the craft and despised the aims. And they've been praised.
Triumph of the Will is shown in film school. Is that stupid? Does that make film schools Nazi?
You realize that Megan did not quote Dunn out of context. Dunn worships Mao in-context, without any doubts. Substitute Hitler for Mao and make Dunn a Republican and somehow you wouldn't be questioning Megan's sincerity. Hypocrite.
She was telling high school students to take inspiration from Mao's determination to rule the country even if it meant killing everyone in it. She told high school students to be as ruthless in their goals as the biggest mass murderer in the history of humanity. "You don't have to accept the definition of how to do things" - i.e. Mao didn't give up on his ideas during the Great Leap simply because millions, and eventually tens of millions, died because his ideas were so crappy. He even started the Cultural Revolution to kill off those that objected to the death toll in the Great Leap. Dunn wants high school students to know that they, too, "don't have to follow other people's choices and paths". They can be like Mao, and do whatever they want regardless of who it kills. Yes, we can!
Note also that Sun Tzu's Art of War has some substance to it, while the quote from Mao that this woman used to inspire the students is a nonsensical bit of fluff. "You fight your war and I'll fight mine." As Stuart said above, "For that bit of triteness she had to look up one of history's most notorious mass murderers?"
It couldn't have been the words themselves that Dunn hoped would inspire the students, so it must have been Mao's determination and total refusal to live by the narrow, anti-mass-murdering standards of others.
/THIS A THOUSAND TIMES THIS
No, that's not what she said at all.
She was telling students not to be afraid of challenges even if the odds seem overwhelming. She wasn't talking about the Great Leap Forward of the Cultural Revolution, and you know it. She was talking about 1947 and the defeat of the KMT.
She was talking about Mao's political philosophy, which led him to keep going even when others told him that the odds were against him. His political philosophy led him to keep going in 1947, and it again led him to keep going in 1960 and 1961, when it was clear that millions were dying because of his refusal to reconsider. And it led him to initiate even more deaths in the Cultural Revolution, to clean up after the catastrophe of the Great Leap where he refused to "be afraid of the challenges" of mass murder.
Really, muzzybelly? She (or a speechwriter) presumably got to choose what she'd say. So indeed, she could have said, "Mao said... (etc.). Now, obviously Mao is no role model. But even a mass murderer can occasionally stumble onto an idea, well outside the realm of his crimes, worth repeating..." or words to that effect. Instead we get Mao, one of her favorite philosophers.
Dizzy much, from all that spinning? *Ahem.* Let me take a page from your book: It's incredible to read some of the Left's comments. Do they REALLY think that Anita Dunn was wise to use Mao as an ideal? Do they REALLY think that she just "misspoke" when she called him one of her favorite philosophers, despite speaking from notes? Or is it possible, just possible, that they're desperately trying to stanch the bleeding caused by yes, again, that odd populist Glenn Beck?
Dunn's comment was incredibly stupid, but I think the most important thing is what has happened since she made the comment.
The fact that she has already doubled down (people are too stupid to get her irony) makes her look even more stupid,more arrogant and less trustworthy. I'd never heard her name before this and her original comment made me seriously question her political skills, but the refusal to see how bad this looks and not correct it immediately makes her look absolutely dreadful, and, more importantly, it makes OBAMA look very bad by association.
I predict she will start doing some serious apologizing soon, but it is already too late. Obama does not need this distraction -- I think she's going to be history.
This is why the Obama people were out in force this weekend of the talk shows trying to marginalize and demonize Fox. Clips like this are toxic to anyone who has even a vague understanding of 20th Century history and a shred or moral decency. And the fact that just last week she was the point person in trying to marginalize Fox--well, the administration would look very foolish and impotent if Fox was able to turn around and take her scalp. So, she's become more than a Van Jones, she's part of the larger power struggle; so this will largely be ignored by the rest of the press and the Obamabots will be out in force defending this tripe.
Dunn has been treated very fairly by Fox. No snippets, no jump edits, no paraphrase. At the risk of boring their audience, they supply all the context you could possibly hope for in presenting the damning quotes. The idea that Obama spokespersons would go out on the networks this weekend to denounce Fox for purposes of reversing the damaging effects of Dunn's comments is a weak strategy that only works because other media help them in what is a pure propaganda campaign.
And I don't even like Fox News. But it is what it is.
You know who else likes to quote Mao? The counterinsurgency theorists who are planning our war in Afghanistan. This is from Lt. Col. (Ret.) John Nagl's modern classic counterinsurgency text "Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife". It's a set of instructions Mao promulgated to the Eighth Route Army.
Rules:
All actions are subject to command
Do not steal from the people
Be neither selfish nor unjust
Remarks:
Replace the door when you leave the house
Roll up the bedding on which you have slept
Be courteous
Be honest in your transactions
Return what you borrow
Replace what you break
Do not bathe in the presence of women
Do not without authority search those you arrest
In view of the tens of millions who died during the Great Leap Forward I suppose we should refrain from quoting these rules, or from noting that they helped Mao win the war.
You know what kind of restriction of freedom of expression really concerns me? The vindictive effort to ensure that nobody ever says anything interesting or amusing, for fear that it could be aggressively misinterpreted and made to sound like they're endorsing Communism and mass murder. Yesterday morning I watched the sunrise and was about to note to my wife that "the East is red," and then I realized the comment would disqualify me from serving in any American administration.
Ya think Mao is one of Nagl's "favorite military philosophers"? I kind of doubt it.
You leftys are truly pathetic.
I bet he is. If not, he should be.
Matt, how would you react if someone in the Bush admin had said Adolf Hitler was one of their favorite political philosophers?
Matt, the problem with this quote is that it is precisely the attribute she is praising--Mao's indifference to the opinions of others, as well as a pig-headed unwillingness to acknowledge the potential downsides of his actions--that caused the millions of deaths. It's one thing to approvingly quote Roman Polanski on film. It's another thing to approvingly quote him on sexual morality.
TallDave, this is a tangential limb, but I actually think the semi-religious pop-cult demonization of Hitler is pretty misplaced and has negative effects on our ability to think and speak intelligently about history and politics. I recognize that you are correct that it would be political insanity for anyone to say "Let me cite two of my favorite philosophers, Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa," in a way it's not obviously insane to cite Mao. But that's because Hitler's name is a taboo bugaboo word. In fact Hitler was obviously a very insightful political tactician, and it could be really useful to be able to say that this or that is what Hitler thought about how to build a reactionary movement for jingoistic nationalist political dominance without it seeming like you're saying "Hitler believed in universal health insurance too!" or whatever.
And Megan, no, that's not true at all. What Mao is saying is that you don't have to fight by the other guy's rules, and he's right. That's why he won. It's not a sign of pigheaded indifference to others' opinions, it's an application of Sun-Tzu style asymmetrical strategy. The millions of deaths were caused by, well, Communist economic utopian silliness combined with the fact that famines and social upheaval may reinforce rather than undermine power in such a system. Stalin is reputed to have been quite sensitive to others' opinions and in fact to have had quite an inferiority complex, and he happily embraced various different Communist factional ideologies at different times for reasons of political convenience rather than insisting on his own ideas.
I have no idea what your point is. You seem to be mounting some generalist argument that communists aren't all the same, and yes, you're right. I'm not calling Anita Dunn a communist. I'm saying that praising Mao for "doing his own thing", "changing the rules", etc, ignores the fact that while this may have helped him win the insurgency, it also led to the deaths of tens of millions of people. You might want to pick an example who, um, knew when to stop marching to the beat of your own drummer.
"The millions of deaths were caused by, well, Communist economic utopian silliness"
Silliness?
If you'd spend some time learning more about Mao and the Great Leap, you'd find that the famine went on much, much longer than necessary simply because Mao didn't want to admit that he was wrong. People starved to death while the government storehouses were full of grain and China was exporting it, because to admit that the peasants didn't have secret hordes of grain would be to admit that Mao's ideas hadn't worked and thus that China should stop following Mao's path to 'modernization'.
Literally millions of people starved to death even after Mao knew what was happening, when he could have stopped the famine and saved them with a word. He chose instead to continue 'following his own path'. That's the example that Dunn offered these high school students, even if she's willfully ignoring the implications of her words.
Sorry, I assumed that being reasonably familiar with Communist history you wouldn't need it spelled out for you. The economic disasters of Mao's rule had little to do with his personal "stubbornness". Forced collectivization and Stakhanovite industrial policies under Stalin killed millions, not because Stalin was "stubborn" -- he could pivot on a dime, though he sometimes missed the turn -- but because these policies were part of the institution of complete state control of the economy. Similar disasters have ensued after every single Communist revolution that pursued full state control over the economy, regardless of the personal qualities of the man leading the revolution. The same is true of the dynamic of escalating political purges in totalitarian states; they take hold naturally in such a system, and have nothing to do with the character of the guy at the top. Millions did not die in China because Mao was a stubborn man, but because Communism is a bad way to run a country; the decision to pursue a people's war when you lack superiority in conventional arms reflects not stubbornness, but acuity; and the general insight that you don't have to fight by the other guy's rules is a good one that is commonly associated with Mao in popular culture.
"The vindictive effort to ensure that nobody ever says anything interesting or amusing, for fear that it could be aggressively misinterpreted and made to sound like they're endorsing Communism and mass murder."
Missed your defense of Rush Limbaugh where the left actually did what you claim the right is doing.
And we didn't even make up quotes out of whole cloth like the left did.
Sorry, did Rush Limbaugh at some point say something funny or interesting? Present me with the quote and I'll see whether I find it offensive.
Here's the quote:
‘I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: Slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back. I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.’
Pretty offensive, wouldn't you say? The problem is that there's no evidence that Rush ever said it. The quote was used on CNN and MSNBC to help tank Rush's chances of buying an NFL team. When challenged to offer a source, the first person to use the quote (a sports writers at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch) basically said that, OK, maybe Rush didn't say that, but he's said lots of other bad things, so there's really no harm done. Now that Rush has been cut from Checketts' group, CNN and MSNBC can just drop the subject for now, and people like you will probably discover the quote in a year or two and claim that it must be accurate because it comes from real news organizations.
Glenn Beck is smearing Anita Dunn in the same way that he smeared Van Jones - through their own actual quotes, rather than the imaginary ones used to attack Limbaugh.
Right. Lefties always manage to dig deep to find meaningless differences to maintain the fiction they have principles. Good to see you're a master of the tactic.
You hold on to your fictions, we'll recognize you as the partisan hack you are.
I do not know whether or not Rush Limbaugh said that.
"I do not know whether or not Rush Limbaugh said that."
Well, it must be OK, then, for CNN and MSNBC to use the quote to lobby against Rush buying into an NFL team. If someone can't prove that they didn't say something, the media might as well go ahead and report it.
Know the ways of the enemy. Schwarzkopf used similar military techniques in 91 that the Nazis used in WW2. It is tactics.
Most important political philosopher? The talk was stupid, vapid and shallow. Not unusual, but if you want to be stupid, vapid and shallow, aren't there some non-mass murderers around to quote?
All the fuss and bother is a desperate attempt to deny Beck another scalp. It wasn't he who hired that idiot.
Derek
this is splitting hairs to absurdity
If the US military studies Mao's military tactics, it doesn't make them a Maoist.
If a US military commander espouses Mao's political point of view -- well, that is a different story.
Is it SO hard to take into account your audience and your subject matter, and how the two may interact? Let's - for a moment - give Dunn the benefit of the doubt and believe her "irony" thing. She was talking to high school students. Were they likely to "get it"?
Sorry, Occam's Razor shaves closer than that.
As for the "vindictive effort" bit, goodness, I say again, is it SO hard to take into account your audience and your subject matter? Do you commonly, in private, eulogize Mao? If not, if even when you're just with your wife you qualify anything you might say about him ("Mao had some catchy sayings, and some good insights about persuasion. Of course, he was also a heinous mass murderer, which kind of poisons the well..."), why would you refrain from doing so in public? (Of course if you DO commonly laud the guy privately, then I strongly urge honesty in public; it makes it so much easier for the rest of us to understand you.)
I don't know the details to what you're referring to, but taking what you say on face value I see two situations:
Insurgency, war, conflict, in the very same region of the world that Mao was fighting in. Someone quotes an order of conduct, which has historical cultural in relation to orders of operations with historical significance in that region. And also appears to add nothing else about the quality of the source where it is coming from.
In another example, someone quotes of piece of insightful information (but not nearly unique enough that you can't find 10 leaders in every nation who have said the same thing) and then goes on to proclaim the most brutal dictator the modern world has ever seen as among their "favorite political philosophers".
I have no problem with that sentence Mao said, just like I have no problem with a 100,000 other things Hitler probably said. I imagine Hitler once said, "Damn this Schnitzel tastes great." But when I dine in Vienna I don't say to the waiter, "As my favorite philosopher, Hitler, once remarked, this Schnitzel tastes great." Hitler and I probably also have in common that we don't like to sleep on hard beds, don't like extreme heat or extreme cold, but it wasn't until I read the buffoonery in this thread that I realized it was now necessary for me to think of things I had in common with Hitler.
Is this really what passes for being "enlightened" for some people? Finding areas we have in common with mass murdering dictators?
For what it's worth when I first heard that quote from Dunn, I thought it was so incredibly ridiculous that she would say it that she was either baiting the reaction for some shrew political purpose (what could that be?) or that she was aware the Chinese would hear of it and it would endear them to this administration, which Obama needs if he wants to keep the government running for a few more years before it collapses under its own weight.
One significant difference between Hitler and Mao is that Mao was one of the best and most insightful commanders of a people's insurgency in history. Hitler was a military idiot.
"One of my favorite philosophers" is an ironic turn of phrase that you don't expect the audience to take seriously. I once heard a film professor deliver a lecture which began by stating that her favorite movie was "Uncle Buck". She obviously didn't expect the audience to take the statement seriously, but it was a good provocative introductory stance.
So she was actually showing disrespect to Mao in that case? Along with Mother Theresa... Is she not a favorite then? Or was she also being mocked with irony as you suggest?
No, what was being presented with irony was the transposition of the two. "One of my favorite philosophers is Yogi Berra, along with Jesus Christ." Is this literally true? Am I mocking either of the above?
It's unfortunately just as tedious to complain that a statement is being taken out of context as it is to take a statement out of context. But to actually think that Mao Tse-Tung is one of her favorite philosophers, or that Mother Teresa is, is ridiculous. It's a rhetorical figure.
I am actually trying to think of an instance in which similar iniquities have been visited upon a conservative figure, but I can't. When Bush said Jesus was his favorite philosopher, I didn't take that literally, either. I mean, maybe it was true, maybe it wasn't. The thing that was depressing, to me, was that it was a tedious conformist answer meant to placate a political constituency. This is not a tedious conformist answer meant to placate a political constituency. It's a joke meant to perk up the ears of people who don't expect to hear Mao referred to favorably, and certainly not in the same sentence as Mother Teresa.
There is some small chance that a person who suffered under Mao's regime might be present in the audience. Such a person would have standing to complain that Mao is not an appropriate figure for such a rhetorical turn. The rest of us, we're just messing around with the bogus moral sensationalism of the idea of mass purges.
Here's what you'd say about Yogi, Jesus, and Mao: They had a way with words and could each say say things very pointed and insightful. But if that was also you said, without pointing out that one of them was indeed a terrible person who is responsible for the death of millions and suffering of hundreds of millions you'd be very remiss. The fact that she does not go out of her way to distance herself from the 20th centuries worst dictator or seem to think it would be necessary after just referring to him so favorably is concerning (But I'm not concerned that she could actually repeat Mao actions, because she and her associates wouldn't last long if they had the intention of trying anyway.)
I am not in the least familiar with a rhetorical usage of the phrase "my favorite philosopher" that does not involve the speaker giving deference to the person they said was their favorite. Perhaps if she was saying it with complete sarcasm, but I really don't think she was being sarcastic.
Now I can agree that everyone says, "my favorite thing is..." when clearly it is not your favorite as we all seem to have 100 favorites. Is that what you mean? But I would never put someone who I abhor into my list of favorites. Maybe if she said, "One of my favorite things a terrible person once said was..."
People gave Bush a hard time for saying Jesus was his favorite philosopher, it was to mock Bush for being a religionist.
If Bush were to remark that both Hitler (or Mao) and Jesus were his favorite philosophers in a single sentence I would not be in awe of his rhetorical use of irony. I would either thing he was a complete idiot and/or has some serious issues.
People are rushing to defend her and this statement because they agree with her politics and because they dislike Beck.
That was the longest clip I've ever seen of the Beck show and it was a bit odd... Within a minute, he seems to jump around from being deeply, emotionally sincere and concerned to stark raving mad--"I know the end of the world is coming and no body believes me."
But that doesn't change anything about what Dunn said and apparently believes (that she respects Mao as a philosopher).
"One significant difference between Hitler and Mao is that Mao was one of the best and most insightful commanders of a people's insurgency in history. Hitler was a military idiot."
And Mao was an economic idiot. Mao was unusually, painfully stupid even among those simple enough to fall for the communist free lunch fairy tale. Plus he was deeply, disgustingly immoral.
But Dunn didn't cite Mao's military abilities, she cited his political philosophy, which was 'it doesn't matter how many tens of millions of people die, as long as I get what I want.' She used Mao as an example of how these high school students should go out and decide their own actions without worrying about traditional ethical limitations. Mao killed tens of millions to get what he wanted, so they shouldn't hesitate to pursue their own paths regardless of who gets slaughtered in the process. It was a sick joke, if she meant it as a joke.
No. She cited the following dictum: "You fight your war, and I'll fight mine." This refers to employing a people's war strategy to beat a militarily better-equipped foe. And Mao was right. He won. It was good advice. In fact, Dunn was using that point to make a broader one: you don't have to reach your goals by fighting the same way the enemy, or everyone else, does. You use the advantages you have to win.
I would embrace Mao's point here wholeheartedly. The idea of centralized Soviet-style economic collectivization, not so much. The idea of a one-party state, no way. Know-nothing cultural revolutions that disdain academic wisdom and the rule of law, definitely not. But on that point of strategy, he's absolutely right. And it's a good message for graduates to learn.
Yeah, but being an economic idiot doesn't separate the two - neither had much of a clue about economics. Mao was worse, certainly, but I wouldn't want Hitler in control of a lemonade stand either(and not just for what he might mix into the drinks).
Matt,
Anytime a White House official approvingly cites Mao and calls him a "favorite political philosopher," there's a moral duty owed to 50 million dead Chinese to also note that he was one of history's greatest monsters. To omit such a qualification is to invite this kind of (justified) criticism.
I mean, for God's sake, this sounds like she's spent her life carrying around the Little Red Book in her back pocket. At the very least, this is incredibly obtuse in terms of PR.
"One of my favorite philosophers" is an ironic turn of phrase that you don't expect the audience to take seriously.
It is? Why not? And especially why not if you're talking to a group of graduating high school students, including surely a few who until that moment had never heard of Chairman Mao.
I once heard a film professor deliver a lecture which began by stating that her favorite movie was "Uncle Buck". She obviously didn't expect the audience to take the statement seriously, but it was a good provocative introductory stance.
Your example makes the opposite point you're trying to make. First of all, there is nothing inherently evil about "Uncle Buck." I actually think it's a pretty good movie and I wouldn't be ashamed to say so in a film class. Saying it's "the best" out of context would make me just look like a crummy film critic. The fact that the comment was meant ironically would have to rely on context, aided perhaps by a clever follow-up remark and, crucially, the fact that the film class is an audience of specialists who would have already known about "Casablanca," "The Bridge on the River Kwai" and "8 1/2."
In context, Dunn was trying to set up an inspirational story. There was no clever follow-up remark. And her audience was comprised of non-specialists.
To be clear: The remark doesn't tell me Dunn is a Communist. It would shock me if at the end of the day we found out she was living a double life as a communist indoctrinator. What it tells me is that Dunn is morally blind and intellectually obtuse.
"One of my favorite philosophers" is an ironic turn of phrase that you don't expect the audience to take seriously. I once heard a film professor deliver a lecture which began by stating that her favorite movie was "Uncle Buck". She obviously didn't expect the audience to take the statement seriously, but it was a good provocative introductory stance.
That is not what I got out of it.
She went on for a long time., the equivalent of several paragraphs. What I got from it was "Don't let other people tell you what you can and can't accomplish". And Mao is an example of someone who was able to accomplish an awful lot over the complaints of approximately 60 million Chinese dissidents.
What, in your opinion, was the message in the Mao section of this speech?
Uh huh. So what she was commending to a bunch of high school students was Mao's tactical military brilliance? Because high school students know a lot about military tactics. Obviously, when you mention Chairman Mao to them, they don't think of his years at the helm of the Chinese communist party, which is really a historical sideshow to everyone's in depth understanding of his tactical military brilliance.
These are not, to put it mildly, good defenses of that quote. It's a perfectly fine reason for counterinsurgency strategists to study his tactics. It is not a perfectly sound reason to recommend him to high school students who know nothing about military tactics, and probably won't have any reason to learn in their long lives.
Megan, when you posted this video, I had the precise mirror image of your experience. I thought, well, Megan's smart, and she watched it, and she thought it really was out of bounds. So maybe I better watch it, and see if my initial instinct to dismiss the brouhaha was incorrect.
So then I watched the clip, and I found a garden-variety endorsement of an insight routinely associated with Mao when people talk about strategic thinking: that you don't have to fight a contest on the other guy's rules. The "people's war" vs. "conventional conflict" analogy is one of the most widely employed ways of illustrating this point. A lot of people would cite Sun-Tzu to make the same point, and certainly you don't have to use Mao as the example. But as it happens, Mao and Ho Chi Minh are two figures who are routinely cited to illustrate the point, in American culture. That probably has to do with the fact that they beat our guys, which gives the insight a bit more oomph coming from their mouths. And the Mao quote really is quite a pithy encapsulation.
It's not a point limited to "military tactics". Why was there that whole fad a few years back of businessmen reading Sun-Tzu? It wasn't for his insights into the use of artillery. It was the stuff about never interrupting your enemy when he is making a mistake, and that sort of thing. The "you fight your war, I'll fight mine" maxim is widely applicable in just about every competitive endeavor. It's a bit banal, sure. But what's wrong with banality in a commencement address?
I think you've fallen prey to silliness here. A lot of people cite Stalin's possibly apocryphal line "How many divisions does the Pope have?" If someone were to preface that by saying, "Let me cite one of my favorite philosophers, Joseph Stalin. How may divisions does the Pope have?", would your first instinct be to say "That is offensive, and you should have coupled it with a boilerplate notice that Joseph Stalin was a horrible mass murderer." Of course not. It's a figure of speech. In this instance, it's a political mistake to have picked this figure of speech. It's possible to twist it out of context. But smart people are supposed to recognize that kind of twisting and not take it seriously.
I'm really troubled by your willingness to lie through omission.
She didn't say, "one of my favorite philosophers", she said, "one of my TWO favorite philosophers."
That is a huge difference.
But since you intend to defend her, I cannot accept that as an accidental omission.
In trying to defend her, you certainly would be careful not to accidentally insist she said, "My favorite philosopher, bar none!"
I've seen this pattern by liberal apologists over and over and over: an inability to use exact quotes when inexact quotes and just-barely-altered summations can help to introduce some measure of plausible deniability.
To all conservative/libertarian readers,
Please be careful in your discussions with this sort of people. They will use these minor dishonesties to erode the facts.
Just like when the 8+ reasons President Bush gave to invade Iraq were slowly eroded down to WMD, so that when we were unable to find a large, current stock of WMD they were able to fabricate a charge of "Bush lied".
(Please note: WMD has been found in Iraq...first only in small amounts, so the liberals moved the goalposts of requiring large quantities, then when significant quantities were used IEDs, they demanded new material in large stocks...but I digress).
Do not concede an inch.
When they dishonestly elide, as in this typical example of changing "One of my two favorite philosophers" into a much-less offensive "one of my favorite philosophers", don't let them get away with it!
Oh, for Christ's sake. You're right. She said "One of my two favorite philosophers: Mao, and Mother Teresa. Not often thought of in the same sentence!" or words to that effect. And that was the whole point of the gag. It was to couple those two names together, like, hey, whoda thunk?
Is this a cute gag? Who knows by now; explain any joke five million times and it starts to sound pretty dumb. But if you actually think she was really saying that Mao and Mother Teresa are her two favorite philosophers, you're just being ridiculous. First of all, neither of them are philosophers. The woman's not an idiot, I think we can all concede.
In related news, Anita dunned parisanship, not to mention cognition, by saying that in this time of stress, she drew strength from beauty in a home decorated in the style of her favorite interior designer, Adolf whatsinaname.
Thanks to Ms. McArdle for posting that, it's good to see what all the fuss is about.
Also, I now know that Ms. McArdle is not worth paying attention to for anything other than her particular take on current issues in business and economics. She's clearly not stupid, so she must just be too plugged into the American conservative/libertarian/right wing/whatever world to be able to see clearly. I'm being charitable here. I don't think she's dishonest or sensationalist, just limited.
This argument would be just right for Kos or Huffington Post. But it's a wrong forum.
Huh? This blog is Megan McArdle's blog. Did she not introduce the topic? I don't think The Atlantic has told her what she can and can't blog about. Have you read other blogs? They argue politics, then post music videos or discuss the NBA. The ability to take on side-topics is a feature of most blogs and for that matter most opinion commentary.
Paul Krugman is an economist too. Are his columns "the wrong forum" for discussions of politics? That would be news to him.
Vail,
I was talking about Stephen B's argument. He used an ad hominem argument that was completely irrelevant. It's common on left-wing blogs to use a connection to Fox News or GOP as a substantive argument, while it is not a decent argument on this thread. I personally have no problem with Megan McArdle's discussing any topic on her own blog.
grrizzly,
Got it. Thanks and sorry for making you have to clarify.
Stephen B ought to look at how Megan introduced the video:
I thought that this must be some kind of grotesque conservative exaggeration, but no, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn really did tell a graduating high school class to emulate Mao Tse-Tung's bold and imaginative attitude during his takeover of China. Most of us look at the tens of millions who died and maybe think twice about trying to imitate the late Chairman, but hey, think different!
This is exactly what Stephen B, bas and others are afraid of: Someone who refuses to stop looking for information after first thinking anything from a discreditable source "must be some kind of grotesque conservative exaggeration." You're not supposed to press play on that video -- that's the point of all these crocodile tears about "Megan is quoting Glen Beck, oh no!" You're supposed to accept Media Matters' spin and not contaminate yourself and risk losing respect by actually exposing yourself to what Dunn said. "See for yourself" is no longer acceptable.
I wasn't making an argument, I was commenting on Ms. McArdle's post. I think the fact that she takes the Mao reference in the same way as Glenn Beck and the folks at the Corner is quite revealing. I think she is probably more honest than most of them. But maybe I've been misinterpeting her.
Stephen,
Do you understand that pointing that McArdle took the Mao reference in the same way as Glenn Beck and therefore it reveals something negative about her is pure nonsense? I guess not. Imagine, most people don't always modify their opinions to be the exact opposite of Fox News. This reminds of Soviet Communists whose opinions were supposed to track the latest editorials in Pravda. I guess in Barack Obama's America the proper opinions must be the opposite ones of Glenn Beck or the Corner.
Trying to reply one more time to grizzly's 12:44 pm comment.
Hey grizzly, the sarcasm about people modifying their opinions to be be different from Fox News has no apparent relation to my comment.
My opinion is that to take Dunn's remarks as presented in Beck's videotape either as evidence that she is a great admirer of Mao, or as a terrible gaffe, is ridiculous. This is just another idiotic propaganda red herring that the administration's enemies are finding useful this week. By promoting it, Ms. McArdle is either signing on with that disreputable crew, or else revealing herself to be one of those who who takes them seriously. I prefer to believe the latter.
Do you have a specific issue with Beck's videotape? Has he distorted the videotape of Anita Dunn's speech? How else can you interpret Dunn's claim that Mao was her "favorite political philosopher"? I find disreputable those people who resort to ad hominem arguments while insisting that they are making a substantive point. Or maybe they are just dense.
At least you can spell her name (bas).
- Another and entirely unrelated McArdle
P.S. What's she seeing unclearly?
So perhaps she should have said, "One of my favorite military strategists" not "one of my favorite political philosophers".
Star Trek, Season 2, Episode 21 : Patterns of Force
Stupid, but not as bad as this discussion.
By the way, Megan, your title for this post was PERFECT.
I hope the book where Tom Wolfe's "Radical Chic" report appeared is still in print. A lot of the folks who have become unhinged by your decision to post the video on what they formerly assumed was a site that knew well enough never to breach the circled wagons would find that essay enlightening and disturbingly on-point. It's about the sheer comedy that went along with Leonard and Felicia Bernstein's fundraising cocktail party for the Black Panthers, i.e. a bunch of wealthy, accomplished Manhattanites whose grasp of left-wing radicalism extended no further than that it was cool, transgressive and it made the hated Establishment uncomfortable.
If a Chairman Mao ever arose in the US, Anita Dunn has no idea that she'd be among the first shipped off to be re-educated on some farm and shot in the back if she complained. She thinks Mao is this rilly rilly interesting guy you talked about in college, and wouldn't it have been ultra-cool to meet him? Far out. That's who Obama thinks should be in charge of White House communications. Pathetic.
To be fair, most of Gene Roddenberry’s ideas for how a fully functional government or society should be organized were pretty stupid (although trying to advance a planet’s development by copying the national socialist model was daft even for Star Trek).
Star Trek politoeconomic theory in a nutshell:
"Communism can work! We just need warp drives and stuff!"
And a magical replicator that makes stuff (literally) out of thin air, a virtually limitless energy supply and hypo-sprays that can fix any injury or ailment within the span of a 45 minute episode with no lingering side effects.
The first part (warp drives) of which required a profit motive to invent. See Star Trek: First Contact :)
Eh, it seems pretty innocuous to me. It's gold, not for the Right but for Team Obama, who are always happy to have their opponents out there with some non-substantive issue that makes those opponents look a little bit crazy. David Axelrod should send the WH staff out there to make speeches invoking this or that figure out of the Marxist pantheon, to keep conservatives busy while Obama gets to work turning us into statist androids.
Anita Dunne appears to be mildly retarded.
That said, the panty-twisting party that is forming on both sides of this "issue" is a good deal stupider. This is some ado about nothing, so no surprises in any of the reactions here, especially not Megan's, congenitally attracted to nothingness, she herself is nothing if not nothing, but is always willing to generously qualify her nothing about nothing with more nothing as she backs into the corner with her gin and tonic. She badly needs some populous flyover-righty cred after she angered the "liberpublican" base with her poorly calibrated digs at Rushbo and Radio Free Beck. So she HT's Beck, even as she reminds us how much smarter she must be.
At some point you "conservative" folks will realize that this endless carping over tiny bits of nothing is not some valiant defense of first principles, but just pointless bitterness and the stink of your own rotten, mean, souls.
Wait a minute. No you won't.
yep-- Anita says something really dumb in absolute, and when one considers her profession is "communications" in a political setting -- it raises what she said to spectacularly dumb.
and who is the rotten person is all this? Megan, who simply posted a video of what Anita said.
trust me, had Karen Hughes said that Jefferson Davis was one of her favorite political thinkers, the left wouldn't be so sanguine over the comments.
Does anyone else see the hilarious irony and disingenuousness in this comment?
Who the hell would waste their time reading, much less commenting, much less going deep into the triple digit comment region, for a blogger who writes about nothing?
Are you under house arrest and have nothing better to do? Or are you working for Soros and monitoring suspicious sites for statements you can exploit for effect on Media Matters?
Unless that's the case, you obviously care a great deal about what McArdle says. Some day, explain why you pretend otherwise.
P.S. I agree with you that Anita Dunn is "mildly retarded." That's why this is a moderately significant issue. She is who our president thinks should be in charge of all his communications, which is kind of an important function for the POTUS and the LOTFW. Do you care that she might have a defective sense of history, politics and/or has a really inept way of joking? Kind of dangerous either way you go here.
Maybe Dunn's the one who had the idea of programming an iPod with Obama speeches and giving this "gift" to the Queen of England. That was also mildly retarded. And the way this internal debate over Afghanistan is being handled. Mildly very retarded.
I want this president to succeed. At this point, I think Anita Dunn is a bigger obstacle than Fox News and the Blue Dogs combined.
Look, I happen to find nihilism interesting. Why is that so odd? Of course I care a great deal about what McArdle is saying. I hope I didn't convey anything else. I wish I had more time to write about it. I honestly find it fascinating. Like Balloon-boy. What's most fascinating about McArdle is that I have a feeling she really honestly believes the nothing that she says. And that's a kind of Maoist riddle that I find engaging.
Let's compare and contrast. You obviously give a ?@#! and think that somehow this video-- that either does or does not mean that this relatively dim lady is a raging violent communist or badly undereducated-- has some great bearing on things. And you're at great pains to write over and over about how disturbing and pathetic it is and how it should rock our world that Obama has such bad judgement etc etc etc. Maybe. Probably not, but if you want to believe that, this video certainly allows you to I guess. That's not so interesting.
But does McArdle care? Not a whit. She even kind of admits she doesn't care and doesn't think it matters, but JUST SAYIN'. That's interesting.
So why is she Just sayin? Did she just need something from Glen Beck--she wanted to make a HT to those mean kooks because like it or not (I imagine she kind of does and kind of doesn't) that's a big part of her market. Does she needs to skim the creme of the frothy Beck urine to keep the Atlantic gin and tonics flowing? Inquiring minds want to know. McArdle is never more interesting than when she goes slumming, because you can tell she wants to hold her nose. And yet why? What is she supposed to stand for that Beck and Hanity and Linbaw affronts? There's the fun.
Who cares what McArdle really thinks? If it helps discredit nihilistic pinko-commie fanboys, go for it Megan!
Hey grizzly,
All I've seen is the video as posted above, and I stopped watching that when the footage of Dunn's speech seemed to end and it looked like there would be a minute or so of Beck talking about it. It appeared to me that there was a little irony there in the reference to Mao. Not a brilliant piece of public speaking, syntactically tangled, apparently ex tempore. Imo, anyone who makes big "gotcha" claims that it amounts to promotion of Maoism either is being disingenuous or else is living in some kind of conservative media world where Democrats are closet Stalinists.
"some kind of conservative media world where Democrats are closet Stalinists."
Ha ha ha! What a concept. How could anybody in their right minds think that? Just because the WH denounces, funny word, denounce, when was it that it got a lot of usage... Oh well., denounces a news network by name for less than fawning coverage. That's certainly not stalinist. Or fires the CEO of GM and replaces him with a political contributor? No, that is good ol' American way, that. Or over-rides the will of local voters expressed in a supermajority in a local election and imposes a partisan solution... no, that's not stalinist.... I just don't get it. What about the time Democrats tried to take the slogan "United we Stand" and replace it with "United we Serve" and turn 911 into a "National Day of Service" of left wing causes. "When the language is perfect the revolution will be complete" Orwell in 1984. Remember when the Palin's cooch obsessed gay writer here used to be into Orwell?
Now Sully uses Orwell as a template, not a warning.
In my opinion, anyone who can flat out ignore Dunn's statement of "one of my two favorite political philosophers" or claim non-existent irony is a half-step away from being full-on Truther moonbat.
But hey, I realize the first rule of Liberals is No Liberal Can Ever Be Wrong. So don't let me slow you down.
Let's be clear about this ... not only did she say that Mao was one of her two favorite philosophers, she told the school kids that she "keeps returning to them".
Those are not the words of an offhand joke. Those are the words of a moral criminal.
Watch the video again and listen.
And then tell me what's up with the lizard tongue routine. I thought these people had learned by now how to better hide their satanic twitches.
Remember when Bush said "Heckuva job, Brownie"? Or when he said "Mission Accomplished"? Was he being ironic?
What in that clip suggests Dunn was being any more ironic than Bush?
Mao most importantly was an enemy of the USA. He sent Red Chinese soldiers across the Yalu River in North Korea to battle, i.e. kill, American forces. And plenty were killed. The surviving vets still walk amongst us today. And the precarious truce that has left a nuke bearing NorKor tyrant who starves his own people and threatens the world is a direct result of Dunn's fave political philosopher.
This is a marker of the civilizational collapse amongst our Democrat elite. That emulation of an American killing, mass murderous thug can be suggested to the scions of the US elite at a religious institution, while engaging in the rot of moral equivalence between Mao and Mother Teresa, with nary a reaction until Glen Beck spotlights it, is a damning indictment of all things in the Democrat party, academia, and the MSM.
Obama really is a Manchurian Candidate.
Its amazing. If a non-leftist makes any kind of remark that can be interpreted in any way to give offense to anyone at all the response is MORAL OUTRAGE. When a leftist makes a remark about a mass murderer being one of her favorite political philosophers you're not supposed to get upset. There is no problem. Enlightened people can do no wrong--if you think they have you've just misunderstood what they were trying to say, probably because you're too stupid to understand and can't grasp the "irony" behind what they had to say.
What utter trash. The problem of deploying a double standard too often is that it begins to be perceived as what it truly is--a double standard. Its very convenient when you use it to your own benefit against others, but it builds up a huge reservoir of resentment against the ones who wield it, and when the levies break the price of the double standard may be high indeed.
Obama the Pretentious may learn this before his term of office expires.
(Just as an aside, has anyone else noticed that the hardcore Obama supporter's on blog comments tend to have a first name followed just by an initial? Why is there such a pattern? Is it required by the ACORN troll manual?)
When a leftist makes a remark about a mass murderer being one of her favorite political philosophers you're not supposed to get upset. There is no problem.
Not quite right. You're not supposed to even mention it. It didn't happen. The left's response is that since it was so obviously a knee-slapping joke, the only thing that could come from putting the video on one's site is to play into the utterly perverse and twisted interpretation that Glen Beck put on it, e.g. that Anita Dunn's words mean what they said. Only an idiot would think her words should be interpreted to mean what they said, but as the left clearly believes, the nation is full of idiots.
Get it?
I wonder if this is the reaction Ms. McArdle was looking for.
I think so. She needed some Beck love on here for the too-smart-for-beck crowd. Probably didn't want it getting more comments than one of here super-smart but totally undocumented Galtian economic fantasies. But she'll hold her nose all the way to the Atlantic pay office.
"Libertarians" should more openly embrace their inner Becks.
Actually, Mr. Roddenberry had died by the time First Contact had come around. So it is possible the writers had a little more freedom than they would have with him around.
Why, prey tell, has it taken so long for everybody (mostly libs), to wake up and smell the hashish? This White House is an enclave Communist wannabes.
That's it Skip run with that. More on that line.
Thems there is sum pot smokin hippies! Thank the lord Jesus for Glen Beck a-opnin our eyes to thems there commanists and so forth.
Beautifully written. Here's probably the most blatant example of such nose-holding. As for Beck's urine and Martinis, well, she will have to keep going. The readership is established now.
Being an East Coast libertarian economic blogger is the stuff tragedies are made of.
The actual relevance of Mao here is the question of whether in response to this post one achieves one's goals most effectively by: 1. presenting one's actual opinions in a clear fashion in comments; 2. ignoring the post and not commenting; 3. calling attention to the meta and strategic issues that surround the decision to make the post and the decisions by others to comment. This seems to present opportunities for asymmetric engagement that might really get the conversation going somewhere, but they're more complicated than they appear.
To do so one must first have an idea of what one's own "goals" are, and of what the "goals" of the blogger and the other commenters are. However, making any statement referencing these presumed goals is interpreted as an extremely aggressive maneuver in any conversation, including those we call "blogs". A blog presumes that all statements appearing on it have their face value as intention. This is even more true in blogs than in real-world interactions, since a blog is pure speech with no possibility of extra-bloggy activity. A reference to presumed extra-denotative intent in a real-world conversation may move the terrain into something more emotive, collective action, or physical activity of some kind; on a blog, it simply pushes us into a terrain of non-resolvable claims and counterclaims about intent. And that's where bupalo's kind of stuff, inventive as it is, and regardless of its particular political direction, takes us.
I am sympathetic to your points, Matt. But I don't quite agree with you.
Speculating about motives in a blog is very likely to be futile and unproductive. But commenting on a blog per se is already very likely to be futile and unproductive. Should bupalos and myself stop and ponder where our comments may take the discussion? Perhaps.
But I believe there's a bit more to what bupalos wrote than speculation on Miss McArdle's intentions. The regard that she (and most other people in her circles she moves) has for the likes of Beck and Limbaugh is very different from her readership's, as anybody can verify by a mere glance at the relevant comment sections. And, although she has her moments, Miss McArdle itself is much less inclined to reflexively engage in stale, tedious rants about the evils of leftists and the perils of socialism.
That's why this type of empty and superfluous post seems designed to satisfy a specific appetite.
Megan is actually one of the very few prominent bloggers on the internet that tempts me to "go meta," as you put it. I just think she's way more interesting as a personal situation than as a commentator. Take a look again at her original "commentary" here. Is it really commentary? I don't think it's a good idea to go right to the question of motives when there is a substantial issue in play-- but when there isn't, and when the commentator themselves basically admits that, then I think we're allowed to jump down the rabbit hole. Megan frequently has nearly content-free posts which just beg you to say "why would you write about that?"
Now I think we can all basically agree (as Megan does, too) that this particular post and topic is at best very lightweight, and at worst simply meaningless. And she never makes a thrust for it's meaningfulness, she just throws it up, starts a border skirmish, and then parries the parries. Rush-ing into the breech are the Media Conspiracy folks and Neo-McCarthyites that Megan needs, as well as a few well meaning defenders of this seemingly dim-bulb communications lady to keep the pot simmering. Megan doesn't want to actually fight the populist right's battles, but she needs to be seen fighting with them somehow. I feel for her. She gets mercilessly skewered here every time she tries to make a moral, ethical, or aesthetic distinction between herself and Linbaw et al.
Marketwise, she needs Beck and Linbaw nuggets. Hopefully ones that allow her to keep a straight face and keep her G&T down. It's pretty few and far between that she finds them. The fact that she went ahead and branded this one Beck was interesting to me.
For me, she is a great symbol for the traditional fiscal conservatives who are just in a kind of limbo right now, one that I think makes them gravitate to a kind of depressed nihilism.
Matt Steinglass -
I think that part of the disagreement on this thread is that many of us agree with what grizzly said early on:
"Communist sympathizers should be treated by polite society the same way Nazis and KKK members are treated now."
Do you disagree with this, and if so, why? After all, communism caused more deaths in the 20th century than all the wars combined. Wouldn't you be offended if a White House official, in a talk to high school students, told them to be inspired by the perseverance of the KKK, who kept pursuing their goals even though many Northerners tried to stop them? Similarly, wouldn't you be offended if she told them to imitate Hitler's determination to keep the death camps operating to the very end? How is this quote different?
You seem to be trying to separate Mao's determination and political will before he obtained power from that very same determination and political will after he obtained power, but what basis is there for this separation? There's no evidence of any kind of shift in his personality or attitudes. As Megan said above:
"Matt, the problem with this quote is that it is precisely the attribute she is praising--Mao's indifference to the opinions of others, as well as a pig-headed unwillingness to acknowledge the potential downsides of his actions--that caused the millions of deaths."
Ann, I've said two things above. The first is that the quote isn't about determination and political will. It's about not fighting by the other guy's rules. And that's an insight that works. The fact that Mao's victory led to millions of deaths because Communism sucks is a separate issue.
Second, as I've said above, I actually don't think it's healthy that we make taboos of figures like Hitler and Nathan Bedford Forrest (Oh, wait, actually we don't make a taboo of Forrest. Interesting) and aren't allowed to quote them without explicitly stating somewhere in the same paragraph "this is a bad guy and everything he said is bad". I think it leads to a lazy historical attitude that mainly allows us to exteriorize evil by pretending it's all just a problem of a Very Bad Man or a Very Evil Country that in no way resembles our own, without disaggregating the specific things that actually made those societies bad and dangerous. For instance, the fact that the Eight Route Army persevered with a people's-war strategy is not what made early Communist China a very bad society.
The idea that Anita Dunn shares any of Mao's more objectionable political beliefs because she praises his ability to think strategically about asymmetric strategies is silly.
Matt, I'm going by what Dunn said about the quote and about why she was using it. Here's what she said the high school students should learn from Mao:
"You don’t have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don’t have to follow other people’s choices and paths, OK? It is about your choices and your paths. You fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what’s right for you. You don’t let external definitions define how good you are internally. You fight your war, you let them fight theirs. Everybody has their own path."
How is this about military strategy? Mao followed his own path, even when it led to the deaths of millions. Even when he knew that his ideas hadn't worked and millions were starving to death, he still followed his own path until the slaughter got so bad that others forced him to stop (and he got those others later, in the Cultural Revolution). He didn't "let external definitions define how good you are internally". He felt that it was right for him to stick to his policies regardless of how many were killed, and he stuck to them.
Lay out your own path; figure out what's right for you; don't let external definitions define you. Where is military strategy mentioned? Perhaps others often use the quote to focus on military strategy, but that's not how Dunn used it.
Look, there's a new fuss now about Ron Bloom saying "We kind of agree with Mao that power comes largely from the barrel of a gun." I don't have any problem with Mao being quoted in that way, because it's clear that it's simply the quote that is being used. Dunn was trying to use Mao's life as inspiration for high school students. It's the idea of Mao himself as an inspirational figure - following his own path - that I object to.
Ann, the Mao quote seems to be the very opposite of the conformist thinking encouraged in a communist regime.
And you're allowed to quote Nazis, for Christ's sake. Many Erwin "Desert Fox" Rommel quotes are pretty famous. The one below is my favorite. If followed, it would have avoided the Iraq war.
"Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning."
"the Mao quote seems to be the very opposite of the conformist thinking encouraged in a communist regime"
Mao was the emperor, not a peasant! Communism doesn't believe that the supreme leader/Party members should conform, only that the riff-raff should do what they're told.
And I'm not against people quoting Mao (for example, I have no problem with the Ron Bloom quote, as I said). Dunn was holding up Mao's life, particularly his determination to be in a position to kill as many as he wanted, as something to be emulated. If she quoted Mao without knowing exactly what 'following his own path' led to, then she's an idiot (which seems pretty apparent anyway, given her incoherent speech and that weird reptile tongue move). Are you arguing that she deserves a position of power?
Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.
Megan, by you and your pal Beck's own logic would you say this to a person whose favorite president is Lincoln, "HOW COULD LINCOLN BE YOUR FAVORITE PRESIDENT? HE KILLED MORE AMERICANS THAN ANY OTHER PERSON EVER HAS!!!!" Dumb.
Read her post more carefully bedmondson. I think Megan is amused by Dunn's lameness, and surprised that the video isn't getting more play. It's the liberal commenters with their positions that this gaffe shouldn't have been covered or mentioned in any media that has inspired the furious reaction by independent-minded people. However you want to couch it, all you're really saying is "the media should not show news that embarrasses the Obama Administration." And, really, when you think about it, what you're doing is working. How many outlets have shown this video? Not many.