Just wanted to add a quick thought to the Anita Dunn/Mao
controversy. As Matt
demonstrates below, this is one of those instances in which
the broader context actually makes the speaker of a controversial
quote come off worse. Dunn doesn't just name Mao as one of her
two favorite political philosophers who she often "turn[s] to,"
but she goes on to tell the story of Mao's takeover of China as
an example of perseverance, without any qualification. It's
important to recognize, though, that the reason why the outrage
over this story has largely been confined to conservatives is
that Mao has managed to escape the stigma attached to other
totalitarian rulers of the 20th Century, namely Hitler and
Stalin. If any administration official had told an inspiring
story about Hitler as an example of perseverance -- a failed
painter who was written off after the Beer Hall Putsch, but who
emerged from prison to mount a political comeback that saw him
take over Germany -- that official would be gone instantly, even
with the liberal media.
It's unfortunate that Mao, a man who is responsible for the
deaths of 70 million people, isn't as politically toxic. Part of
this is a legacy of the romanticized portrait of Mao conveyed by
Edgar Snow, Mao's propagandist to the West, in the 1937 book
Red Star Over China, as well as subsequent liberal
apologetics for him in the decades that followed, and general
ignorance. American elementary and high schools teach European
and Cold War history, but don't tend to emphasize Chinese
history, meaning that people who want to learn more about the
world's most populous nation generally have to seek out that
knowledge on their own. For a more critical account of Mao's
brutal legacy, I'd recommend Jung Chang and Jon Halliday's
excellent
Mao: the Unknown Story to anybody who hasn't read
it.