TightWind is written by Kyle Baxter. Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.

The White House’s Communications Director, Anita Dunn:

There’s usually not a good reason and then the third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Zedong, and Mother Theresa, not often coupled with each other, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is you’re going to make choices. You’re going to challenge. You’re going to say why not. You’re going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before, but here’s the deal.

These are your choices. They are no one else’s. In 1947, when Mao Tse Tung was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai-Shek and the nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army. They had the air force. They had everything on their side, and people said how can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this against all the odds against you? And Mao Tse Tung said, you know, you fight your war, and I’ll fight mine, and think about that for a second.

Dunn later commented on her use of “favorite political philosophers”:

The use of the phrase ‘favorite political philosophers’ was intended as irony, but clearly the effort fell flat — at least with a certain Fox commentator whose sense of irony may be missing.

That’s an unconvincing explanation. There’s still a problem with citing Mao to argue that you should choose your own path and make your own decisions in life: Mao was the antithesis of making your own choices. After Mao’s CCP defeated the Nationalists and took control of China, Mao began systematically breaking down Chinese society and re-making it in his vision. He first broke the largest vestige of power, the landlords; then he broke the businessmen, and “nationalized” their businesses; then he broke the intellectuals and artists, so no one could criticize his actions; and finally, in his worst offense (known as the Cultural Revolution), he attempted to destroy China’s long history, to remove China’s connection to its past.

Within Mao’s China, people had no choice but to live how he wanted them to live. That’s just how it was. There is nothing to admire in Mao’s political philosophy. He was a thug whose actions caused the deaths of millions, even tens of millions, of Chinese.

So, of course, Dunn could claim this was the irony she was drawing on. But the anecdote that she uses to make her point is not ironic at all. There’s no contrast between her anecdote and how she describes Mao. Indeed, she portrays Mao as standing up for his own fight, despite the odds. When you’re describing someone as facing an impossible fight, and they fight it anyway, you’re not implicitly criticizing them. You’re lauding them.

And that’s precisely what she did. The CNN article notes that others, including Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove, have referenced Mao. Gingrich cited Mao with a statement strikingly similar to Clausewitz’s famous line that war is merely a continuation of politics, and Rove said in late 2008 that Bush recommended Mao’s biography to him.

Here’s the problem with that equivocating: they’re not equal. Rove’s comment doesn’t mean he (or Bush) admire Mao — simply that the biography is worth reading. I’ve read a good portion of Mein Kampf, but I certainly don’t respect or admire Hitler’s political philosophy nor his actions. Just the same, I’ve read Stalin’s biography. I cannot pass judgment, though, on Gingrich’s apparent citation, because I can’t find the speech in which he made it.

So the issue here isn’t that Dunn cited Mao.1 The problem is that she’s cited him in a positive light, and uses him to make a point — that you should make your own choices and pursue your own beliefs — that is wholly antithetical to Mao’s life and philosophy.

This can’t simply be dismissed.

1. I’ve taken more than a few Chinese history courses, and have cited Mao extensively. That doesn’t mean I admire his political philosophy. [↩]