Thoughts on “racist” Rush Limbaugh, and Maoist Anita Dunn.
[Saturday morning update]
Now we know why he passed on the Dalai Lama.
By the way, there’s nothing new about this, folks, for anyone who has been paying attention. Despite all the desperate attempts to disavow his relationship with Mike Klonsky, a Maoist so devout that he split with the Chinese after they became insufficiently devoted to the cause of the Great Leap Forward and other monstrosities, it remains.
[Saturday evening update]
The Maoist explains. But not very well.
Calling Dunn a maoist on the basis of what she said is silly. I’m not going to get into whether Rush Limbaugh is a racist, but at least the quote attributed to him (however unfairly) was actually objectionable. What Dunn said was not objectionable. What she said might be better compared to something McCain said recently.
When Dunn said “The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Tse Tung and Mother Teresa”, I suppose she might have been being serious, but I think she was being facetious in order to set up her point, which she promptly made by quoting and paraphrasing Mao regarding not letting other people define the kind of fight you waging — “You fight your war, and I’ll fight mine.” That sentiment isn’t an objectionable one, and has nothing to do with Mao’s murderous policies. Steinn’s supposedly comparable hypothetical speech by a Bush spokesman focuses on the Nazi’s anti-semitic and genocidal policies — and so it isn’t comparable at all.
Dunn’s comment might better be compared to something Senator McCain said recently. McCain also quoted Mao, with regard to Sarah Palin: “”Will Sarah and I — did we always agree on everything in the past? Will we in the future? No. But let’s let a thousand flowers bloom.” McCain isn’t a Maoist, and neither is Dunn.
McCain’s quote (with video) is here: “www.trentonian.com/articles/2009/10/12/opinion/doc4ad3503070000200061553.txt”
Also, on a humorous note, blogger James Nicoll wryly pointed out “Palin should be […] alarmed: many of the intellectuals who took Mao’s offer at face value were subsequently imprisoned or executed for the statements they made on the basis of that offer.”
So Bob, what makes Dunn’s story not objectionable? The consequences of Mao winning his war ended up killing at least 40 million Chinese. That’s the tie-in. The murderous policies wouldn’t have happened if Mao lost badly. Also all those cute sayings are part of a sophisticated propaganda effort to rationalize many vile actions of that era.
Why isn’t it ok to tell cheery, inspirational anecdotes about Hitler now? If we gloss over 40-70 million Chinese deaths (and who knows what else?), then what’s the big deal with a little genocide and anti-semitism?
Also, what’s the analogy with McCain? Did he mention Mao by name? Did he call Mao a “political philosopher” and ramble straight faced for a minute with an inspirational story about Mao? Was he “facetious” as you put it?
Also, Bob, how do you know McCain quoted Mao? I just realized that maybe we shouldn’t interpret it as being a Mao quote just because a bunch of damn flowers are blooming and some blogger mouths off. I know that’s breaking the narrative, but maybe you’d be better off ridding yourself of the tiresome habit of saying “But they’re doing it too”.
Karl, I have x questions to you (and anyone else, of course)
1) Do you think McCain’s quote was objectionable? McCain’s quote also resulted in the deaths of many innocents after Mao said it.
2) Is what McCain did different than what Dunn did when she quoted Mao? If so, how?
3) Is the only difference between Dunn and McCain this one: that she said that Mao was one of her favorite political philosophers?
4) Do you accept that she might have been being facetious when she said Mother Teresa and Mao were her favorite philosophers? I think her claim to liking Mao was entirely tied to her claim that Mao and Mother Teresa expressed the same philosophical point, and the two claims can only be viewed as part of a coherent whole to understand the context – do you agree?
Finally, regarding Hitler: be sure to not just go on what I wrote — be sure to follow the link, and compare Steyn’s hypothetical hitler remark to what Dunn said to understand why I think they are not similar at all, despite the similarities between Hitler and Mao (which includes how loathsome and evil both were.)
Also regarding Hitler: Can you (or anyone) suggest any comparable aphorism by Hiter regarding, say, wartime strategy, which does not itself mention genocide or anti-semitism or other inherently objectionable things? I’m currently reading the diary of a relative who survived a Nazi concentration camp, so my hatred of Hitler is particularly high at the moment. I’d like to put my words here to the test, by seeing if a Hitler quote could seem non-objectionable to me if taken out of context. This is purely subjective, and you’d have to rely on my honesty and lack of self-deception, so this is hardly a scientific exercise, but I’d still like to try it.
Karl, I believe “let a thousand flowers bloom” is Mao’s most famous saying.
Also, I almost never say “but they are doing it too” or “they did it too”, regarding, say the similarities between Obama and Bush or Democrats and Republicans. . I find that just as tiresome as you do. Steyn was playing the comparison game (after all, what does Dunn really have to do with Limbaugh?) and I thought that if you are going to do comparisons, lets compare a Mao quote with a Mao quote. Also note that what makes Obama supporters so tiresome is when they argue that Obama is blameless on something “because Bush did it too”. Yuck. That’s horrible moral logic. I’m not doing that.
Just to be clear, my comments and Karl’s were asynchronous — I didn’t see all of Karl’s comments when posting mine. I suppose he partly answered my questions even while I was asking them. Karl, I hope you can understand what I was driving at – that philosophical stances can considered apart from the loathsome people who said them. I do accept your points about McCain (for example, I think it is possible McCain may not have even thought of Mao, while Dunn clearly did), and I’m happy to drop the discussion of McCain and simply defend Dunn if you prefer.
1) Do you think McCain’s quote was objectionable? McCain’s quote also resulted in the deaths of many innocents after Mao said it.
No. The quote McCain used has become such a catch-phrase that it’s been applied by people to everything from new product ideas to bacterial cultures.
2) Is what McCain did different than what Dunn did when she quoted Mao? If so, how?
Yes. He was speaking to a TV interviewer, not an auditorium full of high school graduates and their family members.
3) Is the only difference between Dunn and McCain this one: that she said that Mao was one of her favorite political philosophers?
Obviously not.
4) Do you accept that she might have been being facetious when she said Mother Teresa and Mao were her favorite philosophers?
No, what she seemed to find amusing was categorizing both as political philosophers.
GO Bob-1 GO!! Defend the indefensible for all your worth!! You completely ignore the point of the post and go right into blind support for Obama and his gang of totalitarians. It takes until October from June for the WH to say she was just kidding, after she’s called out on it. The left puts out “quotes” Rush didn’t say and vilifies him with the overt support of the media and no one seems too worried about this egregious breach of ethics on their part.
I watched the video of her saying Mao was one of her favorite philosophers. If she was being facetious she didn’t indicate it.
“Karl, I believe “let a thousand flowers bloom” is Mao’s most famous saying.
Bob, Adolf Hitler’s most famous quote is about needing elbow room.
You are basically defending an admirer of the most successful mass murderer in all of recorded history…because you agree with her politics.
You are totally shameful.
Actually the McCain quote does show the degree of unequal treatment, at least among certain bloggers. For example, you and this James Nicoll make a big deal of McCain’s saying “Let a thousand flowers bloom.” Did McCain imply anything positive about Mao by paraphrasing part of a quote of Mao’s? He probably didn’t even know that saying originally came from Mao (or more accurately through Mao to whatever sources Mao might have used).
Yet, some how this innocuous comment is equivalent to what Dunn did, which is to called Mao one of her favorite philosophers, in the same breath as Mother Theresa, tell the anecdote about the trouble he had in 1947, and then lay down the quote. All in front of an audience of high school students who while jaded probably are more gullible as a whole than the adult population.
Bob, Adolf Hitler’s most famous quote is about needing elbow room.
And what’s more natural than wanting some more space, a little more freedom? Surely, we’ve never heard that sentiment in popular culture or among the politicians.
I don’t care to be called for shameful. If I’m making a partisan defense, it was in response to partisan attacks. I said it is silly to call Dunn a Maoist. I suppose I could say it was “shameful”, but I can’t take such partisan attacks all that seriously. I’m not defending Mao, and I’m not defending a Maoist. Furthermore, neither Steyn & Rand’s argument or mine relies on partisan issues, so even if they are motivated by partisanship, they are they can be judged independently of it.
However, thank you for the reminder regarding Hitler’s Lebensraum slogan from Mein Kampf. It isn’t quite what I was looking for, since it clearly refers to displacing Slavic people with Germans in an objectionable way, and yet it reminded me that I grew up with two non-objectionable references to the idea.
Here are two non-objectionable references to elbow room, or “Lebensraum”.
THe first is clearly a Hitler reference, one that I’ve enjoyed for years and years, and Rand, as a former L5 society member, I imagine you’ve enjoyed it too. The second reference is from a educational video series for children called “Schoolhouse Rock” popular in the 1970s and fondly remembered by people who were children then. The episode is called “Elbow Room” – click on my name to watch a short youtube video:
The first reference is one of my favorite songs, sung to the tune of Home On The Range.
Oh, give me a locus where the gravitons focus
Where the three-body problem is solved,
Where the microwaves play down at three degrees K,
And the cold virus never evolved.
Home, home on LaGrange,
Where the space debris always collects,
We possess, so it seems, two of Man’s greatest dreams:
Solar power and zero-gee sex.
We eat algea pie, our vacuum is high,
Our ball bearings are perfectly round.
Our horizon is curved, our warheads are MIRVed,
And a kilogram weighs half a pound.
(Chorus)
If we run out of space for our burgeoning race
No more Lebensraum left for the Mensch
When we’re ready to start, we can take Mars apart,
If we just find a big enough wrench.
(Chorus)
I’m sick of this place, it’s just McDonald’s in space,
And living up here is a bore.
Tell the shiggies, “Don’t cry,” they can kiss me goodbye
‘Cause I’m moving next week to L4!
—
—
The second reference:
“www.youtube.com/watch?v=twFs9Vk6F0A&feature=PlayList&p=7D05F2E62228AE48&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=5” or click on my name.
Obviously both references are of the same sort McCain made – there was no explicit mention of Hitler, just as McCain didn’t mention Mao, but I think it was a knowing and humorous reference in the first case, and I don’t know what to make of Schoolhouse Rock other than to say that it was enjoyable for me as a kid despite the implications that Manifest Destiny had for the native Amercans. Don’t miss the reference to space settlement and “Moon or Bust” at the end.
Bob, what would she have to do to be a Maoist, in your mind? Wear the jacket? If she’s not a Maoist, is being an admirer of Mao much better? Or are you denying that she’s that, as well?
Thanks for asking Rand. To be either a Maoist or an admirer, she’d have to advocate at least one of the tenets of Maoism or advocate one of the key achievements of Chaiman Mao — so, you know, if she preached Agrarian Revolution or mass murder, there would be a real problem! But given what she actually said,and considering the Mother Teresa context, I think she was making a rather Donald Rumsfeld-like remark that defining problems is part of being a problem solver. I don’t agree with Rumsfeld on many many issues, but I admire his rule “If a problem seems unsolveable, expand it”: I don’t think admiring some of Rumsfeld’s rules makes me a Rumsfeldian, at least with regard to public policy.
Here’s a link to what Dunn said in response: “www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/16/beck.dunn/index.html” or click on my name.
To be either a Maoist or an admirer, she’d have to advocate at least one of the tenets of Maoism or advocate one of the key achievements of Chaiman Mao
Bob, please explain how someone can be one’s favorite, or one of one’s favorite philosophers, and yet you don’t admire them. We will find it entertaining to watch you twist yourself into a logical pretzel.
I’m now sure that Bob-1 and Jim are the same person. Both do that multiple commenting one entry after the other thing, both use the website field for links they want us to go to (and both say “click my name”) to let us know they have done that, and both are zombielike supporters of whoever represents the political left – these days, Obama. (When Bush was president, it was whoever was opposing Bush.)
Moving on…the phrase “let a thousand flowers bloom” has become part of common cultural usage — unfortunately so, IMHO. It’s funny, too, how Mao really didn’t mean it — or maybe what he meant was “No! I meant let a thousand of the same kind of flower bloom!”
Anyway, I wish people would quit using it as if it were a legitimate saying. It’s all part of the ongoing cute-ification of Communism that’s one of the left’s many projects — another example being the way this Dunn woman let a bunch of high school kids know that it’s okay to pick Mao Tse Tung as a favorite philosopher, as if he were someone like Socrates.
The key word is “facetious”. However, I already said that, and I want to be interesting, so I’ll advance a new explanation. I don’t necessarily believe it, but I think it is good to try to think of alternative explanations.
There are a variety of popular books, magazine articles, etc on the subject of the differences between how men and women speak in our culture. Some of them, like the works of Deborah Tannen, are somewhat scientific, while others aren’t scientific at all. Most of them will at least be amusing, particularly to married couples who are amazed at how simple comments can blow up into big misunderstandings.
My wife often says things like “I’ve always wondered how that works”, and I’ll reply “No, you wondered that for the last day or so, but you had never heard of it before then”, and she’ll snort and make fun of me for insisting on taking everything she says so literally. Similarly, she’ll say “you always do X”, and I’ll (accurately) reply “Once! I did X once, ok, maybe twice, and now I always do X? Harumph!”
Along those lines, my wife might say “That’s my favorite!” and it is just hyperbole, not something to be taken literally. I think Dunn may have been inaccurately expressing her enthusiasm for the idea of a problem solver defining a problem. I think she may have been amused that such disparate figures as Chairman Mao and Mother Teresa had arrived at the same idea, so she cited them, but given the lack of Dunn’s enthusiasm for Agrarian Revolution and mass murder, it might not be wise to take her words completely literally. Oh boy. If my wife sees this comment, I’m going to pay for it. 🙂
“…but given the lack of Dunn’s enthusiasm for Agrarian Revolution and mass murder…”
How do you know she has a “lack of enthusiasm” for those things? It’s true a normal person would, but a normal person wouldn’t say Mao — who was definitely enthusiastic about Agrarian Revolution and mass murder — was one of her favorite “philosophers” either.
Andrea, you can’t be serious. I enjoy Jim’s comments, but I’m not a Jimist. (Or a gymnast!)
I wish we all lived in the same town – I’m anonymous because commenting means every damn thing you say gets recorded for all time, but I wish we knew each other personally. I bet you’d be one of my supporters, with regard to local politics. Many of my allies are libertarians – I regularly policy meetings of a libertarian transparency group. I use the ideas I learn here to help relate to my libertarian friends, and more importantly, to promote less intrusive, more accountable, and fiscally responsible government at city council meetings.
But we don’t live in the same town, (probably), and if you wish to think of me as Jim, have at it. Please consider an alternate theory: Maybe I’m actually the other Bob!
How do you know she has a “lack of enthusiasm” for those things?
Oh, Andrea, have I got the perfect setup for you!
We know that Anita Dunn has a lack of enthusiasm for Agrarian Revolution and mass murder because she works for President Obama.
“We know that Anita Dunn has a lack of enthusiasm for Agrarian Revolution and mass murder because she works for President Obama.”
What the hell does that have to do with anything? You might as well have said “We know Anita Dunn has a lack of enthusiasm for Agrarian Revolution and mass murder because she purple the clown bay brings a cabbage.” It’s just nonsense. I asked you how you know she has certain beliefs, and you tell me who her boss is. I know that it’s hard for you to think that of anything but Obama, but try to focus.
Someone who says Mao Tse Tung as one of their “favorite political philosophers” is either a monster or dangerously naive. If Dunn was truly joking, then she falls into the latter category. If not . . .
Those who wish to defend Dunn can try to change the subject as much as they want, but she said what she said. The bottom line is that it was either an exceptionally evil thing to say (if she actually admires Mao), or an exceptionally stupid thing to say (if she doesn’t).
What other people did or did not say has nothing whatsoever to do with this.
You know, I suspect (at about a 50 percent probability level) that she was making a joke. However, as a high-media-profile member of the Obama administration, she should have known better than to make that kind of lame joke to that kind of audience, and she could have achieved the same level of detached sarcasm if she had used other words than “favorite philosophers.” This degree of cluelessness is reason enough to make people wonder about her basic competence for her job.
But I think it’s instructive that this is getting so little traction in the mushroom media. Consider: if Sarah Palin had made the same sort of off-hand comment about Hitler, and it was just as obvious (or non-obvious) that she was joking, do you think the legacy media would ever let us forget it? Suppose Palin had told a bunch of high school kids, “As a great community organizer once said, ‘The doom of a nation can be averted only by a storm of flowing passion, but only those who are passionate themselves can arouse passion in others.'” Not that controversial a statement, is it? But don’t you think she’d be eternally pilloried by the media if she attributed it by name to the man who said it?
This is great! Someone may be approaching moronhood!
Thank you filbert. Well said. But, of course, it’s Fox News fault.
Methinks Bob-1 would have a different opinion of Miss Dunn if she said that Adolf Hitler was one of her favorite political philosophers.
McCain can say it, because he was in a Vietnamese POW camp for 7 years, and he probably heard it a thousand times a week. He said in his very sardonic sense of humor. Dunn said it as a positive thing with no sense of irony, even Sotomayor knew she was letting the cat out of the bag. Not nearly the same thing, nor is it spelled the same way
Having watched the video of Dunn I see no evidence that she was joking, being facetious, or even provacative. In fact, she seemed to be very serious that the kids in the audience should carefully consider both the meaning as well the source of the quotes. Presenting Mao as a person worthy of philosophical inspiration to impressionable high school age children is beyond creepy. It really is.
But I think it’s instructive that this is getting so little traction in the mushroom media. Consider: if Sarah Palin had made the same sort of off-hand comment about Hitler, and it was just as obvious (or non-obvious) that she was joking, do you think the legacy media would ever let us forget it?
More to the original point Mike G, Rush Limbaugh never said what was attributed to him, and it was the news all week long. You could here comments on it from CNN to ESPN to Nightly News. Anita Dunn professing how much she favors the philosophy of a mass murderer… not so much coverage. As for her association with Obama means she really doesn’t support mass murderers, this is the same Obama who is friends will Bill Ayers and whose daughters were Baptised by Reverend “Chickens coming home to roost”.
Bob, you’re defending an admirer of a man who starved over a ninth of the population of a whole continent to death, and you’re- by your own words- doing so because she belongs to your own political cohort.
I don’t care if you don’t like being called shameful— shameful you most definitely are. And unprincipled, and a bunch of other words Rand would object if I used on his forum.
Welcome to the same ethical level as neo-Nazis.
Actually, it’s Bob’s behavior that is shameful. Bob himself is shameless, as in, he feels no shame about his shameful actions.
[/end nitpick]
Note also how Leftist object to their policies being compared to National Socialist policies of the 30s, that to do so trivializes the Holocaust. No, it’s you on the Left who trivialize mass murders by supporting the same policies those killers supported.
It never occurs to them that maybe there is a causal relationship between Mao’s “agrarian reform” and deaths in the tens of millions, and that because of that, maybe he shouldn’t be your philosophical guide. But hey, don’t you dare be a Christian because centuries ago the Church supported the Inquisition and the Crusades and people died in the 100 Years War.
The only hypocrites are those on the Left. (Note also how the Left keeps getting into trouble when they tell the truth about themselves and their policies. No wonder they lie so much.)
No matter how disgusting one finds a particular person’s political philosophy or body of work, it is quite possible for that person to say something that is obviously correct once said. Mao’s “power comes from the barrel of a gun” and Clausewitz’s “war is diplomacy continued by another means” are examples, as is just about anything said by Machiavelli.
Mao’s saying above is particularly relevant to those who wish for less government. It ought to be remembered that ultimately, all laws have the threat of naked force behind them; which is why the legislators should always think long and hard before enacting one.
…legislators should always think long and hard…
Not going to happen. Ever. Will the people that allowed them to be elected think in 2010 and will it matter?
Hi Rand, I’m not sure if you are alerted to comments in old threads, but I thought this link might be of interest.
From http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/archive/2009/10/28/anita-dunn-s-alibi-the-case-of-the-confusing-chinese.aspx
Anita Dunn’s Alibi: The Case of the Confusing Chinese?
Obama Communications Director Anita Dunn says she was only cribbing from Lee Atwater when she approvingly quoted from Mao Tse-Tung in a graduation speech. … Funny thing, though. I can’t find a place where Atwater cited Mao. I can find lots of places where Atwater referenced Sun Tzu, whose Art of War he supposedly carried around in dog eared form. … Hmmm ….
The link has further links to follow.
If this analysis is correct, and if Dunn is not lying, then there is something for everyone here. Dunn is no Maoist, but she does look [insert the derogatory phrase of your choice]. You could pick “foolish”, “uneducated”, “ill-informed”, “stupid”, or you could be charitable and say that it was an embarrassing lapse with very poor and insensitive damage control afterward.
The incivility in this thread really bothered me, by the way.
That doesn’t resolve the issue of what it was that Dunn was cribbing from Atwater. Or why she can’t tell one Chinese philosopher from another, and why she would find Mao the more likely (and attractive?) source. Sorry, but it really doesn’t mitigate much. If anything, it just makes her look more stupid. I’ve seen very little countervailing evidence against the proposition. And, of course, it makes the president’s judgment (or ideology) all the more suspect. And if you find that “uncivil,” sorry the truth hurts.
Rand,
Thanks for the reply. I don’t find you, your comments, or your opinions uncivil. I was referring to some of the other commenters. I’m not really interested in fighting with them, I just wanted to give you feedback. I thought they were rude just as I was trying to be friendly, and it turned me off to your blog for awhile.
I anticipated your reaction above, right? I liked the link because it provides evidence that she’s no maoist, but I brought it to you because I thought you’d like it too: as I said, it does makes her look stupid (or whatever derogatory term you prefer, as I don’t think “stupid” is accurate). I think she goofed up – I bet that to the extent she thought about it all, she meant Sun Tzu. I think she was focused on her message, and was just using philosophers like Sun Tzu/Mao and Mother Teresa as rhetorical props. The real travesty, in my opinion, is how she handled it afterward. Once people started complaining, she could have said “Of course Mao was a mass murderer, and I’m certainly no Maoist”. She didn’t say that, but I don’t think this is because she really is a Maoist. I don’t know exactly why, but I suppose she didn’t want to own up to her mistake, and she wanted to pick a fight with Fox News. I think it does reflect on the President’s judgment, but it is hard to pick perfect underlings, so I’d have to judge Dunn by the totality of her work for Obama, and not just this misstep. I don’t think it reflects on Obama’s ideology at all, except to the extent that Dunn’s resume is reflective of Obama’s ideology: She worked for Senator John Glenn, Sen. Bill Bradley, Sen. Evan Bayh, , and Sen. Tom Daschle — a mix of liberal and centrist Democrats, and not a communist among them.
Yours with civility and respect,
Bob
Way to miss the forest for the trees. It was a soundbite. It was repeated over and over on CNN and others.I know, but the title makes it sound like it was something Rush said, even though later that is clarified. But this has been posted before, great article, just the title bugged me a bit.