 |
ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS HERALD |
 |
||
|
||||
|
LONG MARCHES TO POLITICAL MATURITY Historians often cite the legendary Long March of 1934 as the pivotal event for the Chinese communists. With his troops facing annihilation by Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists, Mao Zedong sent his army of 100,000 men on an arduous 6,000-mile march from southern to northern China. Commencing in October 1933, the march took an entire year and cost nearly 90% of the communist forces. The costly march actually saved Mao’s army. Despite the terrible losses, the Party survived to fight on: first, against the Japanese; then, against Chiang Kai-shek’s forces. In 1949 the resurgent communists finally drove the Nationalists onto Formosa island. Many historians believe the Long March helped China avoid long-term subjugation by Japan. Chinese history is complex, so it would be an error to represent it simplistically. However, it can be legitimately argued that the Long March matured the Chinese communists, raised their reputation with the peasantry, and generated a base of trust from which the Party could ultimately seize and govern the most populous country on earth. My readers should not infer that I sympathize with Mao’s agenda or with the communist philosophy. Mao wrecked the Chinese economy by implementing an economic philosophy whose central premise – that people will produce without any self-interest or profit motivation – is false. Mao’s iron (some say iron-headed) rule retarded China and denied its people a half-century of economic progress. Nevertheless, some valuable lessons can be gleaned from the Long March and from the even longer march to final victory by Mao and his persistent followers. In particular, I cite a summary of Mao’s principles of guerilla warfare (shown below); and the issue of political maturity. If the enemy advances, we retreat. These lines depict an army that is never at rest. It is ceaselessly active – completely responsive to whatever the enemy is doing (or not doing). “Relax, take it easy” is nowhere to be seen there. Mao’s Principles of Guerilla Warfare could as aptly be called “principles of political warfare”. They apply to nearly any political scenario. To be effective an army must be an army, not a rabble. It must have the discipline to follow its leadership – to carry out orders without individuals questioning the mission or thinking they should be in charge. Most political parties have problems with this. It is where the issue of political maturity is most telling. Political maturity is a loosely defined term. With respect to the Long March, some historians define maturity in terms of discipline and trust. I favor that definition. Survivors of the Long March emerged as a disciplined army which trusted its leadership and believed they could achieve anything. The Long March also convinced the peasantry that the communists could do difficult things to help them. Mao knew the peasants were disaffected with Chiang and the Nationalists. He also knew that the peasants’ trust had to be won before political victory could be achieved. The Long March did that. With this base of trust Mao finally won China. I mention these matters – so far removed from us in time and space – because the dynamics of political maturity matter on our own political scene. There are many examples, but I cite two from the twentieth century. The first is the ascendancy of the Democratic Party in the context of the Great Depression and World War II. The financial reverses of the Great Depression wiped out the wealth of millions of Americans, scourged the workplace, and drove confidence from the political arena. The people were deeply depressed. Boldness and confidence would be required to win their trust. Into this vacuum – at nearly the same time as the Long March was happening – strode (figuratively) the confident figure of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Cocking his cigarette holder at a jaunty angle, he said we had “nothing to fear but fear itself”. He took action with a bevy of new programs. Many of FDR’s New Deal programs were later shown to be counter-productive to the country’s recovery, but Americans didn’t care. FDR believed in what he was doing. His attitude was infectious. Folks thought he cared and was trying to help them. FDR won the people’s trust. His party trusted him, too. The New Deal was the Democrats’ Long March. Its legacy kept them in power for more than six decades. FDR’s strong, decisive leadership during World War II brought the Democratic Party to full maturity. Unless they really messed up, Democrats looked to be the dominant force in American politics for a long time. Communism being what it is, Mao stopped worrying about the people’s trust once he took power. “Power comes out of the barrel of a gun,” said Mao, as he implemented a program based on violence, oppression and equal-opportunity poverty. The massive Cultural Revolution of the 1960s – which purged millions of “intellectuals” from Chinese society – set the country back decades. American Democrats gradually forgot the people, too. Their political maturity faded. Within the party Democrats stopped trusting their leadership. Radical special interests split the party over war, national defense and minority interests. Democratic bigwigs got cozy with Hollywood celebrities and billionaires. Ordinary Americans began to doubt that the old Party of FDR’s New Deal cared about issues which concerned them and their families. With the election of Richard Nixon in 1968, Republicans began their own Long March toward political maturity. Although Mr. Nixon offended the people’s trust and fumbled his opportunities, his Democratic successor didn’t do much better. A naive, indecisive pacifist, Jimmy Carter trashed FDR’s national security legacy. Voters massively rejected him in 1980. Ronald Reagan won by promising strong national defense, lower taxes, and a distinctly conservative turn on social issues. Voters trusted him for two terms, plus another term under George H. W. Bush. Republicans were rolling. Unfortunately, “HW” Bush did not comprehend that he had been elected to a “third” Reagan term. After some ill-advised decisions damaged him, voters denied him a second term. The charming Bill Clinton – an avowed “New Democrat” – promised “change”, but adolescent policies and a massive tax-hike quickly squandered whatever voter trust he had won. In the massive political shift of 1994, Republicans won both houses of Congress for the first time in forty years. House Speaker Newt Gingrich provided the leadership to win the people’s trust for Republicans on the next leg of their Long March. George W. Bush brought Republicans to full political maturity by gaining Americans’ trust on national security and lower taxes in his first term. For the first time in a half-century Republicans controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress. Millions of Americans believed “W” understood them and their concerns about the future. Meanwhile, Democrats – fallen from their once-lofty pinnacle of political maturity and success – are trying desperately to regain the people’s trust on those issues which made Republicans the majority party. But their act as defense-hawks, church-goers, and espousers of traditional values rings hollow. Trust, once lost, is not easily regained. Democrats are also deeply divided among themselves. Their leadership is fragmented. Political maturity seems far off. Republicans are now where Democrats’ were six decades ago. But political maturity is a tenuous commodity. George W. Bush is the GOP’s Leader for the balance of his second term. Yet many reject his policies and mock his nominees for important posts. Any number of party figures think they can do better than “W”. As a political army, Republicans lack discipline. Fragmentation and overconfidence could cause Republicans to neglect the people’s interests, just as Democrats did during their slide from majority status. Illegal immigration, high taxes, runaway lawsuits, out-of-control courts, degraded public education, politicization of deviant sexual practice, official hostility to Christianity, tolerance of violent extremists in our midst – as well as many other issues – are among the people’s top concerns. By ignoring them Republicans could lose the people’s trust and slide into the same immaturity that marks the Democrats. Questions concerning the future: - Will Republicans devolve into undisciplined immaturity and lose all they have? - Will Democrats regain the people’s trust and make a comeback? - Or will an entirely new party start its own Long March to maturity and political ascendancy? We shall see.
|
|
| ||||||
