Ding Xueliang spent his early teenage years in China as a fervent believer and practitioner of Chairman Mao Zedong’s revolutionary ideals — but he never imagined those memories would one day be stirred by a sitting US president. In 1966, at just 13 years old, the son of poor farmers became one of Mao’s Red Guards. He joined millions of young people across China to participate in the Cultural Revolution, a decade-long upheaval set off by an aging Mao to reassert his absolute control over the ruling Communist Party – with the stated goal of preserving communist ideology. Nearly six decades later, Ding is a distinguished scholar of Chinese politics based in Hong Kong, with a PhD from Harvard and a career teaching about the catastrophic movement he embraced. But in recent months, he has begun to see uncanny echoes of Mao’s Cultural Revolution in an unexpected place: Donald Trump’s America. To be clear, there are profound, incomparable differences between the deadly violence and chaos unleashed by a dictator in a one-party state, and an elected president’s divisive attempts to expand executive power within a mature democracy. “It’s not identical,” Ding said. “But there are certainly parallels.” As Trump upends the very institutions, alliances, and free trade order that have underpinned America’s global dominance since World War II, some in China are reminded of their own former leader — one who wielded revolutionary zeal to tear down the old world more than half a century ago. In articles and social media posts, Chinese scholars and commentators have drawn comparisons between Trump and Mao. Some referenced the Cultural Revolution – at times obliquely to avoid censorship; others highlighted Trump’s apparent appetite for chaos, and the rising signs of authoritarianism and personality cult within his administration. Since returning to the White House, Trump has disrupted the federal bureaucracy – dismantling agencies, purging officials and slashing civil service jobs. He has waged a war on ideology that conservatives deem “woke” and attacked elite universities – including Ding’s alma mater Harvard – for “liberal indoctrination,” threatening to cut their federal funding. He’s also pledged to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US and “put American workers first.” And in the US president, Ding noticed what he said were striking similarities with the late Chinese chairman whom he once worshiped as a young Red Guard: despite their vast differences, they both share a deep contempt for intellectual elites, a strong mistrust of the bureaucratic apparatus, and a populist appeal aimed at farmers and blue-collar workers. ‘Imitating Chairman Mao’ During the Cultural Revolution, Mao’s Red Guards declared war against the “Four Olds” – old customs, old culture, old habits and old ideas – to erase remnants of China’s pre-communist past. (It led to the widespread destruction of some of the country’s most valuable historical and cultural artifacts.) That campaign stemmed from Mao’s long-held belief in “first destroy, then establish” – the idea that old systems, ideologies, or institutions must be demolished before new ones can be erected in their place. Coming from an impoverished family, Ding eagerly took part in public humiliation rallies against teachers, intellectuals, government officials and others labeled as enemies of Mao’s vision. “I was especially enthusiastic about the Cultural Revolution because I was born into a family of three generations of poor farmers — one of the ‘five red categories.’ At the time, I felt the Cultural Revolution was extremely important for us, it was wonderful,” he said. But as China learned over a harrowing decade, it’s far easier to tear things down than to rebuild them. Mao’s violent mass movement shut down schools, paralyzed the government, shattered the economy, destroyed religious and cultural relics – turmoil that only subsided after the leader’s death in 1976. Historians estimate somewhere between 500,000 and two million people lost their lives. Now, some Chinese are looking at that tumultuous chapter of their own history to make sense of the change Trump is unleashing in America. Among Mao’s most ardent admirers, there’s a sense of pride that the US president appears to be borrowing from the revolutionary playbook of their esteemed supreme leader. One blogger likened Trump’s February tweet — “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law” — to Mao’s iconic slogan: “To rebel is justified.” “Trump is adept at imitating Chairman Mao. Trump is China’s true opponent,” the blogger concluded. Other Mao fans cheered Trump for cozying up to Vladimir Putin’s Russia while snubbing Ukraine and Europe, said Wu Qiang, an independent analyst in Beijing who is studying Chinese perceptions of Trump. Ever since his first term, Trump has earned the nickname “Chuan Jianguo,” or “Trump, the nation builder” among Chinese nationalists — a mocking suggestion that he is making China stronger by undermining America. For some Chinese liberals, however, Trump’s sweeping expansion of executive power and attacks on press freedom, academic independence and the rule of law in the first 100 days of his second term have sparked disbelief, frustration and disappointment. On Chinese social media, users voiced their disillusionment in the comment sections of US Embassy accounts, lamenting that America no longer resembles the ideal they once believed in. “I always thought the US was a beacon to the world, standing for justice and fairness. But its recent actions have been completely disillusioning … Many Chinese people’s faith in America has been shattered!” said a comment on the US Embassy’s WeChat account. Others made oblique references to Mao. Underneath the embassy’s post celebrating Trump’s first 100 days in office, a Chinese user wrote: “Sailing the seas depends on the helmsman.” That’s the title of a revolutionary song eulogizing Mao, which became the popular anthem of the Cultural Revolution. Another wrote: “The American people also have their own sun,” complete with a smirking dog emoji. Mao was extolled as the “red sun of China” at the height of his personality cult during the mass movement. ‘American-style Cultural Revolution’ For years, Chinese liberals have quietly warned of a creeping return to the Cultural Revolution under Xi Jinping, the most powerful leader since Mao. A devoted student of the “Great Helmsman,” Xi has steered China closer to strongman rule and curtailed individual freedoms in ways critics say are reminiscent of that era. And so, it was all the more striking for some Chinese liberals to witness an authoritarian turn seemingly unfolding in Washington, which under former President Joe Biden had framed the US competition with China as “democracy versus authoritarianism.” Less than a month into Trump’s second term, Zhang Qianfan, a constitutional law professor in Beijing, was already alarmed by the emergence of what he called an “American-style Cultural Revolution.” “The Cultural Revolution was essentially a power struggle,” he said. Mao was insecure about his authority, eroded by three years of famine caused by his disastrous “Great Leap Forward” industrialization campaign; he was also suspicious of the establishment built by himself, claiming that “representatives of the bourgeoisie” had sneaked into the party, the government, the army and the cultural spheres. Similarly, Trump believes the “deep state” is out to get him. And like Mao, he turned to loyalists outside the establishment to reshape the system and bend it to his will, Zhang said. “Mao unleashed the Red Guards to ‘smash’ the police, prosecutors, and courts, so that loyal revolutionaries could seize control of state machinery,” he said. “Trump brought Elon Musk and six young Silicon Valley executives into the White House under the banner of eliminating corruption, waste, and inefficiency — akin to the ‘Cultural Revolution Leadership Group’ entering the party’s central leadership.” Zhang was equally unsettled by the growing signs of a personality cult in Washington. Last month, when he saw a social media photo of a gold pin in the shape of Trump’s profile worn on the chest of Brendan Carr, chairman of the US Federal Communications Commission, he initially thought it was fake news or a parody. In China, such a badge carries heavy political symbolism. During the Cultural Revolution, Mao’s badges were worn ubiquitously by Red Guards and others as a public display of loyalty to the chairman and devotion to the revolution. “During Trump’s presidential inauguration speech, Republican lawmakers all stood up and applauded with such fervor that it rivaled North Korea. These are deeply troubling signs,” Zhang said. “People are seeing all kinds of sycophancy in the US that would have once been unimaginable.” Trump has even publicly flirted with the idea of seeking an unconstitutional third term, saying he was “not joking” and claiming that “a lot of people want me to do it.” Mao ruled China until his death. Xi is serving a third term after abolishing presidential term limits in 2018 in a move praised by Trump. “He’s now president for life, president for life. And he’s great,” Trump said at the time in closed-door remarks obtained by CNN. “And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday.” ‘Beacon of democracy’ All the parallels aside, the first 100 days of Trump’s second term are radically different from Mao’s Cultural Revolution, which devastated China, saw millions of people persecuted and resulted in more than 1.7 million deaths, according to the party’s own count. Unlike Mao, Trump did not mobilize youths across America to form a nationwide, self-organized political movement. “The January 6 attack on the US Capitol was somewhat similar, but it didn’t take off – it did not become a national rebellion in the US,” said Ding, the former Red Guard. To Ding, the two leaders also differ dramatically in their global ambitions. “Whereas Mao’s Cultural Revolution had a grand goal for China to replace the Soviet Union and become the sole guiding force for the global proletarian revolution, Trump’s movement lacks such an ambitious, internationalist vision,” he said. “Instead, Trump has utterly damaged America’s image, credibility, and influence within the global camp of liberal democracies.” In many ways, Trump is reshaping the global order. He has disrupted the transatlantic alliance – a cornerstone of Western security for decades – and pushed Asian allies to pay more for US protection. He also narrowed the focus of his global tariff war squarely on China, effectively cutting off trade between the world’s largest economies – until both sides announced a 90-day reduction in tariffs on Monday. Wu, the political analyst in Beijing, believes Trump has a substantial base of support in China – larger than many might expect. “The enthusiasm for Trump — from intellectuals and elites to ordinary people — reflects a deeper dissatisfaction with China’s current political system,” he said. For many Maoists, Trump has sparked their renewed yearning for a political movement that can bring China closer to what they see as the social equality and ideological purity of the Mao era, Wu noted. Some in the business community believe Trump’s radical approach can finally push China to enact the painful reforms it needs. To Wu, their support of Trump signals a symbolic gesture: a longing for change. “What they share is a desire to see a Trump-like movement, or even a Cultural Revolution-style political shakeup, take place in China — a way to break from the status quo,” he said. Zhang, the law professor in Beijing, said similarly, Trump’s reelection reflected widespread political discontent in the US. “In this context, America’s ‘Cultural Revolution’ can be seen as a desperate response to the failure of democracy,” he said. But Zhang believes there’s no need to be overly pessimistic. After Mao’s final decade of turmoil and destruction, China moved away from the fervor of ideological and class struggles to focus on economic growth. It opened up to the world and embraced the global order that the US helped create, and the rest is history. “After all, every country makes mistakes — what matters is whether it can correct them in time,” Zhang said. “Right now in the United States, the breakdown and the repair of its social contract are locked in a race. If America can mend that contract before Trump and his MAGA movement inflict lasting damage…then there is still hope. The ‘beacon of democracy’ can shine again.”
In China, some see the ghost of Mao as Trump upends America and the world
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Chinese Scholars Draw Parallels Between Trump's Presidency and Mao's Cultural Revolution"
TruthLens AI Summary
Ding Xueliang, a former Red Guard and now a scholar of Chinese politics, reflects on the parallels he sees between Donald Trump’s presidency and Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution. As a teenager, Ding fervently embraced Mao’s revolutionary ideals, participating in a movement that aimed to eradicate old customs and beliefs to establish a new communist order. In recent months, he has noted that Trump's actions, such as disrupting federal institutions and attacking perceived ideological enemies, evoke memories of the Cultural Revolution. While Ding acknowledges the significant differences between a one-party dictatorship and a democratic presidency, he highlights shared themes of populism, anti-elitism, and a focus on blue-collar workers. This has led to discussions among Chinese scholars and commentators who are drawing comparisons between the two leaders, despite the dangers of censorship in China.
The article delves deeper into how some Chinese citizens view Trump’s presidency as reminiscent of Mao’s era, with expressions of nostalgia for a political movement that promises radical change. Observers note Trump's actions, such as his attacks on the media and academic institutions, as signs of an emerging authoritarianism that echoes Mao’s tactics. However, the authors also emphasize that, unlike Mao’s mobilization of youth for mass upheaval, Trump's actions have not engendered a similar nationwide rebellion. The differences in global ambitions between the two leaders are stark, with Mao seeking to position China as a leader of a global proletarian revolution, while Trump’s focus is primarily nationalistic. Ultimately, the article presents a nuanced view, suggesting that while there are troubling similarities, America’s democratic framework and potential for reform offer hope that the country can recover from these political upheavals and continue to serve as a beacon of democracy.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article explores the intriguing notion that some observers in China draw parallels between Donald Trump's leadership style and the revolutionary fervor of Mao Zedong during the Cultural Revolution. By contrasting the historical context of Mao's China with contemporary American politics, the author seeks to highlight the perceived authoritarian tendencies and disruption of established norms under Trump's administration.
Political Context and Comparisons
Ding Xueliang's reflections on his experiences as a Red Guard illustrate a personal connection to the turbulent history of China under Mao. His academic position lends credibility to the comparisons being made between the two leaders, acknowledging both the similarities and the significant differences in their contexts. This nuanced view suggests a deeper analysis of authoritarianism and populism in various forms of governance, especially as they manifest in democratic frameworks.
Public Perception and Cultural Reflections
The article indicates that some Chinese scholars and commentators are actively engaging in discussions about Trump and Mao, which can serve multiple purposes. It may reflect a desire to understand and critique the nature of power dynamics in both countries, emphasizing how populist leaders can resonate with revolutionary ideals. By invoking Mao's image, the article may also aim to provoke thought among readers regarding the implications of such leadership styles on global stability and democratic values.
Potential Motivations Behind the Article
There seems to be an intention to foster a sense of caution regarding the rise of authoritarianism in democracies, reminiscent of historical events like the Cultural Revolution. By drawing these parallels, the article might aim to alert readers to the dangers of political upheaval, erosion of democratic institutions, and the centralization of power. This serves as a warning to both American and Chinese audiences about the fragility of political systems.
Implications for Society and Economy
The comparisons drawn in the article may influence public discourse on governance, especially among those who are wary of authoritarian trends. The potential impact on society could manifest as increased scrutiny of political actions and greater civic engagement. Economically, perceptions of instability in the U.S. political landscape could affect global markets, particularly in sectors sensitive to political risk.
Community Response and Support
This article may resonate more with intellectuals, political analysts, and those concerned about the trajectory of democracy. By engaging with historical analogies, it appeals to a community that values historical context in understanding current events. It may also attract those who are critical of Trump’s policies and are looking for frameworks to articulate their concerns.
Impact on Global Markets and Political Dynamics
The discourse surrounding Trump’s administration and its parallels with Mao's era could have significant implications for global markets, particularly in trade-sensitive sectors. Investors may become increasingly cautious as they navigate the uncertainties stemming from political volatility. Additionally, the article underscores the relevance of understanding the global balance of power as democracies grapple with internal challenges.
Artificial Intelligence Influence
While it's uncertain if AI was directly involved in the article's writing, themes and phrasing reminiscent of AI-generated analysis may appear. If AI were utilized, it might have contributed by identifying relevant historical comparisons and framing the narrative in a manner that emphasizes urgency and caution, potentially guiding reader perception.
The article presents a complex interplay of historical reflection and contemporary political critique, encouraging readers to consider the ramifications of leadership styles on governance and global relations. In conclusion, the reliability of this article stems from its grounding in historical context, though it also carries an interpretative lens that may reflect specific biases.