Often, he was proven correct in his decisions despite opposition, but his tactics were questionable at the least. The first decade or so of Mao Zedong's rule, as neatly overviewed in the first essay of MacFarquhar's book, paints a picture of Mao that in large measure incorporates both of the extreme visions tat persist about him today. There is the brilliance and wisdom with which many of his decisions are made, tempered by the violence and unilateral nature of many of these same decisions. There is some truth in the belief that such smart and charismatic leadership must have come from a spirit and mind tat at least glimpsed nobility even if it did not possess it; surely, Mao's intention was not pure self-aggrandizement but the further growth of his native country and its people. The excessive zeal with which he pursued this end became the real issue that cast significant shadows on his character. His surety in most matters and his complete domination of the political and military powers led to an often arrogant dismissal of the opinions, needs, and even lives of others, which cannot be considered noble for any end, no matter how many people such acts could serve with good purpose.

Mao did not agree with this standard sentiment, or indeed with the usual way of running things at all. He wanted the government to move as quickly as his own mind did, and this led to many frustrations on his part. A later essay in MacFarquhar's collection of scholarship on Mao and the period of his rule describes his inability -- or more likely, unwillingness -- to accept the fact that bureaucracies, especially those as large as China's national government, move sluggishly, and often with good reason. Though Mao was the very exemplar of determination, he was often somewhat lacking in the attribute of patience required of leaders. This turned...

His impatience was taken -- quite reasonably and correctly -- as evidence of Mao's passion for bringing real change to his country and his fellow countrymen. This passion was contagious, especially for the generation that had grown up under Mao's promises but had failed to see their fruition. It is remarkable that their anger and frustration did not turn against the well-known leader, but rather turned to a support of him -- evidence again of his charisma, his ability to manipulate, and less cynically of his true and perceivable desire to make his country as great as he believed it possibly could be, at any cost.
The image of Mao as he appears today -- and as it can be derived from the various essays contained in MacFarquhar's book -- does not exactly help to determine whether or not Mao was a saint or a villain. The truth about human beings is rarely so simple. Instead, history shows a man with mostly good intentions, who was endowed with extensive gifts to aid him in achieving his goals. Like many men of great ability and great ambition, however, Mao Zedong was quite susceptible to overstepping his bounds and disregarding others. There is something of the saint and the villain in all of us, and a personality and history like Mao's can only serve to magnify all traits of a persona. Like most people, Mao was basically good, but far from being above reproach.