刘晓波:从习近平、李克强的跃升看中共接班人机制

习近平眼有点红

习近平眼有点红

中共十七大,不可能启动政治改革,所以,外界最为关注的,也就只能是高层人事变动。神秘的黑箱政治已经足以引发猜谜游戏,近年来,中共也“与时俱进”地学会了偶尔漏光,更使猜测和预测迭出,政治局常委七人九人的推测,谁上谁下的热炒,黑箱政治和谣言政治的相关性再次凸显。

现在,十七大曲终人散,预热多时的团派新星李克强和突然跃出的太子黑马习近平进入最高决策层。有评论指出,习、李的同时跃升,见证了中共接班人机制的变化:强人钦定接班人的时代一去不返,交接班的制度化已经形成。所以,有评论说,胡锦涛不再指定接班人是十七大的最大亮点。

但事实上,中共掌权58年,党魁的权威必然一代不如一代,邓不如毛,江不如邓,胡不如江。胡不指定接班人,非不为也,而不能也。不是他不想钦定接班人,而是他没有足够的权威。独裁党钦定接班人的传统来自强人政治,强人的突出特征就是权力终身制。强人要么有打江山的大功劳,要么既有党内资历又有突出政绩,还要握有绝对的军权。毛泽东因打江山的功绩而一言九鼎,邓小平因深厚的党内资历和改革政绩而垂枪听政。强人之后的两任党魁,既无打天下的资历,也没有突出的“政绩”,更无法完全控制军队,不可能再维系住权力终身制,也就再无钦定接班人的权威。所以,邓小平钦定的江泽民和胡锦涛只能在任两届,作了十三年党魁的江泽民无法指定自己的接班人,而只能接受邓生前钦定的胡锦涛。只有五年党魁经历的胡锦涛就更没有钦定接班人的权威。

十七大一再突出加强“党的集体领导”,不过是寡头统治的堂皇说法。中共现行的寡头格局和交接班制度的形成,绝非现任党魁主观意愿所致,而是政治强人死后的客观形势所致,是江、胡不得不接受的现实。如果说,邓小平的亡灵主导了十六大的人事安排,形成了党魁只能任两届和以年龄划线的不成文规则;那么,十七大就是中共掌权以来第一次强人空缺的大会,高层人事安排的年龄划线再次生效,甚至让强势人物曾庆红不得不“自愿出局”。

有人说,以年龄划线的制度化是一种进步,但我看,与政治强人指定接班人相比,也许是一种进步,但并非是真正的进步。因为,在自由国家中,这是很可笑的作法,也是不可能的。一个国家的最高掌权者,居然可以不通过自由竞选来检验其人品、智慧、能力,也不看其以前有无突出的政绩,而仅仅以年龄划线,我甚至以为是极为蛮横的制度,不仅很难产生出被公众认可的杰出领导人,而且会把严肃的人事安排变成荒谬的闹剧。比如,此次十七大的人事安排,曾庆红的退出和贾庆林的留下就是年龄划线的结果。曾生于1939年7月,只超过68岁年龄线三个月;贾生于1940年3月,只小于68岁年龄线五个月。而众所周知,上届九常委中,曾庆红的人品颇受质疑,但其能力强则被公认。而贾庆林,既是庸碌之辈,又因与厦门远华案的瓜葛而臭名远扬。

年龄划线的交接班机制之产生,就在于权力的授予不是通过公开公平的自由竞选,而是通过一党寡头的私家授受。没有政治强人主导的人事安排,必然是寡头之间讨价还价的产物。在这种讨价还价中,如果以人品、智慧、能力、政绩的综合标准来划线,肯定给不出量化的标准,争来争取,谁也无法摆平谁,弄不好还会恶斗出鱼死网破的结局。所以,总要拿出一个标准,既可以避免鱼死网破的结局,又为寡头中的多数所接受。于是,就有了不成文的年龄划线。年龄划线的好处是,由于其量化标准的简单明确,谁也无话可说。但这是中共现政权的无奈选择,更是独裁制度的怪胎,只适用于一时,而无法久远。

李克强深藏不露

李克强深藏不露

现在,李克强跃升为十七大常委,早在外界的预料之中,十七大之前已经预热很久。而习近平的突然跃升则带有政坛黑马的意味,说明了作了五年党魁的胡锦涛仍然无法完全掌控全局,而已经离开最高权力五年的江泽民的能量仍然不可小视。只要私家授受的交接班机制不变,这种权争将一直持续下去。胡锦涛之后的接班人如何产生,是否还以年龄划线,具有高度的不确定性。因为,以往的强人时代,钦定接班人的传统不允许两人相争,而绝对权威不再决定了寡头内部必然产生激烈的竞争。

如果未来的高层换届仍然以年龄划线,那么在五年之后的十八大上,十七大九常委中只有习、李二人没有过线,未来五年里的习、李之争,将是胡锦涛接班人之争,也将决定十八大的高层人事布局,现在的习、李同台已经拉开了接班人之争的序幕。这在中共掌权58年的历史上还没有先例可循。所以,十八大的接班人机制如何形成,是以年龄划线还是采用其它标准,将成为十七大后的五年里胡温体制必须面对和解决的关键问题。

在未来的五年内,如果中国经济仍然保持住不错的增长率,如果胡温的民生主义能够缓解两极分化带来的社会不满,那么,以中共现政权精于利益计算的统治方式而言,高层寡头内部之争不会走向鱼死网破,而只能是通过讨价还价形成某种党内竞争机制。虽然,胡温政权在未来五年内不会有实质性的政治改革动作,也很难断言党内能否形成制度化的交接班机制,但没有了绝对权威的高层寡头之间的相互争斗,会形成不成文的权力中枢内的制衡规则,客观上为其他政治力量的参与提供一定的空间,既可以扩大了党内的参与面,也有利于非党精英的政治参与和民意表达,有利于自下而上地推动中国社会的渐进转型。

这种有利,决不是中共统治集团的主观意愿,而是客观存在的国内外大势使然。以机会主义统治为主要特征的中共现政权,决不会主动启动政治改革,但形势比人强,中国社会的深刻变化将逼迫中共不得不有所变化,寡头们被动顺应民意的可能性是存在的。在危机重重的今日中国,某一偶发事件很可能再次引发大规模民间反抗运动,失去绝对权威的中共高层中,再无绝对掌控军权的政治强人,无法象当年的邓小平那样进行暴力镇压(即便是十八年前,也有高级将领抗命)。换言之,面对权利意识空前觉醒的民间和此起彼伏的民间维权,寡头们只能用铁腕加收买来应对局部危机,而无法应对类似八九运动那样的整体性危机。如果在某一时刻再次出现大规模民间反抗运动,前有六四屠杀的教训,后有寡头权威日益减损,在大规模民间诉求和寡头统治之间,中共军队很可能出现大面积抗命,迫使寡头们不得不对强大的民意让步。

所以,为了避免未来可能出现的“政绩合法性”失灵,以及社会失控带来的灾难性后果,无论是基于中共自身的长远利益,还是基于国家民族的未来公益,中共都必须开辟新的合法性来源和基础,将“政绩合法性”转变为“道义合法性”,即转变为以普世价值(人权、自由、民主)为基础的合法性。这种转变在未来的二十内能否启动,不仅取决中共党内的开明力量能否推动体制内转型,更取决于国内外自由力量施加的压力是否足够大,大到让统治者不得不让步。

2007t1022????-
?? –?

廖亦武:土改民兵何秀元(下)

 

插记

文字整理至此,正是2007年9月29日中午,这家院子的主人远游归来。我从桌边起身相迎,寒暄之间,自然提起昨天国保警察登门拜访。主人微笑着说没事,主要是中共17大正在筹备,内忧外患加剧。我说这与本人有何关系?我连17大什么时候召开都不晓得。主人说:你可以不晓得,但是公安部要让下面落实你具体在何处。

我骇了一跳。心想有这么严重吗?可表面却不动声色。待坐回桌子边,我扳着指头算,从大理搬进这家有特殊背景的院子已有大半个月,风平浪静,甚至躲过了两三波户口盘查。皆因为房主是解放军中将之子,为人率性,有《水浒传》里江湖庄主之风,这大约是遗传——乃父当年进军川西平原,就不顾党组织的数次告诫,甚至不顾开除党籍的警告,非要娶当时与刘文彩齐名的崇庆县恶霸地主某某某之女为妻。

真是世事难料,经多次酒酣耳热,我这个反革命居然与革命者成为朋友。甚至一起读书,一起讨论佛道儒之学,我们都非常喜欢达赖喇嘛,认同“你的敌人就是你最好的老师”。他说,等到一定的时候,说不准他会将自己父母的土改故事讲给我听听。

那就等着吧,可眼下还是继续弄完手里的活路再说。

正文

老威:讲讲你最熟悉的地主。

何秀元:我们家住南门,村里有两家地主,肖晓明、梅洪乾。印象中不是讨嫌的那种。认罪交浮财都积极。土改后上面规定了地富分子的“三要八不准”,每次开会,肖晓明、肖晓成两弟兄都背得滚瓜烂熟……

老威:啥子“三要八不准”?

何秀元:出门要请假,进门要销假,来客要报告;不准乱说乱动,不准搞破坏活动,不准搞迷信活动……

老威:还有呢?

何秀元:记不得啰。总之,地富分子年年、月月、天天要牢记。不牢记就要出差错,出差错就要挨打。来了客,出身贫雇农的,就批准住一晚黑,还得对客人进行阶级教育;出身不好的,马上撵起走。

老威:那阶级划清以后,减租退押又如何?

何秀元:政府主持公道,将解放前的老租约废除,换成新租约。比如从前佃农租地期限1年或者几年不等,如今就换成两三个月,老租约里写明的该交的租子统统砍掉,拖欠的也一概不算。退押嘛,就是在减租的基础上,命令地主把最初租地的押头退给佃农,并且根据物价的逐年涨幅,逐年增加。

老威:押头就是押金吧?那我交不起咋办?比如我把地租给你已经好几年,甚至10来年,最初的押金每亩地1块大洋,而现在你将1块大洋翻几倍,甚至十几倍,要我还你,我咋个还?

何秀元:家里的东西,翻箱倒柜,掘地三尺,坛坛罐罐,能卖就卖,能抵押就抵押。总之,你在解放前越富,佃农越多,就越倒霉;越穷,越叫人看不起,就越扬眉吐气。这才是翻身嘛,昨天你踩我,今天我反过来踩你,你不服,有共产党做主,就斗争你,要你的老命。

老威:卖了,抵押了,掘地三尺了,我还是还不起,咋办?

何秀元:必要时候,该斗该关,该伤筋动骨,革命群众不会客气的。班果村的地主张建杨,就被弄来坐软轿……

老威:啥子叫坐软轿?

何秀元:让你坐一个独凳,把你的双脚捆拢,独凳两边放桌子,再把你的双手拉平,捆牢在桌面上;然后往你怀里揣石头,一块一块,揣个几十斤;最后将独凳抽走,你的屁股就悬空了。

老威:啥子感觉?

何秀元:我没坐过,晓不得啥子感觉。只是那种叫法,将周围的人耳朵快震聋了,不怕你笑话,连看家狗都受不了,汪汪两声,就从院子中央箭一样射出门去。

老威:还有啥子花样?

何秀元:吴耀先有个狗腿子,叫李强贵,被弄来背石头。

老威:做苦工?

何秀元:让他站在太阳坝,背一箩筐,一块一块朝里面加石头,撑不住重量了,一屁股摔地上,又从头开始。如此折腾几小时,不见效,又将他的手指头用浸过油的麻线密密地绕,然后点火烧,整得他满地跳脚,不求饶也不行。

老威:隐瞒的浮财都交待了?

何秀元:他是狗腿子,没啥浮财,主要逼他说出吴耀先的财宝去处。因为本地最大的地主,财产到底有多少?哪个搞得清楚啰?

老威:所以只能根据想象,拼命地挤。

何秀元:但是没挤出来,手指头烧掉几根,也没效果。

老威:那狗腿子的确不晓得狗脑子想的什么。

何秀元:但是的确有恶霸地主转移财产,逃避土改的现象。比如有个叫昌培林的中农,解放前同伪县长朱淮家关系不明不白,土改刚开始,朱家就悄悄将好些财产送昌家隐藏。当然没有不透风的墙,农民协会得到线报,就找昌培林谈话,要他自觉交待,与剥削阶级划清界限,否则就死路一条。昌培林吓坏了,立马将朱家的浮财彻彻底底暴露,还低头认罪,痛哭流涕。后来大家研究了,他为恶霸当“防空洞”的事实清楚,但是向人民举手投降的事实也清楚,就从轻将他的中农成分升为小土地出租。

老威:他出没出租小土地呢?

何秀元:有剥削行为嘛。替剥削阶级隐瞒财物,就是变相的剥削。当然,浮财都由贫雇农、下中农分掉,中农以上粘不了边。

老威:你们家也分了?

何秀元:朱家属于大沟村那边,我们分不着,到底有个啥子也不晓得。我们家在土改中也分了土地、房子。班果村的一个地主,名字忘了,以前在乡下,后来搬到城里买了院子。土改了,包括我们的3家贫雇农就搬进去住。那时还没发正式的土地和房产证,打张条子,写上位于哪里哪里的土地,哪里哪里的房子,从某年某月某日,属于某某某,签个字划个押,就作数。公布了《土地法》以后,才把原来打的条子翻出来,换正规的《土地证》。

老威:减租退押的时间有多长?

何秀元:不到1年,地富的油水就算挤干了。

老威:之后的赔罚呢?

何秀元:其实赔也赔不出多少,罚也罚不出多少。也有城镇的游民,趁着土改,跑到农村去,住地主的院子,还不讲理,与贫雇农争了起来。

老威:游民属于哪个阶级?

何秀元:游民不务正业,讨口叫化、偷鸡摸狗、鼓吃霸赊,啥子都干得出来。按财产划分呢,本来是劳动人民,可也归入政府的改造对象。地、富、反、坏、游,五类分子。斗地主时,也弄来陪斗,说是受教育。嘿嘿,那个贫雇农成分不要,偏要当游民的人,每次挨斗都喊冤枉,声明自家3代帮人。大家都忍不住笑,还扯着他的耳朵说:自己争取来的,怪得了哪个?他就在地下又打滚又敲脚:鬼晓得哦,鬼晓得哦。不过呢,差一点的房子、土地还是要分给游民的,不能让他们在社会上吃混食啰。

老威:元谋县境有多少游民?

何秀元:几十百把个?记不得了。

老威:达不到枪毙级别,送劳改的地主多不多?

何秀元:不清楚了,总有好几十吧。最高有判无期的。元谋附近有个黎明农场,关地主、反革命,后来也关右派。说老实话,南下干部拢地方,脾气也见涨,经常独断专行,不把本地干部放眼里,所以容易摔跟头。有个南下的,老家有原配夫人,到元谋后又染了个年轻的。后来他回去探亲,可能是商量离婚啰,不料原配夫人不久就莫名其妙死了。这可不得了,他洗刷不清,被抓起来,以谋杀罪判死缓。事隔多年平反,人们还私下说,这是他乱搞的报应。

老威:你当了几年民兵?

何秀元:五、六年,从开始土改,到小社成立。接着我被选为社长。

老威:小社?初级合作社?

何秀元:对啰,叫南城社。

老威:老人家挺进步的。

何秀元:自己水平差,全靠党的培养。1954年我光荣入党,1958年元谋老城合并成立人民公社以后,元马镇划为大管理区,我又被调到管理区当领导。

老威:管理区?管城镇居民吗?

何秀元:居民归镇长管,我是元马大队大队长,管农民。

老威:城乡一体,两套班子?那地主归哪边管?

何秀元:土改一过,都放回自己家里,住哪边就归哪边管。该干活干活,该学习学习。有专门的民兵监督他们,定期汇报思想,定期开会,不准乱说乱动。

老威:在土改中,你印象最深的是什么?

何秀元:嘿嘿,国民党县党部委员、恶霸雷树高遭镇压,他的婆娘被群众弄来干农活。哎呀,快40岁了还细皮嫩肉的,啥都不会做,可见平时有多懒!田不敢下,秧不会栽,大家气坏了,就在田坎边批斗她。弯了半天的腰,还是不见效,于是就叫她跪在田坎上,盯着大家栽秧。我们栽好久,她就跪好久,我们歇气,还是不准起来,磕头也没用。

老威:后来呢?

何秀元:她求大家让她干活啰。栽秧慢,跟不上,就加班加点。月亮出来明晃晃的,就剩她一个婆娘在田里梦游,有点诗情画意不是?

老威:不觉得。

何秀元:嘿嘿。

老威:土改收尾是咋样的?

何秀元:土地、房子、财产正式落到每户门下,就还有土改复查。一个查成分,划得实在高了,没有实事求是,就要纠正,给人家降下来;划得低了,还要升上去。还有一个是查隐瞒的财产,不像运动高潮,充分发动群众,狂风暴雨似的检举、揭发、斗争、枪毙,而是一点一滴、一项一款、不动声色地将某个地主、某个富农被清算过的东西再滤一遍。一个人拿着单子念,群众围着边听边琢磨,边回忆。看有没有漏网的。

老威:这个阶段动不动粗呢?

何秀元:避免不了啰。捆绳子、坐软轿,看你熬不熬得过。

老威:实在没得呢?

何秀元:群众的眼睛是雪亮的。复查也有针对性,有重点。比如戴玉林,解放前的大烟贩,土改还没搞到头上,他就主动交财产,烟土、金条子都拿出来,争取了态度,政府就没要他的命。可能他自己也暗中得意,以为避过了风头啰,哪料到共产党的运动一波接一波。他被揪出来炒回锅肉,先一把鼻涕一把泪,死活不吐,于是民兵将他拖到野外搞假枪毙,屎尿骇出满裤裆,当场就招供了。我们在他的院墙地基下挖出来很多金条子。

真是不见棺材不落泪。戴玉林被关押几天,大家发表意见,觉得太恶劣,民愤太大。只能将他枪毙掉。

老威:哪本地有没有交不出财产被毙掉的?

何秀元:先都是喊爹叫娘,恨不得把心啊肝啊交给群众,后来挤啊挤啊,遭不住,交待一点点,再遭不住,再交一点点。但是与大伙估摸的总差一大截。最后呢,挤出来的财物实在与大伙公认的数目合不上,就只有报请上面批准枪毙。

老威:你参加过镇压地主吗?

何秀元:我没毙过人,只跟着毙人的去维持秩序,也抬过几次尸体。老城外河坝,坑先挖好,让人跪在坑边,再听哨子,轰隆一炮火。开始打脑壳,血浆子乱飞,很不雅观,特别是娃娃们看了不好,所以后来就一律打背心。围观群众太多,每次毙人,围观群众都多,比逢年过节闹热。

老威:你估计,整个土改期间枪毙了多少恶霸、地主?

何秀元:元谋是个小县,当时只有五、六万人口,所以毙掉的不多。

老威:多少?

何秀元:记不得。哎呀,解放初期的地主,跟现在的家庭比不得啰。按目前的财产标准,元谋城里大半人口都是地主。当时周围的十几个村子,有的穷得那个凄惨样,评不出个地主,可土改形势在那儿明摆着,评不出也要评,地主没有,富农也弄一两家,过关嘛。其实呢,有的地主就比一般农民多几间房、半个院子。农忙吃干,农闲吃稀,包谷杂粮塞一肚皮,细粮留到逢年过节才整几顿。大家生活水准都差不多。有的地主,节约得吓死你,连娃娃不小心把屎拉在院墙外,都心疼,破口大骂哟,追着把屎铲回自己肥堆哟。不怕你笑话,那阵元谋连电灯都没得,地主家有只手电筒,都值得显摆,相当于现在的大型家用电器。

还告诉你,元谋人第一次见着汽车是四几年,当师长的朱淮从昆明开过来一辆吉普车,开天辟地哦,不得了哦。还没拢城门洞,还没停下来,方圆几十里就轰动了,都想去看一看,摸一摸。现在呢,汽车遍街跑,还有拖拉机,连农民都不稀罕机械化,更莫提地主。时代前进了,社会进步了,只可惜我们这种人,黄土已淹齐下巴,享受不了几天人人做地主的日子。

张伟国:《动向》10月号编辑手记:“被和谐了”

 10月号《动向》封面和封二

时下,中共十七大无疑是一个抢眼的新闻焦点,但是中国大陆本身和海外的反映是截然不同的。

在海外几乎只要与中国有点关系的各类媒体,都会有追踪报道和分析评论,而且很有点”那壶不开提那壶”的劲头,只要是读者关心的话题,只要能触中共神经的问题,都会被从各个角度品头论足,畅所欲言,少有禁忌;有不少媒体还派记者到北京直接参加采访,是名副其实的”新闻热点”.

但是在中国大陆,人们看到了一种极大的反差,那就是官方的炒作和民间的冷漠。对中南海这类政治秀早已经司空见惯的老百姓对十七大普遍的不抱希望,甚至表现出一种少有的”漠不关心”;官方媒体,再次重蹈”舆论一律”的覆辙,早在国庆前,互联网就被加紧了控制,有些网站、博客被删除甚至遭关闭,记者戴晴干脆就把自己被删除的博客文章称作”被和谐了”.如今,”和谐”这个词自从被胡锦涛劫持以后,它在中国大陆变居然就变了词性,”被和谐了”已经成为当局提升控制力度的代名词了。

许多活跃的自由撰稿人遭到严密监控,有的甚至失去人身自由;就是参加十七大的代表们,也被规定了必须严格遵守所谓”十不准(不准打电话、不准擅自复印抄录会议文件、不准把会议文件带出会场、未经批准不准接受采访、未经批准不准会见亲友,等等)”的纪律。不仅这些党代会代表被迫与外界”隔绝”(其实这是不可能完全做到的,反而暴露了中共传统政治机制惯性),就是整个中共决策层何尝不是高高在上脱离人民群众,甚至与民众为敌,一些急迫的社会议题,甚至都进不了会议议程。老百姓心里非常明白,中南海祭出所谓的”民生牌”,也只是为十七大的权力分赃粉饰门面而已。

本刊面对这一热点新闻,在努力向读者提供高质量服务的同时,也对这种冷热反差保持高度的警觉。

本刊这期报道了中共党内开明派元老”李锐谏言”和胡绩伟的期待,需要说明的是,李锐给政治局常委的信国内刊物发表时作了部分删节,本刊全文刊出原稿,立此存照。李锐、胡绩伟们一如既往的寄希望这个党不要再错过政治改革的时机,那怕是退回到”新民主主义”阶段……然而,这种苦口婆心的”忠言”在当权者眼里只是一种”干扰”.或许,李锐、胡绩伟们心里也完全明白:中共病入膏肓,积重难返,他们表达的希望既是他们的一种祈祷,也可以说是他们的一个心结,一种向党谏言的惯性——他们把毕生奉献给了中共宣称的理想,但是一党专制的残酷现实不仅背离了中共自己的承诺,也让这些老战士良心不安。

本期推出特辑:”十七大没希望”;焦点是分析”胡锦涛与上海帮互动”;并设有”胡锦涛点评”等栏目,全方位多层次的评析时下中南海政情。本期刊发了朱健国对一些知识分子的采访,著名报人左方发表的一个见解是:邓小平虽然有废除”终身制”的贡献,但还是留下一个”三次交接班”悲剧:中国现在的权力交接与古代不同,那时的皇位多是一次性交接,现在则要分二到三次交接:十年储君之后,先当五年儿皇帝,再当五年真皇帝,再当五年老皇帝。中国的希望在十九大之后,十九大可能就是蒋经国、戈尔巴乔夫出现的时候。

本期专题为”台海局势”,还有”缅甸时局”等栏目、”美国需要强化对中国政治的认知”、”对共产主义乌托邦的一次审判”等文章,希望读者能通过拓展国际视野,对中国问题有更深切的理解。

沙叶新文章”中国的艺术家怎么会堕落如此!”和滕彪的文章”假戏真唱,退寸进尺,坚持底线——从反右看知识分子的话语策略与反抗”,如果能放在一起读,可能会有新的启发,或许”希望”还不至于完全破灭。

附录:

《动向》10月号目录 NO.266(15/10/2007)

【长短论】

3 利益交换的和谐与密室的和谐

【京华传真】

6 七中全会起风波 争鸣记者□ 罗 冰

7 十七大代表「十不准」 争鸣记者□ 罗 冰

9 民主党派力争独立性 争鸣记者□ 罗 冰

11 十六届政治局承认十项过失 争鸣记者□ 罗 冰

12 胡锦涛在沪险遭暗杀 □ 陈彦章

13 全军总结八大问题八大隐患 □ 关 捷

【小消息】 14

七千民众向温家宝请愿 

吴邦国突患肺炎 

吴官正:国企烂透顶 

上访者包围中纪委 

黄华撼周南 

张高丽的「繁荣论」 

哪个深圳高干清贫? 

「双规」违宪违法 

省长人大主任发横财 

浙粤获最高「国庆」奖 

码头扩建失控 

每天二千人自杀 

少年股民四千 

25万网民评「八黑」

【神州内望】

16 胡锦涛十七大人事安排受阻 大陆□ 傅 清

江泽民反串《定军山》

【政坛迷津】

21 曾庆红透露十七大报告重要信息 大陆□贺 剑

23 周永康狂赌十七大 □ 姬 胡

【官场瞭望】

25 太子党抢过团派锋头 美国□ 朱学渊

26 远华走私案重提 江走访海军基地 大陆□ 荆 传

【焦点 胡锦涛上海亮相】

27 十七大前胡锦涛与上海帮互动 美国□ 刘晓竹

29 大智若愚 大陆□ 子 曰

【特辑 十七大没希望】

30 走胡耀邦、赵紫阳的道路 大陆□ 姚监复 记录整理

——《人民日报》原总编辑胡绩伟对十七大的希望

31 十七大游戏的兴趣 大陆□ 管 见

32 说说「党政分开」

——邓小平政治改革的夭折 大陆□ 吴 庸

34 知识分子:「十七大无希望」 大陆□ 朱健国

38 十七大:希望越大失望也越大 大陆□杨 麟

【胡锦涛点评】

38 胡锦涛的「牛肉」在哪里? □林和立

39 到处越位的独裁者 大陆□冉云飞

40 「后清」的「二胡」

——且看团派如何「十七大的摇滚」 大陆□昝爱宗

【众议院】

41 从中共十七大看:美国需强化对中国政治的认知 美国□方 觉

43 对共产主义乌托邦的审判 大陆□傅国涌

44 汕尾农民维权一线希望 □卜 音

45 奥运对中国新闻控制的新挑战:

外国记者为中国同行争权利 大陆□浦惜秋

【北京书简】

46 新贩毒时代:

北京「黑客部落」掠影 □观耘闲人

【经世济民】

48 两财长挂冠,新税长「带病上岗」 大陆□綦彦臣

——中国财税改革大败局评析

50 新股加大发行下的中国股市 大陆□苏 蔚

【缅甸时局】

52 缅甸僧侣鲜血书写了联合国的耻辱 英国□胡少江

53 缅甸是中国的半殖民地 □林保华

【专题 台海局势扫描】

55 台湾不做亚细亚孤儿 □覃州子

56 北京如何化解台独难题? □高 路

57 中美在台海的「透明战争」 大陆□鲜卑雁

【台湾话题】

58 扁回任党主席对选情的影响 台湾□金 波

60 谢长廷重挫偏激路线

——理性务实主义成为民进党主流 美国□杨力宇

【香港焦点】

61 北京为何支持叶刘淑仪参选? □张 滔

63 陈太参选胜算高一线 □黄伟国

【访谈录】

64 中国艺术家怎么堕落如此!

——答记者电话采访的综合摘要 大陆□沙叶新

【知识分子】

68 假戏真唱,退寸进尺,坚持底线

——从反右看知识分子的话语策略与反抗 大陆□滕 彪

【李锐谏言】

70 关于党本身改革的几点建议(全文) 大陆□李 锐

74 「复兴之路」批驳李锐上书 大陆□朱家台

【往事回眸】

75 一九八五年电影界的一桩要事 大陆□石方禹

【北美轶事】

78 西方首脑会见达赖喇嘛高峰期

加拿大总理哈珀又迈一大步 加拿大□盛 雪

79 不可思议的美国市长 美国□程 凯

【读者来信】

81 读者来信 □张成觉

81 步韵奉和余英时先生「反右运动五十年祭」四绝句 美国□田日吉

【编辑者言】 80

封面

(右上)胡锦涛 (下左)习近平 (右)李克强

封二:国殇(1949-2007)

封底:《争鸣》30周年

杨宽兴:本周中国没有新闻

 

与被称为橡皮图章的全国人大会议相比,五年一次的中国共产党全国代表大会才是分配中国最高权力的场合,除“大政方针”的确立之外,党魁的新老更替或者政治新星的窜升更需要借助于中国共产党的全国代表大会得以完成,因此,在中国这样一个权力等级社会中,每一届中国共产党的全国代表大会自然会引起广泛关注,每到这个时候,新闻记者都会云集北京,据不完全统计,采访十七大的中外记者达到两千人,如果将他们的助手、摄像、编辑以及勤杂人员也计算在内的话,围绕十七大“跑新闻”的新闻从业人员可能上万,他们有充分的资金保障和现代化的通讯手段,七天的会议期间,完全可以向全世界发出海量的新闻报道。

但是,自10月15日开始的这一周之内,中国却罕见地没有新闻。

新闻,就其定义而言,在传媒空前活跃的今天仍然存有分歧。按照官方的非正式定义,新闻应是“喉舌”吐出的声音信息;《现代汉语词典》对新闻的定义则是:1,报纸、广播电台等报道的国内外消息;2,泛指社会上最近发生的新事情。《现代汉语词典》的两种定义同样是粗疏而不科学的,前者就象“桌子是木匠制作的一种家具”一样,没有指出新闻的特性,后者混淆了客观发生的“新事情”与作为文本而存在的“新闻”的关系,我们知道,并非所有“社会上最近发生的新事情”都会成为新闻,比如说,正当十七大召开之际,北京访民华惠棋被殴打和软禁的“新事情”就不能成为报纸、广播电台等报道的消息,再比如说,《我反对──一个人大代表的参政传奇》一书的作者姚立法和另一位前地方人大代表吕邦列的失踪事件,也无法占据国内任何一家报纸的最小版面。因此,如果想较为准确地定义“新闻”,必须涉及新闻构成的基本要素。

新闻之所以有别于其它文字形态,按照传统观点,应具备几个必然构成要素,亦即五个W:When(何时)、Where(何地)、Who(何人)、What(何事)、Why(何因),但是,具备这五个要素并不必然成为新闻,“事情”之所以能够成为新闻,还应具备“具体性、真实性、时效性、新奇性、重要性、公开性”等特征,否则两条狗在街上打架也有可以是新闻了。

十七大会议期间,有关中国新闻的关注焦点当然首先集中在北京的人民大会堂,但在这个富丽堂皇的建筑内,并没有任何“新奇性”的事情发生,不需要任何新闻报道,我们也能预知自2007年10月15日上午开始的会议之流程,何时、何地、何人、何事、何因都是程式化的,毫无悬念和意外,同样,会议当天和次日于出版的国内报纸几乎是用一个模子刻版出来的,没有任何悬念和特色。从这个意义上说,万众瞩目的十七大本身没有新闻,古板的会议讲话和千篇一律的新闻报道只具宣传意义,真正的新闻要等到十七届一中全会召开后的常委亮相时才会产生。

当然,采访十七大的中国国内记者只占新闻从业者的极少比例,中国记者中的绝大多数在十七大召开期间仍要坚守岗位,并未放假回家睡觉,可是,这一周却似乎成了他们的冬眠期,打开国内的报纸、电视,我们会发现在这段时间内,记者们集体放弃了采写新闻,为了十七大的顺利召开,宣传系统早就通过文件和电话通知的方式,要记者们闭上嘴巴,于是,在这段时间内发生的煤矿爆炸、车祸、环境污染、群体上访、发表公开信、贪污腐败、违法拆迁、非法拘禁乃至于夫妻吵架这样有违“和谐”的事情,统统不能进入新闻的视野,与此同时,充斥我们眼前的大量讲话文件、代表发言、专家观点、理论阐释等等更是与新闻无干的东西。

境外记者的报道虽然不受中宣部的控制,但是他们同样无法给我们提供新闻。首先,会议的保密程度仅次于建国前的历次党代会和文革时期的九大,参加会议的两千多名代表连上网都属于违法会议纪律的行为,这种情况下,境外记者们只能欣赏人民大会堂里毫无悬念的公开表演而无从进去“会议背后的会议”,而在那里才会发生真正具有新闻价值的事件;其次,即使境外记者发出具有“真实性、时效性、新奇性”的报道,也无法满足新闻的“公开性”要求,我们既不被允许订阅境外报纸、收看境外电视节目,更要在十七大召开之际承受封网加剧的现实,就连通过互联网获得歌功颂德之外的信息都变得异常艰难,此时,新闻确实显得过于奢侈,对中国民众来说,如果不想忍受各电视台没完没了的主旋律聒噪,就只能关掉电视。

也就是说,对那些习惯于通过新闻了解天下事的人们来说,十七大召开以来的这几天成了一段时间上的空白,无法确认的小道消息满天飞,真正的新闻却看不到。作为受现代文明熏陶的新闻受众之一,我希望十七大赶紧过去,让我们的生活从敏感期回归正常。“正常情况”下,虽然我们也要忍受中宣部的新闻过滤,但利益分化、众声喧哗的时代中,除了最高权力者的最高会议,没有什么借口能让所有媒体噤声,于是,我们便可以或多或少地读到或听到一些新闻,聊胜于无。尤其是,作为一个偶尔书写时评的三流写作者,这种全面的新闻缺失状况会堵塞我了解社会的信息渠道,加之同一时间内国内各大网站纷纷收紧发贴和审贴的标准,令人深感郁闷。

好在会议即将过去,无论如何,新一届常委的亮相对中国人来说是件不小的新闻。虽然“何时”、“何地”、“何事”都是程式化的,但“何人”却充满了悬念,而不被公开报道的“何故”,更会给人们以广阔的想象空间和茶余饭后的谈资,而我更大的期望是:新一届中共中央政治局常委能给中国新闻界以宽松的生存环境,让民众知晓一些真正的新闻。

2007年10月20日

綦彦臣:实现微调与大动 明年再看国务院

 

从十七大公布的高层认识安排结果来看,它基本实现了北京流传已久的“胡曾共识”——常委微调,委员大动。

至于地方实力派习近平、李克强“入常”,与汪洋、王歧山 、李源潮、张高丽“进局”,都突显了胡温在已经形成的中国寡头政治格局下斫轮有方。如果不考虑军方既定两个名额中补进一个,以及刘延东作为妇女代表替代了吴仪,那么地方实力派的6人与中央王刚与薄熙来两个相比,代表了一个明显的趋势:胡温在对江系的尽可能妥协之下,还要有自己一套“使用得手”的工作班子。

“入常”与“进局”的一习二李自然不必细论,只有看汪洋与王歧山以及薄熙来三人的明年去向,才能知道十七大的效果究竟如何。估计明年人代会后的国务院工作班底基本以经济长才为主:王歧山作为金融专家将接替黄菊留下的空档,作为主抓金融的副总理或;薄熙来则要接手吴仪的“外留统帅”之位,出任国务委员;变数最大的汪洋,则有接替曾培炎主掌工交的可能。

胡锦涛的政治标的是在“科学发展观”写入党章之后,把它变成一个里程碑,所以在与中外记者见面时既不“祭祖”式地提邓小平理论,也没“客套”三个代表。但是,他对经济质量的追求不会以顿时牺牲速度为代价,所以“一心一意谋发展”的提法还暗示速度的必要性。要看科学发展观的份量,不在于现在的十七大“报”什么,要看明年国务机关报班底“干”什么,重要的指标有二:其一,是否启用“环保系”的人,干脆说很绿色GDP核算系统是否获得“准生证”;其二,要看温内阁应付“货币内战”与“金融战国”的策略安出。(关于中国货币内战的论题,我有写给《动向》的专稿,它是我对财税政策败局评估报告后的一个“连载”,不再细说。)

应当说中共十七大的民生牌打得很高。这样既避免了他们想象的“过度民主刺激”,又把它当它作“社会主义政治民主”的一个前提来论。调侃地说,江泽民以“三个代表”为口实向资本家做了让步,而胡锦涛则以“以人为本”向底层社会让了步。在“正统”的马克思主义(特别是国家暴力论的列宁主义)观点看来,以人为本就是“修正主义”。胡锦涛的这个“大修正主义”,当然比江泽民的“小修正主义”值得欢迎。至于说到社会冲突的缓和化,有可能,但不会较大的幅度。一度传说的中共高层“重估法某功政策”的势头,也因江系人马主掌政法系统变得不太可能。所以,促使全社会的积极和解的工作,成为在环保维权与公民监政之后“第三大民间公益事业”。

以上浅显的分析不是政治八卦,我很希望中国民间从事自由运动的群体,有一些学者型的人,以当前中共的政治动向为观测标本,进行案例分析。另外一点,中共有很明显的与民间自由运动“和平竞争”的意识,人家出了“80后”的代表,而自由运动中“70后”还陷在被围攻的状态中。自由运动中的真正精英分子们应该有一个危机意识呀?!

—2007年10月22日下午应《议报》主编张伟国先生之请,匆匆写于绵逸书房。

刘逸明:十七大与民主中国依然距离遥远

 

中共十七大的召开已经接近尾声,但是,十七大仍然是国内外媒体这段时间报道和评论的焦点话题,人们期待着十七大以后中国民众能走出生活的困境,更期待十七大能够成为开创民主政治的历史性时刻。但是,从这些天的开会情况看,中国的政治前景仍然不容乐观,专制的阴影也许还将持续在中国的天空徘徊。下面是笔者就十七大的有关问题与网友的交流。

1、中共十七大能解决什么问题?

中共每五年召开一次的党代会虽然总都能吸引世界的眼球,但是在保守派势力依然占主导地位的中国官场,这样的大会至多是向民众开出一些空头支票,在现实社会,很多棘手的问题不但不能得到解决,反而会日益严重。每一次党代会看似搞得轰轰烈烈,并且得到喉舌媒体的大加赞许和民众的热切期待,但是,到了下一次党代会召开时,民众的怨气依然深重。中共的各种大会虽然都打着为国为民的旗号,实际上都是为了实现权力和利益的再分配,民众对这种大会的期望往往以失望而告终。

2、十七大的召开与普通中国人有什么关系?对中国的未来有何影响?

十七大的召开如果真的能够解决应该解决的问题,那么这样的大会和民众就关系密切,但是,如果仅仅只是中共权力分配的盛宴,那么这样的大会只能是祸国殃民。对今年十七大表现得异常热情的依然是为中共所操纵的喉舌媒体,一般民众对此仍然是无动于衷,因为之前每一次大会都没有为老百姓的生活和人权状况带来多大改变,接二连三的失望使人很容易认识到召开这样的大会的真正目的。

十七大对中国的未来当然是会有影响的,因为每一次党代会结束,中共的最高层都会出现新的面孔。从胡锦涛这几年的执政情况看,中国的民主在他这一代手上不可能实现,因为胡锦涛缺乏政治改革的勇气和智慧。中共的内部虽然表面上看起来十分团结,但内斗一直非常激烈,每个中共官员都希望自己能够拥有巨大的权力和威信。不排除中共的高层人士中将来会出现戈尔巴乔夫式的人物,只要中国民众争取民主的信心越强、人越多,中共就不得不放弃一党独裁,向世界潮流靠拢,而有着改革和民主意识的领导人将对此起到不可估量的作用。

3、据说胡锦涛的十七大报告不仅让中国媒体盛赞不已,就连一些民主人士都给与了很高的评价,你怎么看待胡锦涛的这个报告?

胡锦涛所做的十七大报告,我个人认为和之前的报告相比是有了一些进步,毕竟能够大篇幅地谈民主和谈政治改革,这在江泽民时期可以说是个禁区。当然令人失望的是,胡锦涛的所提到的政治改革并非真正意义上的政治改革,因为真正意义上的政治改革就是多党制和宪政民主,而中共却不会轻易放弃一党独裁。从近几年中共对异议组织和民间独立团体的打压看,中共毫无政治改革的自觉,而是继续重蹈前代之覆辙。在我看来,至少在胡锦涛主政时期中国在政治上不会有什么突破,十七大之后,能够改善的也许只有民生状况,而改善民生也只不过是中共笼络民心的一个策略,其根本目的是为了让自己的专制政权更加稳固、让既得利益不至于流失。

民主人士给与胡锦涛十七大报告高的评价并不奇怪,因为中共的法律以及政策表面上看起来几乎都是冠冕堂皇,这个报告和这些也是异曲同工。我们不能只看到那些空洞的口号和承诺,而是应该在今后观察新一届领导班子会具体怎么做,他们所做的能否得到老百姓的认同。正如宪法赋予我们言论自由的权利,而现实中却不断有人因为自由写作而锒铛入狱一样,我们不应该对中共落实政策和依法治国有过高的期望。

4、胡锦涛在十七大开幕式上称腐败关系到中国共产党的生死存亡。您对共产党解决腐败问题的信心有多大?

胡锦涛的报告虽然充满了为中共脸上贴金的不实之词,但他的这一句话还是说得比较诚恳,确实,中国的官场现在已经是腐败不堪了,几乎没有多少干净的官员,生活在中国的大多数人都清楚这个事实。不过,从中共一直拒绝政治改革来看,他们并没有真正下决心反腐败,所谓的反腐败斗争实质上成了打击异己的工具。要解决腐败问题,进行政治改革、实行民主宪政是不二法门。只要老百姓和媒体一天没有监督权和言论自由,中国官场的腐败就会继续蔓延发展。

5、作为执政党,共产党有什么办法消除中国的巨大贫富差距?

中共一直都自称为“无产阶级”,这在建政之前和建政之初也许还名副其实,但自从邓小平时代开始,中共官员纷纷摇身一变成为了权贵大腕,他们以横征暴敛和贪污受贿敛得了巨额财富。在腐败情势越来越严重的今天,官员和普通民众的生活可以说是相去天壤,一面是官员花天酒地,一面却是普通民众读不起书、上不起学、看不起病的悲惨现实。

中共没有真正反腐败的决心,因此,也不可能真正消除贫富差距,胡锦涛等人面对中国官场的腐败现状可以说是束手无策,除了空喊几句迎合民意的口号之外,别无他法。只要中国现在的这种专制局面还没有改变,中共就只能默认这种贫富悬殊现状的存在。

6、你觉得中国怎样才能走向民主?

民主是社会发展的必然趋势,自从上个世纪末的苏联解体和东欧剧变,今天的专制国家已经所剩无几了,中共所领导的中国可以说是当今世界上最大的专制国家。本来在上个世纪的80年代,中国进入了政治转型的最好时期,但因为中共对当年民主运动的镇压,所以政治改革被完全搁浅,中国官场也因此而日益腐败。现在中国社会的财富主要掌控在权贵手中,即使很多人都知道政治改革对整个社会的推动作用,但为了维护自己的既得利益,很多权贵就会想法设法地打击党内的改革派,他们实际上成了政治改革的绊脚石。

当然,随着中共领导人威信的越来越低,权力斗争的激烈必然使得中共的执政产生新的危机,很难说中共高层中没有人想发动政变夺取最高权力。假如这个人是保守派人士,中国的前途也许将更加暗淡,但如果是改革派人士,中国的民主便指日可待。因为对中共的痛恨,有人不断地呼吁中国民众揭竿而起推翻共产党,我认为这种暴力革命不可取,因为暴力革命无法建立民主体制,况且现在已经不像古代拿起棍棒就能当武器了,在中国没有人能和中共的军队抗衡,所以也就不可能推翻共产党的政权。我认为中国要实现民主只有两条路可走,一是中共自己自觉转型,二是通过民众在觉醒后的施压使得中共彻底放弃一党专制、施行宪政民主。

2007年10月19日

Guy Gone Wild

Guy Gone Wild


Published: October 21, 2007

“An autopsy wouldn’t make any difference now.” That marvelous line cries out to have been scripted for Leslie Nielsen in one of the “Naked Gun” movies. But it’s uttered by the virile, easily riled Jonas Cord, the Howard Hughes stand-in at the center of “The Carpetbaggers,” Harold Robbins’s fabled 1961 novel — or novel-like object, anyhow. And Cord’s real-life enabler (“creator” would be pushing it) shared his assessment, judging from Robbins’s indifference to the verdict of posterity. As the world’s best-selling speed typist told a journalist in 1970, “When I’m gone, they can grill me and throw the ashes where they please, say what they like.”

Tim Graham/Hulton-Deutsch Collection — Corbis

Harold Robbins with Penthouse emissaries in 1972.

HAROLD ROBBINS

The Man Who Invented Sex.

By Andrew Wilson.

Illustrated. 312 pp. Bloomsbury. $25.95.

Nobody has seen fit to say much of anything about Robbins since his death in 1997, decades after his vogue had — how to put this? — climaxed. But doesn’t a hustling subliterate whose oeuvre changed American publishing deserve at least one kudo, to use a solecism Robbins himself would have been likely to commit to print? Crammed with moronic prurience, achieving logorrhea with the barest of resources, your average Robbins page turner read as if he’d clacked it out using 10, if not 11, thumbs, and his 20 or so engorged books sold more than 750 million copies combined. If you’ve ever wondered just when quality literature and commercial fiction parted ways for good with a shudder, call him Harold Rubicon.

As Robbins’s fellow Brooklyn boy and close contemporary Arthur Miller might have put it, attention must be paid. So, duly making the beast with two hardbacks, Andrew Wilson — author of a well-regarded, as they say, life of Patricia Highsmith — has given us “Harold Robbins: The Man Who Invented Sex.” Besides answering nearly every question about its subject that any halfway brainy reader couldn’t be bothered to ask, it’s also better written than any of Robbins’s own behemoths, something I assume Wilson can’t help: he’s British. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say that I doubt any future biography of Robbins will equal this one, but make of that claim what you will.

Wilson is impressively if inexplicably determined to uncover the reality behind Robbins’s fabulations about his early years, some of which proved sturdy enough to show up in his obituaries. Not too surprisingly, the tales he fed compliant interviewers — about growing up in a Catholic orphanage before his adoption by a Jewish family, servicing lonely men for cash during his mean-streets adolescence and the like — turn out to have been fibs. The lone seedling of fact from which these Grade-Z Scheherazadisms sprang was that, unlike his siblings, young Harold Rubin (not Robbins, just his way of going Gentile into that good night, and in the heyday of the Jewish American novel, too) was the spawn of a previous marriage his father tried to conceal after Harold’s mom died young.

The fuse was lit once Robbins’s first father-in-law got Harold, then a failed grocer and lowly clerk, a job at Universal Pictures, where he soon clawed his way up from shipping clerk (by some accounts) to the bookkeeping department. Thwarted in his ambition to turn producer, he started typing what became “Never Love a Stranger,” his scandalous 1948 debut. In Wilson’s high-flown formulation, “writing, for him, was not about creative expression or artistic ideals; rather, what fueled his ambition was a mercantile instinct, a desire to explore his dreams and fantasies and sell them off to the highest bidder.” The rude version of this aria is that Robbins was always in it for the money.

Nonetheless, his early novels got some halfway decent notices — “A Stone for Danny Fisher,” for one, the unlikely source material for the Elvis movie “King Creole.” In the 1940s and ’50s, outside of (mostly paperback) genre fiction, even the worst junk seldom candidly announced itself as such. Not only could “serious” mainstream novelists aim at best-sellerdom, but even hacks were presumed to covet respectability. Wonder of wonders, Robbins’s first publisher was Alfred A. Knopf, and the publishee liked to boast that he was one of only three authors with a “lifetime” Knopf contract. The other two? Thomas Mann and André Gide.

That changed with “The Carpetbaggers,” brought out, after delays and much wrangling, by Simon & Schuster. Or rather, by Trident Press, a new imprint devised by Leon Shimkin, the founder of Pocket Books and then one of Simon & Schuster’s owners, to overcome Max Schuster’s horror while guaranteeing Robbins unheard-of paperback lucre for this and future works. In the words of his later editor, Michael Korda, “Thus was the ‘hard/soft’ multibook contract born … après nous le déluge.” When Robbins sent Alfred Knopf a copy of his masterpiece, he got a frosty note back: “Thanks, but I don’t read such trash.” Rubicon!

All this is interesting in an archaeological way. But once “The Carpetbaggers,” reputedly “the fourth-most-read book in history,” transforms Robbins into, well, “Harold Robbins,” his story grows tiresome, despite Wilson’s stabs at tarting up the author’s later career with such reflections (there’s no evidence his subject shared them) as “by catering to the lowest common denominator, Robbins sacrificed his integrity.” Say what? He’d found his gimmick: exploitation, with garish facsimiles of Lana Turner (“Where Love Has Gone”), the South American playboy Porfirio Rubirosa (“The Adventurers”) and the Ford automobile dynasty (“The Betsy”), among others, paraded en déshabillé for our enjoyment. Besides churning out novel-like objects with the monotonous implacability of a batting-practice machine, Robbins never stopped trying to brand himself in other ways. These efforts included “The Survivors,” a notoriously wretched TV series he spitballed to ABC one day and had forgotten about by the time it was green-lighted.

Wilson quotes several of Robbins’s intimates as saying he behaved just like a character in his novels, and the insult, not that they mean it as one, rings drearily true. Making big bucks let him live out his grossest fantasies, like owning a yacht and having orgies. But his excesses are unlikely to fascinate any reader who isn’t a) 15 or b) Donald Trump, the first tycoon who seems to aspire to being a Robbins hero. The detail that may best evoke the milieu Robbins lived in is the “set of 14-karat-gold fingernails” he bought his second wife; according to presumably awed friends, “the effect of the sun reflecting off them was enough to nearly blind you.” There’s also something disconcerting about a biography in which George Hamilton, who starred in “The Survivors,” figures as a voice of reason: “I thought reading his books was as good as it got and getting to know him would not improve on that in any way.” Even the gentlemanly Korda’s verdict is blunt: “He was as disagreeable and odious in the days of his success as the days of his failure.”

Robbins himself once said, “I just happen to think I’ve done better than anyone else in reflecting the times in which I live,” meaning his work rather than his personality — and the claim isn’t completely absurd. If nothing else, he did know where the action was, though it took Francis Ford Coppola’s movie version of “The Godfather,” a novel that wouldn’t exist without Robbins’s example, to prove that greatness can be spun from sensationalist claptrap. If flimsily disguised lives of famous people strike you as meretricious by definition, remember “Citizen Kane.” The real pity is that, stamina aside, Robbins was talentless, and he made his preferred subject matter radioactive for more gifted novelists for a number of years. If he hadn’t gotten his mitts on Howard Hughes first, mightn’t Norman Mailer have been tempted?

The cure for Bernard Shaw

The cure for Bernard Shaw

Was Thomas Jefferson a Misogynist?

Was Thomas Jefferson a Misogynist?

by Jillian Sim
Jon Kukla explores the Founding Fathers relations with the various women in his life.

Jon Kukla explores the Founding Fathers relations with the various women in his life.

Thomas Jefferson, third President and author of the Declaration of Independence, is, as the historian Joseph J. Ellis put it, the American Sphinx. He may be most puzzling of all in his relationships with women. Those womenfrom mother to wife and also to putative slave mistresshave remained over the centuries comfortably invisible in the public record, their presence flashing feebly only when their master allowed their contributions to be known and remembered. It is a daunting task for a Jefferson biographer not only to illumine the lives and inner desires of these invisible women but also to attempt to reveal through them the deeply enigmatic man. But that is what Jon Kukla, who earlier produced a highly regarded account of the Louisiana Purchase, promises in his new biography, Mr. Jeffersons Women (Knopf, 279 pages, $26.95).

Biographies of Jefferson are published almost constantly, each new addition boasting to cover uncharted territory on the man. The Library of Congress holds tens of thousands of letters and papers that have been consulted and consulted anew. Yet the mans inner life remains a paradoxical sketch; the vast paper trail is the frustrating work of a genius self-editing his life and political career. The last truly successful biography may be Jack McLaughlins 1988 volume Jefferson and Monticello: The Biography of a Builder. McLaughlin wisely surmised that to understand Jefferson he should stick to the architect and his prime obsession, his hilltop plantation outside Charlottesville, Virginia. Jefferson unwittingly left, in extensive farm and family records, ample evidence of the man behind the Presidenthis failures as an engineer, his spendthrift nature, his brutal handling of slaves, and his indifference to the comforts of his own family, who lived in a house that was repeatedly rebuilt and never completed during his lifetime. Because of his obsession, Jefferson saddled his family with staggering debts, a burden borne by a grandson into old age.

Little remains in the record to recall two of the most important women in his life. Theres next to nothing on his mother, Jane Randolph Jefferson, and little more on his only wife, the pretty widow Martha Wayles Skelton. He almost never referred to the former, and he destroyed all his correspondence with the latter. Trying to understand him through the women in his life is like viewing Monticellos architectural details through Virginias early morning fog. But its worth the effort.

As a young man, attending the College of William and Mary, in booming Williamsburg, Jefferson struck out with women. He developed the kind of scorn and condescension toward the weaker sex that can come after rejection, especially in a humorless man. In Mr. Jeffersons Women Kukla describes, in unadorned prose that plays well off Jeffersons ornate English, a young man we might today call a geekinsecure, self-absorbed, and obsessed with the tenaged sister of a college friend.

He carried the torch for two years, writing the girl’s name backward in Greek in coded notes to friends, futilely hoping to protect his secret from prying eyes. Then he bungled two quintessentially Jeffersonian obfuscations meant to be marriage proposals. The girl, Rebecca Burwell, turned him down. After that, Kukla writes, “her betrothal to a rival triggered the onset of Jefferson’s recurrent and debilitating headaches. It fueled the misogyny of Jefferson’s twenties and aroused a more predatory attitude toward women that ended in a series of unwelcome advances toward a married neighbor.”

Jefferson’s early infatuation with Rebecca Burwell is often advanced by admirers and biographers as proof of his romantic nature. Investigating how and why she drove Jefferson so utterly to distraction, Kukla delves into her background, giving us a tale of her bewitching great-aunt Lucy, a folkloric figure among Colonial Virginians for spurning a governor in favor of marrying for love. Rebecca Burwell, like her aunt before her, never felt any compulsion to write about or discuss the man she rejected, even after he became famous. Her silence speaks volumes.

There is the pathetic and unsavory tale of Betsy Walker, the wife of a friend and neighbor, who received Jefferson’s attentions while her husband was away negotiating treaties with Indians in upstate New York. Walker had assigned his wife expressly to Jefferson’s care, trusting him to appreciate that she was vulnerable, left alone for months at her rural Virginia home with a toddler daughter. Mrs. Walker apparently suffered a full decade of repeated and unwanted sexual overtures from Jefferson. The Walkers and others left behind enough crumbs about this to allow the resourceful author to follow the truth wherever it might lead, including the grim possibility that Jefferson was still groping the hapless Betsy Walker after he married his wife, Martha, with whom he passed ten years of, as he wrote, “unchequered happiness.” Not that he wasn’t happy in his marriage; all the scant evidence indicates that he was, and he spent his later years devastated by the loss of his wife.

In 1784, two years after Martha’s death, Jefferson was named American minister to France, following Benjamin Franklin’s triumphant stay, and he remained there for five years, returning to America just as the French Revolution entered its first act. In France he enjoyed friendships with ladies, but his sensibilities were offended by the emancipated European women who had charmed his predecessor. He called them the “Amazons” to his American “angels.”

Biographers portray the married English painter Maria Cosway, whom he met in France, as his last great love, who salvaged his widowerhood. It was for Cosway that he penned his “Head v. Heart” essay, which has been held up as one of the great love letters in the English language, an intellectual exercise in seeking to overcome emotion with rational thinking. To female minds it is one of the least romantic epistles ever written, but Jefferson was proud of it. As Kukla recounts, “Before Jefferson dispatched his artfully composed dialogue to Maria, he also made a letterpress copy for his files—an act quite in contrast to the destruction of every shred of paper he had written to his late wife.”

It is a clever exercise of a Socratic nature, and there are 12 pages of it: “Head. Well, friend you seem to be in a pretty trim. Heart. I am indeed the most wretched of all earthly beings. Overwhelmed with grief, every fibre of my frame distended beyond its natural powers to bear.” He should have kept such thoughts to himself. But he actually sent the dialogue to the woman he professed to love, advertising the victory of his head over his gelid and reserved heart and thus displaying a continued ineptitude when it came to the art of seduction.

Kukla points out that here again, as in the anguished earlier letters to college friends about Rebecca Burwell, he revealed a depth of self-absorption that makes it hard if not impossible to credit him as a lover (which may also explain why it has been so easy for historians to dismiss the Sally Hemings rumors and other sex scandals attached to him). But perhaps he was not in love at all, but just lonely, and devised a brilliant—if passive—scheme to beg off from courtship when it came time to act on verbal promises made in loneliness. Perhaps four years after losing Martha he still wasn’t ready to try at love again. Maria Cosway was understandably confused by the “Head v. Heart” letter, and the short affair went downhill from there. After Jefferson returned home, he and Cosway exchanged infrequent, formal letters, and they never saw each other again.

And now we come to Sally Hemings. Jefferson’s long-term relationship with his slave, who was also his wife’s half-sister, is still hotly contested, because even after the recent DNA study linking a descendant of hers to his family by a rare male gene haplotype, the historical record on her is so flimsy it necessitates reliance on speculation. Kukla uses Jefferson’s deeply racist attitudes (as expressed, for instance, in his Notes on the State of Virginia) to build the case that he had a long-term relationship with his slave, an arrangement DNA and circumstantial evidence say may have produced six children. Following the common practice of miscegenation and Jefferson’s own personal aesthetics, a darker-hued bondswoman would not have aroused his interest, but the young, white-looking half-sister of his beloved late wife—a woman whose body he owned for life, who lived in complete submission to him, who spoke French and spent time in France with him as maid to his youngest daughter, Maria, who would have provided him with salutary companionship in his bachelor middle-aged years, and who evidently would give him sons—would attract him. Sally Hemings fit his domestic “Angel” ideal and provided a natural remedy to his limitations as a romantic partner; she fits the bill neatly for his particular needs and wants in a mate at the time.

Of all the slaves he held—he owned around 200 at the signing of the Declaration of Independence—only members of the light-skinned house-servant Hemings family were ever freed by him, and all of Sally’s children were freed. It isn’t difficult to imagine the amateur scientist indulging in the heady experience of creating a superior labor force in his own image and supposing he was improving their lot by bestowing unto the “yellow” children of Monticello his superior genetics. By his own math, Sally Hemings’s children were “legally white.” “Our Canon,” he told a Boston scientist in 1815, “considers two crosses with [a] pure white [parent], and a third with [a parent of] any degree of mixture, however small, as clearing the issue of the negro blood.”

The Sally Hemings chapter in Mr. Jefferson’s Women presents the rockiest terrain in an otherwise smooth volume and contains factual errors. For example, John Hemings was not Sally’s younger brother, and it’s not completely certain that the “Sally,” no last name, freed by Jefferson’s daughter, Martha Randolph, in 1834 was Sally Hemings, who in any case was already living as a free woman in Charlottesville with two of her sons. But Kukla’s observations about Jefferson and Hemings, steeped in healthy skepticism, knowledge of human nature and history, and common sense, are persuasive and well worth absorbing all the same.

In Mr. Jeffersons Women, Jon Kukla paints some vivid portraits, especially of Jeffersons epistolary friend Abigail Adams, whose considerable wit, intelligence, and largely egalitarian partnership with her husband, John Adams, temporarily silenced Jeffersons paternalism. But discussed only lightly in the book are Jeffersons two daughters, Martha Jefferson Randolph and Maria Jefferson Eppes. The many extant letters between him and them reveal far more about his attitudes toward women than do the dim lights of his love affairs. With his daughters he was dictatorial, arranging their lives to suit his needs. He was affectionate but utterly controlling and demanding of their first loyalties, and Marthas marriage to a Virginia governor and state representative suffered as a result. The more independent Maria settled the problem of her father by moving away from Monticello with her cousin-husband, John Wayles Eppes. Curiously, after Marias premature death, at 25, Eppes remarried but then also took up with Marias maid, Sally Hemingss niece, and the two are today buried side-by-side.

The authors creative use of indirect evidence and his journalistic style, anecdotal asides, and easy maneuvering through a deep well of historical fact, period gossip, and even impossibly convoluted Virginia genealogiesall that combines to serve up a persuasive and entertaining read that ends with an examination of how Jeffersons politics were directly influenced by his negative personal views of women. It is fitting to consider that a man with such an iron grip on his public persona would spend the last years of his life hidden away from the public at Monticello, in the bosom of his extended familyincluding his enslaved mistress and their children. He would have known even then that such a relationship would never leave a paper trail on which to judge him in the future.

Kuklas Mr. Jeffersons Women is a fine and original addition to the growing number of chronicles of that hidden domestic life of Thomas Jefferson.

Jillian Sim lives and writes in the desert Southwest.