Kevin Rudd’s book provides a masterful analysis of Xi Jinping’s ideological springs and what they mean for China.

One debate among historians that continues to surface in our time concerns the “great man theory of history.” Usually associated with the nineteenth-century Scottish historian Thomas Carlyle, this theory holds that the course of history is largely attributable to the role played by individuals of a heroic stature, ranging from George Washington to Pericles. Put more simply, it not only matters whether Winston Churchill or Lord Halifax is in charge in June 1940, but also whether Churchill opts to fight or negotiate.

A variant on this theory is the negative greatness thesis. Coined by the German historian and Hitler biographer Joachim Fest, this phrase describes the decisive part played by certain individuals and their commitment to a set of ideas in generating catastrophes like the Shoah.

But whether cast in positive or negative form, the great man theory has long been contested by historians who emphasize the extent to which individuals are at the mercy of circumstances beyond their control. Even more critical are those Marxist scholars who read history through the lens of dialectical materialism. Human agency, from their standpoint, plays a bit part in shaping human events.

...