Dictatorships and double standards: Rationalism and reason in politics [Hardcover]

Jeane J Kirkpatrick (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: 1982

Former U.N. Ambassador explains why the rationalist spirit has, with dangerous effect, played too strong a role in U.S. foreign and domestic policy.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 270 pages
• Publisher: Simon and Schuster; First Printing edition (1982)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0671438360
• ISBN-13: 978-0671438364
• Product Dimensions: 8.5 x 5.5 x 1.1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,493,987 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

11 of 15 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars PROPHETESS OF THE REAGAN REVOLUTION, October 13, 2005

By 

Orrin C. Judd "brothersjudddotcom" (Hanover, NH USA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Dictatorships and double standards: Rationalism and reason in politics (Hardcover)

Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, former Ambassador to the United Nations under Ronald Reagan, is the author of one of the three most famous essays in the history of American foreign policy, "Dictatorships and Double Standards," Commentary (November 1979)--the other two being George F. Kennan's call for "containment" of the Soviet Union and The End of History by Francis Fukuyama. In it she argued that it was incumbent on the United States to differentiate between authoritarian regimes and totalitarian regimes. Authoritarian regimes she argued, like Iran and Nicaragua, though they obviously did not meet our preferred standards of democratization, were fundamentally just harsh, but traditional, governments of countries which had known no other type of government and were perhaps not yet ready for democracy :

"Traditional autocrats leave in place existing allocations of wealth, power, status, and other
resources, which in most traditional societies favor an affluent few and maintain masses in poverty.
But they worship traditional gods and observe traditional taboos. They do not disturb the habitual
rhythms of work and leisure, habitual places of residence, habitual patterns of family and personal
relations."

Essentially, the autocracies protect their own power and wealth, but leave most other aspects of life relatively untouched. As the name implies, they are more concerned with who in society will wield authority, i.e. themselves, than with imposing any particular ideology. Because this is the case, they in fact preserve many of the institutions upon which democracy can later be built, whether the Church or corporations or other civic organizations.

Totalitarian regimes, on the other hand, as the name implies, seek to totally reinvent and control every aspect of society. This requires them to so violate the existing institutions as to render the society nearly incapable of evolving into a democracy.

These fundamental differences between the two types of regimes suggest important reasons that we should be more rigorous in our approach to the one than the other. Because authoritarian regimes are less oppressive of their citizens and are more amenable to democracy they are more susceptible to pressure from without, but at the same time, particularly when Kirkpatrick was writing, at the very nadir of the Cold War, it was especially dangerous to destabilize these generally friendly regimes, particularly in light of the fact that they could be expected, over a period of years, to gradually transform themselves into more democratic societies.

Meanwhile, authoritarian regimes, like Cuba and Vietnam, though they tend to cast their ideology in the language of progressive democracy, which makes them seem somehow more akin to the U.S., in reality are much more oppressive of their people and, because they destroy traditional institutions, tend to create such devastation that it is extremely difficult for external pressure to aid the rise of democracy. They are both worse for their people in the short run and more likely to endure in the long run.

This leaves America in a difficult position. Neither type of government vindicates our ideals of liberal democracy. We would of course like to see both become more democratic. But the regimes we can most easily change are the less offensive ones, and ones that are likely to be our de facto allies. Those regimes which truly brutalize their populations, and which at that time were generally allied with our enemy, the Soviet Union, tend not to be easily pressured.

Further complicating matters is the fact that in countries with authoritarian regimes, there tend to be reasonably well-organized and very well supplied guerrilla movements. This was particularly true when the Soviet Union and the rest of the Warsaw Pact nations existed and stood ready to support them. Totalitarian nations, with their much more restrictive internal controls, and with the U.S. showing no interest in supplying indigenous rebellions, tended to be relatively free of organized civil unrest.

All of these factors combined in the late 1970's to bring about the bizarre and tragic situation whereby the government of Jimmy Carter basically helped to topple the Somoza government in Nicaragua and the Shah in Iran. In effect, this eliminated two friendly governments in important strategic locations, governments which while by no means ideal were hardly the two worst human rights offenders even in their own regions. In the ultimate perversity, it seemed that they were actually targeted by the Carter Administration precisely because they were so closely associated with the United States. Allies were destroyed, an action made possible because they were not as repressive as other regimes, and replaced by radical totalitarian regimes allied with the Soviet Union, with whom we were at war.

Looked at in the abstract like this, the Carter policy seems nearly suicidal. But Jeane Kirkpatrick traced it to a dangerous faith in Rationalism, as opposed to reliance on Realism, as the basis of foreign policy. The important thing to note here is that the critique of Rationalism that she offers is very similar to the general conservative critique of modern day liberalism. The Left has an almost alchemical notion of mankind, believing that any transmutation that they can arrive at rationally can be then be engineered socially. Able to imagine a utopian world in which Marxist guerilla leaders turn a illiterate, Third World, agrarian, nation into a liberal, egalitarian democracy (moreover, one that would be unfettered by such hoary institutions as the Church, the aristocracy, the military, etc.), they assume such an apotheosis to be imminent.

What Kirkpatrick was calling for was a foreign policy grounded in Realism. Hard experience has demonstrated time and again that revolutionaries who set out to completely transform a society end up imposing an even greater tyranny than the one they replace. Even more troublesome, they practically never fade away or evolve into democracies (at least they hadn't to that point--the collapse of Eastern European Communism offers a difficult counter argument), they are likely to endure until they in turn are overthrown by conquest from without or violent counterrevolution from within. For these reasons, we are frequently, if not always, better off opting for the devil we know, the kind of traditional autocratic regimes which, though not democratic, at least offer stability and domestic order, tend to be fairly trustworthy allies, and frequently evolve into democracies. Kirkpatrick's theory was ultimately vindicated at least in this regard as this was basically the process which occurred in places like Spain, the Philippines, South Africa, Chile, and so on.

In fact, the current case of Russia provides a really difficult test of some the implications of theory. The complete failure of capitalism and democratic institutions to establish themselves in post-Soviet Russia begs the question of whether a brief period of fascist rule there might not have a salutary effect. First, it would allow central authorities to reestablish the rule of law, both by curbing crime and corruption and by restoring the notion of property rights. This sort of functioning legal system it now seems fair to say is an absolutely imperative precursor of capitalism and democracy. Second, it would provide a period of relative physical security and cultural freedom during which civic institutions could be revitalized--the Church, political parties, corporations, the military, law enforcement, the judiciary, etc. Difficult as the prospect may be for us to accept, it may well be the case that a healthy Russian democracy will only flower in the wake of a period of authoritarian rule. This is not to suggest that we should aid Vladimir Putin in oppressing his own people or even that we should turn a blind eye, it is merely to suggest that it might be in our own best interests and ultimately those of the Russian people to allow him some latitude to restore order to that badly disordered nation, even if in so doing he sometimes offends our delicate democratic sensibilities.

Other essays in this collection range over a surprisingly wide field, including some perceptive observations on American domestic politics. The span of years and topics covered means that they don't necessarily fit together into a unified whole, but the dichotomy between reason and realism recurs often enough that they do present a coherent argument in the end. Thus, in an essay on the failure of the efforts to reform the political parties, she's essentially arguing that the reformers bought into an illusion that they could make the parties adhere to abstract principles, simply because they could imagine this happening.

Similarly, in discussing the failure of the New Right to capture either the presidency or the Republican Party nomination in 1976, as theorists like Kevin Phillips, Pat Buchanan, William Rusher, and others expected they would, she points out that their theories were based on a faith that would have required a genuine transformation in the American electorate. This faith, as the only incremental successes of even Ronald Reagan and the Republican Congress of '94 have demonstrated, was rather misguided. It may be true--I hope to God it is--that people are reasonably conservative at their core, but it is surely no coincidence that for the past seventy years they have consistently elected candidates who have promised them ever greater government benefits. While reason can build a case for why that should, even why it must, change, realism requires one to note the stubborn fact.

Today these essays are probably little more... Read more ›

2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars a great defender of western values, December 10, 2009

By 

Evelina - See all my reviews

This review is from: Dictatorships and Double Standards: Rationalism and Reason in Politics (Paperback)

Kirkpatrick wrote a book that deserves to be more widely read.

The title refers to the American tendency which has never left us, even during supposedly conservative eras, of assuming that all dictatorships are alike or that so called right wing dictatorships are worse than socialist or communist dictatorships. The chapter dealing with that issue is the most famous.

She draws a distinction between autocrats and totalitarian rulers. The former are not democratic and can be brutal. Their brutality aims to keep them in power and maintain their privileges. But they don't just use force. The rulers have familial and often historic ties to the ruled. They create patronage and dispense largesse. Unless seriously opposed, they generally leave people alone to do business, worship, and conduct family life. They often allow some measure of freedom of the press and tolerate some criticism. Generally, they only notice those who try to overthrow them.

Life continues for most people as it always have. They live by tradition and custom. This means that most are poor and that life is bounded by the family, the village, the ethnicity, and the religion. There is a lot of injustice, especially by modern western standards. But life is not totally arbitrary. There is law. There is custom by which the people can protect and exercise such rights as they have. Their situation is akin to that in Europe when it was ruled by kings and most were peasants. It is possible that such societies can become richer, raise the living standard, and become more democratic.

Totalitarian rulers, however, are not just content to have power. They want the state to own everything and all loyalty to be to the state. They want to remake human nature according to rationalistic of scientific principles. So everything that exists, every way of thinking must be destroyed. It is not enough to act loyal. Every cell in the body must be loyal. The mind must be controlled. There is no such thing as privacy. Loyalty to religion and to family must be destroyed. This is always strongly resisted, which is why the totalitarian must always end up killing by the millions. Attachment to anything but the state or the party is regarded as political opposition and that is not tolerated.

There is no other way except mass murder to disengage parents from children, husbands from wives, people from their tribe or their religion or their customs. Every lapse must be punished. Citizens are taught to scrutinize each other and even family members for improper or "reactionary" or unrevolutionary thoughts. Children are taught to report on their parents. In the old world, if one said our leader should be overthrown, one might get some time in jail. In the new world, a person who forgets and invokes the name of a saint might end up in a camp or dead because religion has been abolished. The power sought by the totalitarian is far above that sought by the usual third world dictator.

The totalitarian starts in a way that sounds good to western liberals and indeed to all westerners. He speaks of the "people" and freedom and fairness. It is easy for him to point out the defects of the traditional rulers. The totalitarian speaks of elections, while the traditional ruler may have inherited his position from a long line of his forefathers. The totalitarian seems rational, even scientific, while the autocrat relies on tradition and ritual. The totalitarian accuses the US of supporting tyranny. The US then abandons the traditional ruler (which for decades has been a staunch ally and anti communist) and the totalitarian takes over. Next, the US watches in dismay. Where before there was a stable, albeit miserable nation, with order and no refugees, now there are refugees by the millions. Millions are killed, where before only dozens were killed. This happened in Vietnam and Cambodia. It happened in Ethiopia when the traditional emperor was replaced by marxist rulers. In Cambodia, people with glasses were rounded up and killed. If you wore glasses it meant you were probably of the educated class and you had ideas. Maybe you had read a book. The ruler wanted to start anew with a population that was a blank slate. So the educated had to go.

The reaction of liberals in the west is always the same. The new regime is praised as wanting to help the people and bringing democracy. Evidence to the contrary is ignored. Sometimes, mass murder is defended and justified because soon, any day now, the liberal believes, perfect justice will be created. Everything will be arranged in a rational manner.

Other chapters deal with US political parties, the tension between freedom and equality, and other issues that are even more pressing today. Kirkpatrick wrote at a time when the culture wars were fairly new. Today we are in the thick of the culture wars and we are very polarized. She anticipates the arguments made today by both sides.

Kirpatrick writes that to the liberal or left wing person, everything in the US or the western nations is bad. Therefore, everything must be put down until there is no more faith in it, whether the history of the nations, the culture, the religion, marriage, child rearing. All must be made anew. People must behave according to what the liberal thinks is rational or scientific. However, what the liberal regards as irrational is also the basis of western liberalism. Liberalism itself cannot be maintained by rationality alone. Nothing can. The destruction of a peoples faith in themselves has serious consequences. The failure to pass on values to the young likewise.