# The Kirkpatrick Doctrine Today. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 13, 2016, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kirkpatrick-doctrine-today/759792 "2016-07-13T05:28:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kirkpatrick-doctrine-today/759792/21 "2016-07-14T18:06:39Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > That wasn’t the Kirkpatrick doctrine. I’m not arguing that it can’t be a necessity but simply fighting communism doesn’t make it a necessity. The Kirkpatrick doctrine would have had us siding with Hitler against Stalin. Luckily, Kirkpatrick was only 15 when WW2 broke out and had not had a chance to create a doctrine. A coherent foreign policy can’t just take things as they come, it has to have a goal and then interpret events and policies in light of that goal. Fascism was more dangerous than communism, so the defeat of Germany was the goal, so we supported Stalin, after that communism was the most dangerous ideology and we fought that. Now islamic terrorism is the most dangerous ideology and we need to fight that. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kirkpatrick-doctrine-today/759792/22 "2016-07-14T18:32:06Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > That wasn’t the Kirkpatrick doctrine. I’m not arguing that it can’t be a necessity but simply fighting communism doesn’t make it a necessity. The Kirkpatrick doctrine would have had us siding with Hitler against Stalin. I don’t think so. This was one of the big points of contention between Stalin and Trotsky: should the Soviet Union work on perfecting communism inside one country (Stalin’s position) or work on spreading communism around the world (Trotsky’s position)? The world revolution argument was effectively rebutted when Stalin had somebody put an ax in Trotsky’s head. Hitler, meanwhile, was looking to conquer the world or at least a significant portion of it. So the United States ended up following what was the core principle of the Kirkpatrick doctrine: we allied with a dictator who was evil (Stalin) against a dictator who was evil and threatening (Hitler). ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kirkpatrick-doctrine-today/759792/23 "2016-07-14T18:51:35Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Hitler, meanwhile, was looking to conquer the world or at least a significant portion of it. So the United States ended up following what was the core principle of the Kirkpatrick doctrine: we allied with a dictator who was evil (Stalin) against a dictator who was evil and threatening (Hitler). I disagree, the core principle of the Kirkpatrick Doctrine was that communist dictators are more evil and threatening than non-communist dictators by definition without analysis of the actual circumstances. It’s not the same as choosing one dictator over another out of necessity. It also seems to me to presuppose that it is in our interest to support non-communist dictators opposed to communism without even considering that we may not have to support either one. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kirkpatrick-doctrine-today/759792/24 "2016-07-14T19:26:57Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I disagree, the core principle of the Kirkpatrick Doctrine was that communist dictators are more evil and threatening than non-communist dictators by definition without analysis of the actual circumstances. Then I guess we do disagree. I feel the doctrine was arrived at as the conclusion of the analysis not in lieu of an analysis. I think we, justifiably, saw the Soviet Union as the most serious threat to the United States. Countries that allied with the Soviet Union made that country stronger. Countries that allied with the United States made us stronger. If the Soviet Union had been willing to ally with dictatorships while the United States rejected dictatorships as allies, the United States would have ended up being weaker than the Soviet Union. We had to consider the conditions in a world in which we tolerated dictatorships versus the conditions in a world in which the Soviet Union was stronger than the United States. And keep in mind this would have also been a world with greater toleration for dictatorships. We decided that it was better to tolerate dictatorships on a temporary basis in order to reduce Soviet power. This was essentially the same reasoning we followed in WWII when we tolerated dictatorships in order to reduce Nazi power. Once the main threat was gone, we could begin addressing the lesser problem of dictatorships. And give it credit, it seems to have worked. The Nazis are gone. The Soviets are gone. And a lot of countries that used to be dictatorships are now democracies. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kirkpatrick-doctrine-today/759792/25 "2016-07-14T19:29:55Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > . . . But does anyone believe the Castros will ever liberalize their system? The Chinese? North Korea? Vietnam? . . . The Chinese and Vietnamese have liberalized their systems! ETA: Cuba, too, is far more liberal today than at some times in the past. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kirkpatrick-doctrine-today/759792/26 "2016-07-14T19:36:12Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Then I guess we do disagree. I feel the doctrine was arrived at as the conclusion of the analysis not in lieu of an analysis. A doctrine is intended to be used to decide the course of action in future events so it can’t have been used after an analysis of a situation that hadn’t occurred yet. We supported a non-communist dictator against a communist one in WWII because the analysis showed that was to our advantage. We’ve made other good choices in other situations, but not always, our flip-flopping support of Iran and Iraq has not worked out so well. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kirkpatrick-doctrine-today/759792/27 "2016-07-14T20:10:37Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > The Chinese and Vietnamese have liberalized their systems! > > ETA: Cuba, too, is far more liberal today than at some times in the past. You see elections anywhere on the horizon? A benevolent dictatorship is better than a brutal dictatorship. But it’s still a dictatorship. (And a benevolent dictator always has the option of turning brutal.) ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kirkpatrick-doctrine-today/759792/28 "2016-07-14T20:15:27Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > A doctrine is intended to be used to decide the course of action in future events so it can’t have been used after an analysis of a situation that hadn’t occurred yet. Until we invent time travel all doctrines use the evidence of past events and current events to predict future events. If you’re going to insist governments wait until events are over to react to them, then you have a government with no policies at all. The Kirkpatrick doctrine was put forth in 1979. I think it was reasonable to form a working hypothesis on communist governments by that point. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kirkpatrick-doctrine-today/759792/29 "2016-07-14T20:40:58Z")
One aspect of this is the how it played in the court of public opinion in the third world. In [The World Was Going Our Way](https://www.amazon.com/World-Was-Going-Our-Way/dp/0465003133) KGB defector Vasili Mitrokhin explicitly mentioned how that attitude by the US, played into the Soviets hands in the Third World. The US’s actions in deposing democratic regimes, and supporting dictatorships made it east for the Soviets to portray themselves at the good guys. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kirkpatrick-doctrine-today/759792/30 "2016-07-14T21:22:24Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > You see elections anywhere on the horizon? > > A benevolent dictatorship is better than a brutal dictatorship. But it’s still a dictatorship. (And a benevolent dictator always has the option of turning brutal.) But nothing you say here contradicts what I said…where what I said flatly contradicts what **adaher** said. He was wrong: some communist nations have liberalized their policies, which he said (or implied) never happens. You and I are both right, but he was flat wrong. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kirkpatrick-doctrine-today/759792/31 "2016-07-14T21:26:48Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Until we invent time travel all doctrines use the evidence of past events and current events to predict future events. If you’re going to insist governments wait until events are over to react to them, then you have a government with no policies at all. > > The Kirkpatrick doctrine was put forth in 1979. I think it was reasonable to form a working hypothesis on communist governments by that point. **griffin1977** lays out clearly the problem with relying on doctrine. I expect our government to react to every new situation based on that actual situation. As I’ve already pointed out the Kirkpatrick doctrine would have had us siding with Hitler against Stalin. There are more ways to evaluate the threat a dictator poses other than his position on communism. There were no dictators threatening the Soviet Union in 1979, this was all about the proxy battles between smaller nations. > [@griffin1977](#): > > One aspect of this is the how it played in the court of public opinion in the third world. In [The World Was Going Our Way](https://www.amazon.com/World-Was-Going-Our-Way/dp/0465003133) KGB defector Vasili Mitrokhin explicitly mentioned how that attitude by the US, played into the Soviets hands in the Third World. The US’s actions in deposing democratic regimes, and supporting dictatorships made it east for the Soviets to portray themselves at the good guys. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kirkpatrick-doctrine-today/759792/32 "2016-07-14T21:53:58Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > One aspect of this is the how it played in the court of public opinion in the third world. In [The World Was Going Our Way](https://www.amazon.com/World-Was-Going-Our-Way/dp/0465003133) KGB defector Vasili Mitrokhin explicitly mentioned how that attitude by the US, played into the Soviets hands in the Third World. The US’s actions in deposing democratic regimes, and supporting dictatorships made it east for the Soviets to portray themselves at the good guys. Propaganda is always out there. And there are always going to be people willing to believe it. But that particular line would require people to ignore a lot of reality. Is the American record perfect? No, of course not. Was the Soviet record absolute evil? No, of course not. Was the American record better than the Soviet record? Yes. And not only overall. I think at pretty much any point, you would have found the Americans were better than the Soviets. If we were overthrowing one government, they were overthrowing three. If we were supporting one dictator, they were supporting a dozen. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kirkpatrick-doctrine-today/759792/33 "2016-07-14T22:03:20Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > **griffin1977** lays out clearly the problem with relying on doctrine. I expect our government to react to every new situation based on that actual situation. As I’ve already pointed out the Kirkpatrick doctrine would have had us siding with Hitler against Stalin. There are more ways to evaluate the threat a dictator poses other than his position on communism. There were no dictators threatening the Soviet Union in 1979, this was all about the proxy battles between smaller nations. And I think you’re misreading how the doctrine was applied. I didn’t simply judge any communist government as evil. The United States recognized that some communist countries were not Soviet allies. And we did to react to new situation based on that situations. While you seem to feel it didn’t happen, we did work with the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany. And we did support Iraq, a Soviet ally, against Iran, which wasn’t a Soviet ally. Why? Because at the time, Iran was a bigger threat than Iraq. The doctrine was much more flexible than you’re giving it credit for. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kirkpatrick-doctrine-today/759792/34 "2016-07-14T22:21:20Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The doctrine was much more flexible than you’re giving it credit for. I didn’t see it that way, but it does seem to have been a political excuse and not the actual basis for all decisions. We wasted our time in the Middle East and Central America with this doctrine. Had it simply been said that it is in our interest to support dictators that oppose the Soviet Union if they don’t rise beyond some level of evil then my anti-doctinaire attitude in general wouldn’t be sufficient to disagree, but I found this one to convenient for use in justifying actions that were actually counter-productive, and also being ignored by the major proponent of the doctrine when he decided to sell the Soviets wheat to sustain their failing economy for a political advantage here at home when they were on the verge of economic collapse. I don’t see a case where this doctrine was actually applied to our advantage. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2016, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kirkpatrick-doctrine-today/759792/35 "2016-07-15T19:47:37Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > **griffin1977** lays out clearly the problem with relying on doctrine. I expect our government to react to every new situation based on that actual situation. > [@TriPolar](#): > > I didn’t see it that way, but it does seem to have been a political excuse and not the actual basis for all decisions. So the government was wrong because it blindly followed doctrine without considering the circumstances. Except when it did consider the circumstances and changed. In which case the government was wrong for not following its own doctrine and abandoning its principles. You don’t seem to have left any room for the government to have been right. > [@TriPolar](#): > > I don’t see a case where this doctrine was actually applied to our advantage. Well, we won. There’s that. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2016, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kirkpatrick-doctrine-today/759792/36 "2016-07-16T01:15:46Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > But nothing you say here contradicts what I said…where what I said flatly contradicts what **adaher** said. He was wrong: some communist nations have liberalized their policies, which he said (or implied) never happens. > > You and I are both right, but he was flat wrong. Actually, I acknowledged that they liberalized their economic systems in some cases. But politically, they are all just as repressive as ever. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2016, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kirkpatrick-doctrine-today/759792/37 "2016-07-16T03:12:53Z")
There’s a lot of talk about the Kirkpatrick Doctrine in the thread, but nobody’s actually linked to the article that set it out: [https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/dictatorships-double-standards/](https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/dictatorships-double-standards/) From the essay: > [@](#): > > Surely it is now beyond reasonable doubt that the present governments of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos are much more repressive than those of the despised previous rulers; that the government of the People’s Republic of China is more repressive than that of Taiwan, that North Korea is more repressive than South Korea, and so forth. This is the most important lesson of Vietnam and Cambodia. It is not new but it is a gruesome reminder of harsh facts. > From time to time a truly bestial ruler can come to power in either type of autocracy–Idi Amin, Papa Doc Duvalier, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot are examples–but neither type regularly produces such moral monsters (though democracy regularly prevents their accession to power). There are, however, systemic differences between traditional and revolutionary autocracies that have a predictable effect on their degree of repressiveness. Generally speaking, traditional autocrats tolerate social inequities, brutality, and poverty while revolutionary autocracies create them. > > Traditional autocrats leave in place existing allocations of wealth, power, status, and other re- sources 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. Because the miseries of traditional life are familiar, they are bearable to ordinary people who, growing up in the society, learn to cope, as children born to untouchables in India acquire the skills and attitudes necessary for survival in the miserable roles they are destined to fill. Such societies create no refugees. > > Precisely the opposite is true of revolutionary Communist regimes. They create refugees by the million because they claim jurisdiction over the whole life of the society and make demands for change that so violate internalized values and habits that inhabitants flee by the tens of thousands in the remarkable expectation that their attitudes, values, and goals will “fit” better in a foreign country than in their native land. . . . > > There is a damning, contrast between the number of refugees created by Marxist regimes and those created by other autocracies: more than a million Cubans have left their homeland since Castro’s rise (one refugee for every nine inhabitants) as compared to about 35,000 each from Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. In Africa more than five times as many refugees have fled Guinea and Guinea Bissau as have left Zimbabwe Rhodesia, suggesting that civil war and racial discrimination are easier for most people to bear than Marxist-style liberation. > > Moreover, the history of this century provides no grounds for expecting that radical totalitarian regimes will transform themselves. At the moment there is a far greater likelihood of progressive liberalization and democratization in the governments of Brazil, Argentina, and Chile than in the government of Cuba; in Taiwan than in the People’s Republic of China; in South Korea than in North Korea; in Zaire than in Angola; and so forth. > > Since many traditional autocracies permit limited contestation and participation, it is not impossible that U.S. policy could effectively encourage this process of liberalization and democratization, provided that the effort is not made at a time when the incumbent government is fighting for its life against violent adversaries, and that proposed reforms are aimed at producing gradual change rather than perfect democracy overnight. To accomplish this, policymakers are needed who understand how actual democracies have actually come into being. History is a better guide than good intentions. > > A realistic policy which aims at protecting our own interest and assisting the capacities for self-determination of less developed nations will need to face the unpleasant fact that, if victorious, violent insurgency headed by Marxist revolutionaries is unlikely to lead to anything but totalitarian tyranny. Armed intellectuals citing Marx and supported by Soviet-bloc arms and advisers will almost surely not turn out to be agrarian reformers, or simple nationalists, or democratic socialists. However incomprehensible it may be to some, Marxist revolutionaries are not contemporary embodiments of the Americans who wrote the Declaration of Independence, and they will not be content with establishing a broad-based coalition in which they have only one voice among many. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2016, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kirkpatrick-doctrine-today/759792/38 "2016-07-20T08:14:26Z")
> [@Jim\_B](#): > > I don’t support the Kirkpatrick Doctrine either. I think we should support democracies everywhere, even if they are less stable. If you’re a great power looking to create proxy states the problem with democracies isn’t they’re unstable. The problem is the people might vote the wrong way. Unless “stability” is a euphemism for obedience, then never mind (e.g. when American enemies intervene they destabilize a region, when America intervenes they stabilize it). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kirkpatrick-doctrine-today/759792.md?page=1)