Talk:Kirkpatrick Doctrine

Untitled
The last paragraph is bad as worded. I understand what it's trying to say, but as it says it, it's bad. The notion of greater stability does not mean absolute stability. Part of Kirkpatrick's point was that communist countries tended to have more oligarchic structures, with the result that the regime could continue despite the death of the leader. This in turn was due to the ideological focus of the governing elite. By contrast, a merely "authoritarian" regime was supposedly based much more on the personal charisma and authority of a single person, and thus wouldn't survive in the same form to the next leader.

The collapse of any particular regime doesn't do anything to prove or disprove the thesis. It might be obvious; I think the thesis is more or less correct, though I strongly disagree with the ethical conclusion that it's ok to make buddy-buddy with "authoritarian" states or that their human rights abuses are less worthy of challenge. --Tb 22:54, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The right wing
Deleted from intro:


 * right-wing, ...

Since "right-wing" includes fascism and Kirkpatrick explicitly condemns fascism as "totalitarian", it would be misleading to use it to described her doctrine - especially in the intro.

How does right wing include fascism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.1.37 (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps later in the article we could clarify that certain parties (who, of course, should be named explicitly) regard anti-communism as right wing despite Kirkpatrick's, er, "typology". (What the hell is a typology, anyway?)

Trying to control everything = totalitarianism. This means in particular fascism and Communism.

Trying to control a lot of stuff, for the benefit of the elite, but otherwise letting people have an acceptable degree of personal autonomy, is what Kirkpatrick termed authoritarianism.

Whether she was right about the wisdom of pitting "authoritarian" regimes against Communist regimes, is another thing. Let's just get the description correct, first of all. Only then will we have a basis for criticism of her ideas. (I myself am not so user her idea was so wise, even if like her I think the Communism of USSR, Cuba and North Korea far worse than even Pinochet's authoritarianism.)

First describe what SHE saw as the distinction (a vs. t); second, her reasoning about the strategy of pitting one against the other; third, critiques of (a) the distinction and/or (b) the strategy.

I daresay many leftists bristle at having their cherished Marxist or socialist ideas lumped in with Hitler and Mussolini's fascist ideas. This may be part of the reason it's so hard to write a clear and unbiased article. Uncle Ed 18:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Table of good and bad
recomending changes to the first paragraph The Kirkpatrick Doctrine was a political doctrine expounded by United States of America Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick in the early 1980s to justify US support for Third World anti-Communist dictatorships in the context of the Cold War. Under the doctrine, the U.S. gave support to dozens of regimes worldwide that brazenly committed murder and genocide against their peoples. This sounds as though she made up the Kirkpatrick docterine in order to moralize US policy. The Kirkpatrick docterine, in large part stems from a disagreement with the Carter administration as expressed in her essay Dictatorships and Double Standards Anyone who has not taken the time to read this should not comment on this docterine. Also, It seems like this page has things reversed concerning her understanding of Communist versus authoritarian regimes. ". Kirkpatrick claimed that totalitarian regimes were more stable than authoritarian regimes, and thus had a greater propensity to influence neighboring states" The reality is the opposite. Because communist regimes lacked civilain stability, that they posed a greater threat to their neighbors. Indeed when Stalin died no one would have guessed that Kruschev would repalce him and much less the half hearted antistalinism. On the other hand did anyone doubt that baby Doc Duvalier would replace his father? Communist regime had to retain their revolutionary character and thus their inherent instability. No matter how "westernized" a given leader was, he could not make substantial reforms without undermining the parties position and thus its legitimacy. Clearly authouritarian regimes were not immune to palace coups, but were less likely to menace their neighbors. Kirkpatrick seems to have believed that authoritarian regimes, could over time be led toward liberalization, but certainly not while communist rebels Often supported by the soviet union or china) sought their demise. In this context any comprimise with a revolutionary movement bent on their destruction could only weaken the existing regime.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kirkpatrick Doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110204172141/http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/dictatorships--double-standards-6189 to http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/dictatorships--double-standards-6189

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)