Talk:Madman theory

Anon edits
user:129.118.15.218 (the IP resolves to the Texas Tech) keeps editing this page to state that the term is the work of historian Jeffrey Kimball, which flatly contradicts the Haldeman's quote here. In addtion, it makes all kinds of unreferenced assertions about Haldeman's book. In addition, the anon's version removes all the wikified terms here. Raul654 18:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

As I wrote, Haldeman denied writing the Ends of Power and if you read Joan Hoff, Stephen Ambrose, and other historians, you will discover that Haldeman agreed to the book to pay for his legal fees. Also, I have conducted an oral history with Jo Haldeman and she stated the same thing.

Indeed, Jeffrey Kimball used the quote to argue that the so-called "Madman theory" was the centerpiece of Nixon's foreign policy. Furthermore, the excessive threats were an aspect of a much broader foreign policy that included Vietnamization, triangular diplomacy, linkage, and detente with the communist world. Kimball also recognizes that Richard Nixon never used the term "madman theory".

Raul,

Also, I'd like to add that there is no evidence that Dr. Kissinger claimed that Nixon employed a madman theory. Also, Excessive force or the madman theory is used to describe the secret 1969 bombing of Cambodia--not the 1970 ARVN and U.S. incursion to stabliize Cambodia. I created an account and my username is whitecleats
 * All right - I've gone ahead and unprotected the page. Please remember to Cite sources when making those claims. Also, please take care not to replace "wikified text" (text which links to other wikipedia articles) with unwikified text. Raul654 19:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The defining characteristic?
This article doesn't even bother to cite the source who claims that the 'madman theory' defined Nixon's foreign policy. One would think that such an interpretation would need at least to demonstrate how pretending to be insane was any more central to Nixon's policy than, say, triangulation. --WadeMcR 19:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the "problems" section
The problems section makes unwarranted assumptions about cause and effect. It cites a book, but I know for sure that this book is not the only, or even the consensus viewpoint. In particular trotting out the old right-wing talking point that the only reason the North Vietnamese kept fighting was because of protests in the USA. A secondary problem is the tone; it seems more like a history class where the professor is trying to push his viewpoint (and what's with the archaic "whilst" and "unbeknownst"?). 66.95.123.6 (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing for this article is really poor.
I just saw this article cited in an online discussion for a proposition that doesn't seem to be supported by the cited sources here. It looks like this article needs a flag to draw in more editing and source-checking. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

But what does "mad" mean?
In addition to the problems above (in summary: there are few sources for this minor aspect of Nixon's presidency, and its importance is hugely overstated in the article. The rest appears to be original research.), we can't just tautologically repeat Nixon's pejorative usage of "mad": "madmen" who just randomly kill their neighbors are a (harmful) stereotype with very little connection to reality.

Was Nixon going for imitating a disease recognized by psychiatry, or the fictional "disease" he probably thought was an accurate portrayal of mental illness? Is it surprising that Nixon's strategy never worked, since anyone advised by a psychiatrist would recognize Nixon's alleged behavior as radically different from actual mental illness?

176.2.91.29 (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

What i love to hate about this is: Nixon wanted to convince Ho Chi Minh that he was mad by bombing the hell out of Cambodia, but Ho Chi Minh was not convinced and said: "No, I dont believe that he is mad" so the strategy wasn't successful, even though this assessment was quite wrong, as well as Nixon's own, because "aggressively bombing the hell out of a country for a mere bluff strategy in the name of peacekeeping" is a pretty good shot at the definition of madness, but i guess in a mad world, such things are normal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.241.140.176 (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Other politicians
Other politicians were claimed to also follow this "theory" (strategy), like here. Should this be included? My very best wishes (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

This theory is not limited to Nixon alone, as the article suggests
Trump is very clearly using this strategy for both foreign and domestic affairs. Reference: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2019/02/26/daily-202-trump-suggests-his-embrace-of-the-madman-theory-brought-north-korea-to-the-table/5c7422741b326b71858c6c33/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.161.97 (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

"Even Less Effective"
The phrase "even less effective than Nixon's" used late in the article implies that Nixon's use of the strategy was ineffective, which is not established anywhere else in the article. The only judgement of it is that some experts are skeptical but it could be effective in certain circumstances. If the phrasing is intended to reflect Stevenson's point of view, it should probably be a direct quotation instead of stated in the body of the article as though it were an established fact that the tactic as used by Nixon was ineffective. This type of phrasing can be caused by the editor's personal opinion of one or both Presidents being discussed, and we have to avoid that in objective reference sources. EGarrett01 (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

politico story contradicts Manolo Sanchez thinking Nixon had stroke/heart attack
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/john-farrell-nixon-book-excerpt-214954/

per this politico article, it was actually Charles Colson who thought Nixon had suffered a stroke or heart attack on the phone, and he reached out to Sanchez. 76.84.186.230 (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)