Dictatorships and Double Standards

Content sourced from Wikipedia, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

Dictatorships and Double Standards (simplified)

Jeane Kirkpatrick’s 1979 essay in Commentary, later a 1982 book, criticized U.S. foreign policy under Carter. The piece helped make her a adviser to Ronald Reagan and later the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, shaping Reagan’s Latin America policy.

Her main claim is that Carter pushed autocratic regimes to liberalize quickly. Doing so often backfired, helping anti-American groups that turned out to be more repressive than the governments they overthrew.

She accused the United States of a double standard: it demanded liberalization from autocrats but did not apply the same pressure to Communist governments.

Autocracies vs. Communist regimes: Traditional autocrats keep daily life stable and predictable. People tolerate them because everyday life remains familiar. Revolutionary Communist regimes try to control all of society and demand sweeping changes that clash with people’s values, causing many to flee.

Policy conclusion: The U.S. should encourage democracy in autocracies, but not push for rapid change when a government is already facing violent overthrow. Change should be gradual, not instant.

Critics and debate: AFL-CIO’s Tom Kahn argued Kirkpatrick’s analysis had problems and suggested promoting democracy even under Soviet influence, citing Solidarity in Poland as a sign that civil society can grow under communism.

Other views: Ted Galen Carpenter of the Cato Institute noted that while Communist movements can topple rival autocrats, the traditional autocratic regimes supported by the U.S. often come to power by overthrowing democracies. He concluded that traditional autocracies may pose a more serious threat to functioning democracies than Communist regimes, even though communism is harder to eradicate.