The Madman Theory of World Politics
John Judis published an interesting column last week on The New Republic's about the "madman theory" of international relations. This is, roughly speaking, the idea that the United States is beset by a number of leaders who are "crazy" and might just attack the country for what amounts to no reason at all. If you believe the world is like this, there's a whole new approach to national security policy that suddenly makes sense. Judis writes that "the Bush administration, backed by Democrats as well as Republicans, has conducted foreign policy in this bizarre manner--and the results have been predictably disastrous."
This all seems quite right to me and I'd recommend that people check out his argument. I wonder, though, to what extent the "madman" theory is really believed. It seems clear to me that at least some of its liberal backers are mostly acting out of fear of being labeled "apologists" for nasty regimes. At the same time, many of its promoters in the administration seem to be more-or-less dissembling about the real motives behind their foreign policy moves. Certainly madmanism is an important part of the public discourse but how big a role does it play in actual policymakers' thinking?
Comments (18)
Hmmm. Both Kim generations do fairly well at madman. Was it the Great Leader, the Dear Leader, or both that lusted after blondes?
If the Dear Leader is involved, we have the grounds for an exceptionally elegant solution to multiple problems. After ascertaining he speaks no English and she speaks no Korean, and the terms of the agreement allow no interpreters, convince Ann Coulter it is her noble duty to the nation to keep Kim's mind on other things. The only danger is that there might be a matter-antimatter explosion, but if it's limited to Pyongyang...
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
July 9, 2006 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sad to say, North Korea's foreign policy is a lot more rational than ours.
They know exactly what they're doing. We don't.
July 9, 2006 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
In defense matters, I would be happy if more of the "madmen" theory would be applied across the board, given that it is still not possible to read the minds of individual leaders. Though sometimes the field of International Relations seems based upon believing that one can do so (curiously, the same field seems to think little of being able to read the minds of a majority of an entire cultural group, as if things like polling were equivalent to witchcraft, and to ignore the idea that a mass of people have power to affect things even under a dictator.)
If we did, that might mean actually going back to the original meaning of the word "defense," stripping it of the "offense" meaning it has recently acquired.
How does one even have a chance of knowing if another leader is a madman or has recently turned one without a battery of psychiatrists' tests?
Someone once said something like "trust but verify," didn't they? Must have become popular for a reason...of course, some people think they can look into the eyes of a person and see their soul.
July 9, 2006 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems like a lot of press coverage tends to confuse personal weirdness and detestable views with "craziness." The dear leader is obviously a strange guy, but that doesn't mean that he thinks warheads crashing down on Pyogong would be fun. You would have to assume he's a true believer in an ideology that is out of fashion for pretty good reasons, but there isn't any evidence that he isn't interested in self preservation for both himself and his regime.
Ditto for the Iranian regime. Just because the country is run by anti-semites who would like to kill jews and hang people for homosexuality doesn't mean they are likely to nuke Tel Aviv. They know what the consequences would be.
July 9, 2006 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wrote about this a while back in response to a TCS article arguing that the existence of madmen made preventive war necessary if not essential.
I think Matt has a good point when he points out that the purchase this idea has in political discourse is connected to the power of what I would call "resolve rhetoric" to some degree--i.e. to oppose this logic is to risk being labeled as 'soft', 'weak', or 'an appeaser'--and this is all the worse if he who is being appeased is mad.
Certainly at times this idea has made its way into the room when leaders have tried to decide a proper course of action (numerous Cold War crises and planning meetings would certainly count), and it would appear that some, to this day, certainly take the possibility seriously.
July 9, 2006 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder to what extent we have employed a "madman" defense -- that is, convincing other regimes that we are headed by a leader who is at least extremely volatile, and that they should watch their steps because we may attack them for no reason at all, and therefore they better be careful about giving us a reason. I'm pretty sure this was some of the thinking behind our foreign policy through the end of 2003.
July 9, 2006 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would say you are on the right track ;)
July 9, 2006 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
The point here is, what? That dictators are the only social class consisting 100% of sane people? That would appear to be the implication of your post, since you apparently dismiss without any consideration the possiblity that the madman theory is actually reasonably accurate.
In truth, a great deal of the behavior of politicians at all levels, even in fairly well behaved nations, becomes understandable if simply stop assuming that they're sane.
July 9, 2006 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
OTOH, he clearly doesn't care even the slightest about the welfare of his subjects, or the lives of other people. It's quite possible that he'd get a chuckle out of the idea of missles crashing down on his capitol, if he could arrange for it to happen right after his death.
That's the problem with relying on sociopaths' self-preservation instinct. They're not imortal, so there does come a point in every sociopath's life when they no longer have to worry about consequences.
July 9, 2006 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you feel his post implies that, I must commend you on your deep insights because I think a vast majority would not have been able to read in his post that he believes all dictators have been, or are or will be sane all the time. How many national leaders have we actually classified as insane?
I can see your point--but look at the actions of some of the regimes currently in question. I might very well buy that idea that Ahmadinejad and Khamenei are religious fanatics and so subject to choosing courses of action that I could only dub insane if you consider insane = non-rational.
However the actions of Iran have certainly seemed to be terribly logical and clever to this point. Or at least, they have played US leaders far better than US leaders have played them. As for North Korea, even if Kim uses flying midgets for his recreation, the only stupid thing his regime has done so far is to shoot off the long range missile.
Therefore in understanding the current situation I believe it is a major foreign policy error to deal with both Iran and North Korea with an understanding that their national leaders are insane in policy matters (which I belive is the implication of the original post)--unless of course you equate insanity with opposing the will of the US Executive branch.
July 9, 2006 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you define sanity in terms of rationality, I guess that would make sociopaths sane, and by that definition "insanity" would indeed be rare in the ruling class.
As for my perception, read the post: Matt pulls his usual game of assuming that professed beliefs (Ones he doesn't like, anyway.) are just masks, adopted for reasons utterly unconnected to the possiblity that the belief might have some evidentiary grounding. This is a game which does somewhat imply that Matt doesn't think the belief in question is true.
July 9, 2006 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Assuming that first paragraph of yours is accurate, he and Bush have a surprising amount in common.
July 9, 2006 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
A diagnosis of sociopathy, or other character disorders, generally does not qualify for an insanity defense.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
July 9, 2006 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point here is, what? That dictators are the only social class consisting 100% of sane people?
Well, dictators also happen to be people who haven't died of childhood diseases. That's not because dictators are as a group immune from such diseases, it's because you can't become a dictator if you die at age 3.
July 9, 2006 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone mentioned the fact that Nixon, during the Vietnam war, claimed at times that he was trying to appear the madman, so that Russia and China would be more fearful of his reactions?
Generally, though, our righteous self-image requires that the other be mad. The comparisons to Hitler get a little stale though, dont they?
July 9, 2006 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, yeah, but that's not because they aren't "insane", it's because the insanity defense is predicated on the idea that the defendant was so out of touch they didn't know what they were really doing. Sociopaths know what they're doing, they just don't care.
July 10, 2006 3:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
In conflict situations there's sometimes an advantage in pretending to be insane, just to frighten the other guy with your unpredictability. There's also an advantage in claiming that the other guy is insane, to justify harsh measures.
Insanity accusations can also be a projection of your own insanity.
By and large, I think that the whole debate is garbage, in the sense that the question should never have come up. I agree with Matt.
July 10, 2006 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Grumbles at times when, kicking and screaming, I am dragooned into babysitting a 3-year-old or so that has learned (1) kicking and (2) nononononono.
Without evidence to the contrary, dictators generally haven't grown out of being 3.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
July 10, 2006 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink