The Irrationality of Treating Dictators as ‘Rational Actors’

by | Oct 21, 2002

This piece is occasioned by the “discovery” that North Korea has been violating the Agreed Framework and working on nuclear weapons. However, it could just as easily have been written after the collapse of the Oslo Accords, after the discovery of Saddam Hussein’s subversion of the oil-for-food program, or any other broken promise from a […]

This piece is occasioned by the “discovery” that North Korea has been violating the Agreed Framework and working on nuclear weapons. However, it could just as easily have been written after the collapse of the Oslo Accords, after the discovery of Saddam Hussein’s subversion of the oil-for-food program, or any other broken promise from a dictator. The pattern endures, the repeated error of treating dictators as “rational actors” and predicting their actions based on that assumption that dictators will choose a course of action that benefits their countries and their citizens.

In 1994, the Agreed Framework was hailed by liberals as a triumph. They believed that this Agreed Framework removed the threat of North Korean nuclear weapons. The liberals believed that North Korea, despite its brutal oppression of its people and constant threats against its neighbors, would honor the Agreed Framework. Why?

In North Korea’s place, American liberals would have followed the Agreed Framework. Therefore, the liberals reasoned, Kim Il Jong would follow the Framework. Liberals believe that, fundamentally, brutal dictators are “rational actors.” No matter how bloodstained and brutal, liberals believe that dictators can be reasoned with, and are interested in the welfare of their countries. To many liberals and other foreign policy commentators, being a brutal bloodstained thug is not a barrier to being a negotiating partner. Violating the rights of citizens is not a crime: for liberals, it is a sometimes practical policy of government. Liberals believe that governments must violate some rights for the good of the people. Dictators might make mistakes, and follow policies that are against the welfare of their people, but the liberals believe that the mistakes are well-intentioned. They do not recognize foreign thugs as criminals, because they do not recognize their crimes as really being crimes–they are legitimate, if unwise, governmental policies. The liberals see the crimes of foreign leaders as simply misguided attempts to help their people.

This is the link that explains how civilized, educated, well-meaning American liberals consistently predict that brutal, dictatorial thugs will act in a rational, civilized manner to further the welfare of their people. The liberals believe that dictators oppress their countries because they know no better way, and that if they were shown a better way, they would take the path of peace, prosperity and capitalism. This is the premise of every one of Tom Friedman’s insufferable letters to foreign despots.

Why, though, do the liberals have this blind spot? They cannot recognize the thugs as criminals because they cannot recognize the violation of rights as a crime rather than as a legitimate instrument of government.

This evasion allows them to believe that vicious dictators are interested in the welfare of their people, and only lack the sophistication to use successful methods. To acknowledge that the violation of rights is a crime, whether by individual criminals or by the state, would call into question the liberal’s entire worldview.

Nicholas Provenzo is founder and Chairman of the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism.

The views expressed above represent those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors and publishers of Capitalism Magazine. Capitalism Magazine sometimes publishes articles we disagree with because we think the article provides information, or a contrasting point of view, that may be of value to our readers.

Have a comment?

Post your response in our Capitalism Community on X.

Related articles

Are the Democrats betraying Israel?

Are the Democrats betraying Israel?

Both Biden and his predecessor, President Barack Obama, promised that they had Israel’s back, but it now appears that they are painting a target on its back at a time of its greatest vulnerability.

Memorial Day: What We Owe Our Soldiers

Memorial Day: What We Owe Our Soldiers

To send soldiers into war without a clear self-defense purpose, and without providing them every possible protection, is a betrayal of their valor and a violation of their rights.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pin It on Pinterest