That great American ambassador and lovely lady Jeane Kirkpatrick has left us, but her passing also causes us to remember her strategic sense and moral clarity. She came to national prominence in Reaganite circles in 1979 with her marvelous Commentary magazine essay on “Dictatorship and Double Standards.” It argued that traditional authoritarian autocracies were both more susceptible to liberalization and more amenable to American interests than totalitarian dictatorships of the left, which came into power with disturbing frequency in the late 1970s, with America as their stated enemy.
She easily explained how the Carter administration and the liberal press romantically saw in the revolutionary left a shared commitment to modernity over tradition, science over religion, an educated bureaucracy over private hierarchies, and futuristic and universal goals over appeals to an archaic and ordered past.
How little things have changed 26 years later. Even now, Jimmy Carter is touring the country blasting our democratic friends in Israel (smearing them in his book title as racist architects of “apartheid”) and making excuses for Palestinian terrorists completely at odds with American interests, just as the liberal press continues betraying sympathy for left-wing totalitarians while blasting long-faded right-wing authoritarians.
To prove the point, three days after Mrs. Kirkpatrick passed away, the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet died. Pinochet was one autocrat who proved Kirkpatrick right. During his tenure, he set in motion economic reforms which made Chile’s economy an envy to every other country in Latin America, and after 15 years of rule, he allowed a national plebiscite to vote against him, and he stepped down in 1990. But none of that mattered to the American liberal press, still boiling with rage over his misdeeds.
The Washington Post headline was “A Dictator’s Dark Legacy” and the reporters began by reporting his government “murdered and tortured thousands during his repressive 17-year rule....leaving a legacy of abuse that took successive governments years to catalogue.” His death left an “incomplete” crusade to seek “justice” for his reign in the courts.
The New York Times headline noted Pinochet was a “Dictator Who Ruled By Terror in Chile.” The Times began by describing him as “the brutal dictator who repressed and reshaped Chile for nearly two decades and became a notorious symbol of human rights abuse and corruption.” He was “never brought to trial.” Both the Post and the Times used post-Pinochet government estimates that more than 3,000 people were executed or disappeared during the Pinochet dictatorship.
But the same liberal press that despises right-wing autocrats cannot bring that same vigorous denunciation to bear when a communist dictator dies. When Chinese dictator Deng Xiaoping died in 1997, the Post mentioned the “bloody crackdown” in Tiananmen Square in 1989, but the words “dictator” or “dark legacy” did not appear in the headline, which simply recited the fact of death: “China’s Deng Xiaoping, Dead at 92.” The Post reporter did not attempt to enumerate the thousands or millions killed on Deng’s watch, or wonder why he was never put on trial.
The Post presented Deng as a great liberalizer, to a point. “Deng had guided the country out of the chaos of the Cultural Revolution, flung open China's doors to the outside world and loosened the grip of central economic planning,” while, ahem, “insisting that the Communist Party's monopoly on power go unchallenged.”
Some communist leaders couldn’t even be accused of liberalizing tendencies. When Korean despot Kim Il Sung died in 1994, the New York Times couldn’t call him a dictator in their headlines, let along mention ruling by terror. The second story on the death was headlined "Kim Il Sung, Enigmatic 'Great Leader" of North Korea for 5 Decades, Dies at 82."
The Times reporter proclaimed that to some Kim was “seen as a Stalinist maniac.” (Note the qualifier “seen as.”) And to others? There was also the “grandfatherly Kim Il Sung,” a “smiling leader seeking respect for his economically disabled nation, the man who three weeks ago embraced Jimmy Carter” as a way of establishing contact with President Clinton.
So let’s review. A right-wing ruler responsible for the deaths of 3,000 -- but also responsible for an economic miracle of free enterprise, and who allowed the democratic process which forced him from power – “dictator.” But communist despots who controlled their citizens with iron fists until the day they died, preventing all manner of political, economic, and religious freedoms, and who caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions – “leaders.”
The more things change, the more they stay the same. While conservatives still seek to defend both democracy and American interests, liberals are still fawning over communist and terrorist thugs. May our legacy be to tell the truth as it was Jeane Kirkpatrick’s.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Brent, you've got them by the
December 13, 2006 - 15:54 ET by NoMoreClintonsBrent, you've got them by the short hairs again. Nice going . . . as always.
Why do they call him Wolf? He looks like a Weasel to me.
Kirkpatrick's article has lot
December 13, 2006 - 17:00 ET by Tim GrahamKirkpatrick's article has lots of interesting paragraphs. These are some of my favorites, that really illustrate her thesis:
Only intellectual fashion and the tyranny of Right/Left thinking prevent intelligent men of good will from perceiving the facts that traditional authoritarian governments are less repressive than revolutionary autocracies, that they are more susceptible of liberalization, and that they are more compatible with U.S. interests. The evidence on all these points is clear enough...
The truth is that Americans can hardly bear such societies and such rulers. Confronted with them, our vaunted cultural relativism evaporates and we become as censorious as Cotton Mather confronting sin in New England.
But if the politics of traditional and semi-traditional autocracy is nearly antithetical to our own--at both the symbolic and the operational level--the rhetoric of progressive revolutionaries sounds much better to us; their symbols are much more acceptable. One reason that some modern Americans prefer "socialist" to traditional autocracies is that the former have embraced modernity and have adopted modern modes and perspectives, including an instrumental, manipulative, functional orientation toward most social, cultural, and personal affairs; a profession of universalistic norms; an emphasis on reason, science, education, and progress; a deemphasis of the sacred; and "rational," bureaucratic organizations. They speak our language.
Because socialism of the Soviet/Chinese/Cuban variety is an ideology rooted in a version of the same values that sparked the Enlightenment and the democratic revolutions of the 18th century; because it is modern and not traditional; because it postulates goals that appeal to Christian as well as to secular values (brotherhood of man, elimination of power as a mode of human relations), it is highly congenial to many Americans at the symbolic level. Marxist revolutionaries speak the language of a hopeful future while traditional autocrats speak the language of an unattractive past. Because left-wing revolutionaries invoke the symbols and values of democracy--emphasizing egalitarianism rather than hierarchy and privilege, liberty rather than order, activity rather than passivity--they are again and again accepted as partisans in the cause of freedom and democracy.
December 13, 2006 - 16:12 ET by MyKindaSpamBut Brent, there's no bias
December 13, 2006 - 16:20 ET by MyKindaSpamCome on, Brent, there's no double standard here. How can there be a double standard when dictators are ALWAYS right-wing?
You people at Newsbusters just don't get it
December 14, 2006 - 01:49 ET by Carl KolchakWon't you people at Newsbusters ever learn that Marxist dictators are saints, and have never done anything bad or killed anyone? You people obviously didn't get your education at a left wing college or from the left wing MSM.
Sincerely
Mengistu Mariam
"There's blood in the streets, it's up to my ankles" 'Peace Frog'
Pinochet's sin was not that h
December 14, 2006 - 16:08 ET by dscottPinochet's sin was not that he was a dictator but that he replaced Salvador Allende, a Communist. The liberals have never lived this down, since Nixon is dead they can only carp about the role of the CIA and a guy who deposed their Wunderkind. Obviously, it must have been particularly galling for the country to do better under Pinochet. Did we ever really hear anything bad about Saddam as he murdered 300,000 of his countrymen? Why not? He didn't replace a Marxist.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
the sad part is most right-
December 14, 2006 - 18:50 ET by CCCPthe sad part is most right-wing dictators help their countries out of problems and create lots that people like Olbermann and those libs that no one watches and resorts to bush bashing to try and get viewers...but back to dictators Hitler brought Germany out of the depression and Mussolini reformed the Italian school system im not sayin their not evil but the media IE HISTORY CHANNEL points out how everything they do is totally wrong and i think its bs that they dont go both sides even though the other side for hitler is kind of slim hahahaha