Editing Kirkpatrick Doctrine (section)

==Doctrine==
Kirkpatrick claimed that states in the [[Eastern Bloc|Soviet bloc]] and other [[communist state]]s were [[Totalitarianism|totalitarian]] [[regime]]s, while pro-[[western world|Western]] dictatorships were merely "[[Authoritarianism|authoritarian]]" ones. According to Kirkpatrick, totalitarian regimes were more stable and self-perpetuating than authoritarian regimes, and thus had a greater propensity to influence neighboring states.

The Kirkpatrick Doctrine was particularly influential during the administration of [[President of the United States|President]] [[Ronald Reagan]]. The Reagan administration gave varying degrees of support to several militaristic anti-communist dictatorships, including those in [[Guatemala]] (to 1985), the [[Philippines]] (to 1986), and [[Argentina]] (to 1983), and armed the [[Afghan mujahideen|Afghan ''mujahideen'']] in the [[Soviet–Afghan War]], [[UNITA]] during the [[Angolan Civil War]], and the [[Contras]] during the [[Nicaraguan Revolution]] as a means of toppling governments, or crushing revolutionary movements, in those countries that did not support the aims of the U.S.<ref name="Chomsky 1985">{{cite book|last=Chomsky|first=Noam|title=Turning the Tide|year=1985|publisher=South End Press|location=Boston, Massachusetts|isbn=0-89608-266-0|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/turningtideusint00chom}}</ref>

According to Kirkpatrick, authoritarian regimes merely try to control and/or punish their subjects' behaviors, while totalitarian regimes move beyond that into attempting to control the thoughts of their subjects, using not only [[propaganda]], but [[brainwashing]], re-education, widespread domestic [[espionage]], and mass [[political repression]] based on state [[ideology]]. Totalitarian regimes also often attempt to undermine or destroy community institutions deemed ideologically tainted (e.g., religious ones, or even the [[nuclear family]]), while authoritarian regimes by and large leave these alone. For this reason, she argued that the process of restoring democracy is easier in formerly authoritarian than in formerly totalitarian states, and that authoritarian states are more amenable to gradual reform in a democratic direction than are totalitarian states.{{Citation needed|date=January 2010}}