Skip to main content
Book cover

Weird IR pp 43–57Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Stupid Things Our Leaders Say and Do

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 272 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter provides a selection of vignettes about inappropriate leadership behavior. It raises some useful questions: When it comes to IR, how much do the personal characteristics of leaders matter? How do personal relationships between leaders impact politics among states? In what circumstances do personal antagonisms between two leaders undercut the pursuit of the national interest?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Charles was such a boss emperor that he was known by different names in different parts of his empire. In Austria, he was Charles I. In Hungary, locals called him Charles IV. In Bohemia, he was Charles III. Not to be outdone, when the Roman Catholic Church made him a saint in 2004, they changed his name to Blessed Karl of Austria.

  2. 2.

    Here, we should point out the existence of foreign policy analysis, a separate tradition in political science that shares basic topical interests with IR scholars (e.g. war, trade, diplomacy) but rejects the notion that states, leaders, and their behavior are driven by structural factors (e.g. international anarchy, the capitalist world system). As such, FPA scholars focus on domestic politics and the individual level in their analyses. While they are generally considered part of IR (at least by department chairs, deans, and undergraduates), FPA scholars tend to think of themselves as slightly askew of the normal IR scholar.

  3. 3.

    A counterfactual is just some professional jargon used to describe imagining an alternate timeline where everything was the same except for one key variable. A hypothetical counterfactual exercise can be an effective way to assess the logic of an explanation.

  4. 4.

    Of course, NATO is a mutual defense alliance, which benefits US security as well, and member states do not pay money to NATO.

  5. 5.

    North Korea’s press agency responded by calling Trump a “mentally deranged U.S. dotard,” causing Americans to run to their dictionaries to learn exactly what a dotard was. Who thought that nuclear brinksmanship might be educational, too?

  6. 6.

    This suggestion was stupid on its own merit and in any context. The original remark about a tenfold increase in nuclear weapons would violate treaties and create a new arms race. The following February, in perhaps a symbolic gesture to the president, the Pentagon announced that it would assess the possibility of increasing the US strategic nuclear stockpile.

  7. 7.

    Maybe this says more about Putin than Trump. After all, George W. Bush once said of Putin that “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul” (Perlez 2001).

  8. 8.

    I should point out that this is the guiding principle behind Graham Allison’s Bureaucratic Politics Model, a classic explanation for how foreign policy is made at the highest levels of government. See Graham T. Allison and Philip Zelikow, Essence of Decision: Understanding the Cuban Missile Crisis, revised edition. New York: Longman, 1999.

  9. 9.

    Note to self: Does the UK have a minister of dog catching?

  10. 10.

    See “Awkward Obama Kisses: Aung San Suu Kyi, Hillary Clinton, and More,” The Daily Beast (November 19, 2012) at https://www.thedailybeast.com/awkward-obama-kisses-aung-san-suu-kyi-hillary-clinton-and-more-photos.

  11. 11.

    Sharon was not the only leader obsessed with Rice. Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi creeped out a reporter from Al Jazeera when he asked about the senior American policymaker. “Yes! Leezza, Leezza, Leezza…I like her very much.” See Juli Weiner, “More Horrendously Creepy Details About Gaddafi’s Condoleezza Rice Obsession,” Vanity Fair (October 21, 2011), accessed on March 10, 2018 at https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/10/more-horrendously-creepy-details-about-qaddafis-condoleezza-rice. My favorite part is that rebel forces found Condi scrapbooks in Gaddafi’s private chambers after he was ousted.

References and Suggested Readings

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mislan, D.B., Streich, P. (2019). Stupid Things Our Leaders Say and Do. In: Weird IR. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75556-4_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics