Fact Check: Competent authoritarians are more dangerous than incompetent ones.

Fact Check: "Competent authoritarians are more dangerous than incompetent ones."

What We Know

The claim that "competent authoritarians are more dangerous than incompetent ones" suggests a comparative analysis of the risks posed by authoritarian leaders based on their level of competence. According to a recent article by Noah Berlatsky, the idea that incompetence and authoritarianism are inseparable is emphasized, arguing that incompetent leaders can be just as dangerous, if not more so, than their competent counterparts. Berlatsky notes that the chaotic behavior of incompetent leaders can lead to unpredictable and harmful outcomes, as seen in the current political climate surrounding the debt ceiling crisis in the U.S.

Conversely, some sources argue that competent authoritarians can effectively implement their agendas, which may lead to more systematic oppression. For example, a piece from Vox highlights that while authoritarianism and incompetence are both concerning, the ability of a competent leader to consolidate power and execute policies can pose a significant threat to democratic institutions. This perspective suggests that the effectiveness of an authoritarian regime can amplify its dangers.

Analysis

The debate over the dangers posed by competent versus incompetent authoritarians hinges on the definitions of competence and the context in which these leaders operate. Berlatsky's assertion that "incompetent fascism can be just as dangerous, or even more dangerous, than competent fascism" suggests that the unpredictability of incompetent leaders can lead to catastrophic decisions that competent leaders might avoid, such as economic crises or military blunders (source-2).

However, the argument for the dangers of competent authoritarians is also compelling. As noted in the Vox article, competent leaders can effectively suppress dissent and implement policies that undermine democratic norms, thereby entrenching their power (source-4). This perspective is supported by historical examples where competent authoritarian leaders have executed their agendas with precision, leading to significant societal harm.

The reliability of sources discussing this topic varies. Berlatsky's article is published on a platform focused on political commentary, which may introduce some bias, but it effectively presents a nuanced view of the dangers of incompetence in leadership. On the other hand, the Vox article, while also opinion-based, draws on established political theory and historical examples, lending it a degree of credibility.

Conclusion

The claim that "competent authoritarians are more dangerous than incompetent ones" is Partially True. While competent authoritarians can pose significant threats through effective governance and oppression, the unpredictability and chaos associated with incompetent leaders can also lead to dangerous outcomes. The dangers of both types of leadership are context-dependent, and the potential for harm exists in both scenarios. Thus, while competent authoritarians may have the tools to enact more systematic oppression, the erratic nature of incompetent leaders can yield equally perilous consequences.

Sources

1. The risks of having incompetent leaders in politics
2. There's no such thing as a competent authoritarian
3. Trump is proving too incompetent to be an authoritarian
4. Trump's incompetence and authoritarianism are both scary - Vox
5. Is Authoritarianism the Biggest Menace to Democracy?
6. Why Democracy Produces Incompetent Leaders
7. An Incompetent Authoritarian Is Still a Catastrophe
8. Can My Villain Be Realistically Incompetent?