Red Lines & Credibility - October 12th, 2023

Lecture Reflection.

There is a lot to digest in the world right now. While I understand the benefit of evaluating international relation (IR) theories in the context of current events, it does feel secondary to the process of making effective choices in the present moment.

One could argue that making rash decisions without applying theory could lead to poor choices, ones influenced by emotion rather than analysis. 

This is something Secretary Clinton brought up in a prior lecture, during a question-and-answer session. A student asked Clinton about the applicability of IR theory. To what extent did it benefit YOU to evaluate international relation theories while working in the white house?

Clinton replied, not surprisingly, that during her political career, she was entirely unaware that the theories existed; she simply operated how she thought best. Years later, she learned that there were names for all the biases, heuristics, and so on, that were at play during her own decision-making process.  

This is an interesting place to unpack. We could speculate the effects of leaders spending more or less time evaluating IR theories prior to making big decisions and to what extent it may have on the outcomes, but given the complexity of variables at play, it’s almost impossible to ever know. I also doubt any leader is doing this. In a high-stakes crisis, why would leaders spend critical time applying theoretical frameworks to current events? Could we envision Benjamin Netanyahu studying IR literature right now? No, we couldn’t. 

And even if we could, and even if this was something Netanyahu was doing right now, would it be to his countries benefit? Despite the scholarly literature concluding that both reputation and credibility have meaningful impacts when settling disputes and when establishing credibility of a diplomatic or military signals (especially in the context of territorial disputes and when the past resembles the current situation), there are limitations. We must understand how in modern day, the public’s perception of reputation and credibility is rapidly evolving.

As Secretary Clinton plainly put it: What does reputation and credibility mean in a modern world when substance is so often ignored, rejected, or considered irrelevant to what people think of your performance?

She is right. In our current political climate reputation and credibility – even if they do play a significant role in how countries respond to one another – is perceived today largely in terms of presentation. Performative politicians in recent years have gained immense support. Perhaps this is in part a byproduct of our obsession, arguably addiction, with entertainment, or our diminishing capability for concentration. Performative actors can be financially attractive, funny or laughable, relatable… they are interesting and different, unfortunately though, often fallacious.

So, even if politicians did spend time unpacking their decisions and applying peer-reviewed literature to their negotiation tactics or military advances, it is entirely unclear whether or not this would effectively help them achieve their goals. It is also debatable if the conclusions drawn from the literature on credibility have as much merit in today’s world, where for many votes, performance is seen as a leader’s most important quality. As Jonathan Mercer reflected in his paper “Emotions and Strategy in the Korean War,” conflict strategy has no technical solutions, only creative ones – and predicting creativity is difficult and perhaps even impossible. Credibility is a purely emotional belief, one that is up to us whether or not to believe in.