Blog #5: "Should Promoting Democracy Abroad Be a Top U.S. Priority? "

After reading the Taking Sides article about promoting democracy around the world, I felt strongly about the side that favored it. In the introduction, the fact was mentioned that “democracies tend not to fight with one another and instead are generally highly integrated economically and politically with one another.” This is the cornerstone of my opinion, because I believe that the world needs less fighting and more getting along. I think that if the governments of the world could agree to not disagree to the point of fighting in a war, then we’d all be in a better global situation. In this way, democracies seem to offer the best solution to the problem.

Along with the fact that democracies don’t fight as much with one another, comes the fact that “when we consider indicators such as life expectancy, illiteracy, and access to clean drinking water…democratizers enjoy better living conditions than autocracies.” This means that the quality of life for democratic citizens is considerably better than non-democratic citizens. Everyone, regardless of nationality, should be entitled to these things because they are human-beings. These natural rights are given in democracies, and if the rest of the world realized the good they can do, maybe they would change for the better. “What is government but a mechanism by which a society orders its priorities? The more representative, transparent, and accountable this process, the more balanced the outcomes will be compared to a system that is narrowly based and lacking incentives for responsiveness to citizen interests.” A government should act in the best interest of its citizens, and in order to fully understand those interests, a government needs to listen to its people. A democracy is the only way that this will happen.

I believe that the world needs more democracies. Democracies give the power to the people, as it should be. A government is a representation of the people under it, and what better way to represent them, than to give them a say in what happens? Being that the United States is a leader in the world, and a prime example of the prosperity that can result from democratic rule, I believe we are more than qualified to show others this effect. In this case, I say yes, promoting democracy abroad should be a top U.S. priority.

Along with my opinion of the argument as it is, I also believe that the author of the pro-democracy gave his opinion is a stronger fashion, as well as addressing the opposition better. Joseph Siegle, the author, gives more reference to the better world that can be had, if the US helps promote democracy, as well as the effects if this is not done. He gives a more convincing argument, while the author of the “no” side, Tamara Cofman Wittes, is more confusing. While reading the opposition, it seemed as if she was confused as well. She says that “America must make [Iraq’s] success our first priority…It might provide a powerful demonstration effect to the neighborhood.” To me, this seems as if she favors spreading democracy around the world, which agrees with Siegle. That being said, I favor the argument that supports promoting democracy abroad.