Democratic Spread
The issue at hand is of course, are liberty and democracy good for every country. Though, as an American, when I look at the argument I see; it works for us so why cant it work for them? And although it doesn't state so, I believe the underlying question in the article is whether the US should promote democracy through force. The first writer, Michael McFaul, argues; "liberty and democracy are desirable for every country, that the condition exists to increase the number of democratic nations, and that the US can and should use it power to encourage and support liberty and democracy in nations that have never before enjoyed freedom. Michael McFaul sees democracy as appropriate rule for every Nation, Country, and being on earth. Mcfaul believes eliminating Nations without democracy promotes homeland security, and better secures the human race. "No democracies are enemies of the US." "Democracies do not attack each other." "Every foe of the US - Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, and (possibly in the near future) China - is a Dictatorship. Mcfaul compares the war
" Referring to the Middle East as the "Axis of evil" and the North Korean dictator a "crazy and insecure man," is not a good method of gaining respect from your readers while your proving your point. " Upon my conclusion of the argument I, without hesitation, sided with Kaplan. "The very fact that we retreat to moral arguments - and often moral arguments only - to justify democracy indicates that for many parts of the world the historical and social arguments supporting democracy are just not there. Basing the theory that no democracy will ever attack another on the short while democracies have been in power, seems like a bold assumption. In my opinion, any man who favors war yet doesn't have the maturity to respect his enemy is not worthy of being heard. " Kaplan argues their are no historical and social arguments supporting democracy, and the frequently discussed moral issues supporting democracy are unstructured and not relevant. For example, he illustrated that no democracies have attack each other, consequently no democracies will ever attack one another. He does not believe democracy is for every country. Along with developing better points within his argument, Kaplan demonstrated what I interpreted as a deeper connection with the issue. The ultimate purpose of American power is the creation of an international community of democratic states that encompasses every region of the planet. McFaul also presented several weak arguments. Kaplan sees democracy as a successful method of rule within Nations that have the appropriate abilities to cope with it. Also, in attempting to explain our involvement in the middle east, he claimed the only country to fit the description of supporting anti-western revolutionaries, and producing weapons of mass destruction is Iraq. His frequent referencing to history in comparison to democracy today, as well as his statistics eliminating the inflexibility of democracy, gave the argument the edge.
Common topics in this essay:
Robert Kaplan,
North Korean,
Dictatorship Mcfaul,
Michael McFaul,
Nation Country,
,
North Korea,
Korea Cuba,
democracies attack,
liberty democracy,
East Axis,
supporting democracy,
historical social arguments,
kaplan argues,
michael mcfaul,
historical social,
social arguments,
north korea,
robert kaplan,
social arguments supporting,
arguments supporting democracy,
moral arguments,
|
Acceptance Essays
