The United States prides itself on its democratic idealism and believes the every state should have the opportunity to experience the freedom democracy offers. Democracy, in term of American values, allows for the “right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” . These are inalienable for everyone and those countries that withhold this must be change or reformed. The United States with other democratic countries has taken on the project of converting all non-democratic states into democratic governments. This process in motivated by the face, many believe democratic nation are better for the world than the latter. Unfortunately moving to such “perfect” model of government is not easy and sometimes close to an impossible undertaking. The possibility for direct United State intervention is high. With this intervention, the country must take precautionary action in order to enter and exit as peacefully as possible. The induction of further chaos in sometimes an already chaotic nation can only be a further detriment. Democracy is viewed ass the solution to creating a peaceful world, however, creating this prefect world maybe quite impossibility due to all the factors that are involved in switching the governments of these nations.
The United States and several other countries around the world embrace the ideology of democracy. It is looked at as the most idealistic form of governmental structure because democracies are viewed to be more peaceful. Lake states, “Democracies tend not to wage war on each other or sponsor terrorism. They are more trustworthy in diplomacy and do a better job respecting the human rights of their people” . These states are more likely to be less of a threat to the security of the United States. Faili...
... middle of paper ...
...mber 21, 1993.
Anthony Lake, “From Containment to Enlargement” Address at School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, September 21, 1993.
Condoleezza Rice, “The Promise of Democratic Peace: Why Promoting Freedom is the Only Realistic Path to Security” Washington Post, December 11, 2005. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901711.html
Condoleezza Rice, “The Promise of Democratic Peace: Why Promoting Freedom is the Only Realistic Path to Security” Washington Post, December 11, 2005. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901711.html
Condoleezza Rice, “The Promise of Democratic Peace: Why Promoting Freedom is the Only Realistic Path to Security” Washington Post, December 11, 2005. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901711.html
Everyday we have the chance to make her own opinions and give reason to our own voice. We have the chance to live in a country that encourages freedom in society, which separate ourselves from any restrictions imposed upon by authority, actions or any political views. liberty is the power we possess to act as we please through freedom and independence. But what happens when we choose to give away our basic liberties for temporary safety? Benjamin Franklin once stated, “They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Those who decide to give away their personal freedoms for something that is temporary do not see the value in the long-lasting gift called freedom. In
Cole, D., & Dempsey, J. X. (2006). Terrorism and the constitution: sacrificing civil liberties in the name of national security. New York: New Press.
Our nation seems as if it is in a constant battle between freedom and safety. Freedom and security are two integral parts that keep our nation running smoothly, yet they are often seen conflicting with one another. “Tragedies such as Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombings may invoke feelings of patriotism and a call for unity, but the nation also becomes divided, and vulnerable populations become targets,” (Wootton 1). “After each attack a different group or population would become targets. “The attack on Pearl Harbor notoriously lead to Japanese Americans being imprisoned in internment camps, the attacks on 9/11 sparked hate crimes against those who appeared to be Muslim or Middle Eastern,” (Wootton 1). Often times people wind up taking sides, whether it be for personal freedoms or for national security, and as a nation trying to recover from these disasters we should be leaning on each other for support. Due to these past events the government has launched a series of antiterrorist measures – from ethnic profiling to going through your personal e-mail (Begley 1). Although there are times when personal freedoms are sacrificed for the safety of others, under certain circumstances the government could be doing more harm than good.
1. Janda, Kenneth. The Challenge of Democracy. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston, MA. 1999. (Chapter 3 & 4).
Eric Foner, Give Me Liberty: An American History (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2008), 326.
Silko, Leslie Marmon. "Fences Against Freedom." Hungry Mind Review: An Independent Book Review (1999). 8 December 2000. <http://www.bookwire.com/hmr/Review/silko.html>.
Foner, E. (2008). Give me Liberty: An American History. New York, Ny: WW. Norton &
Foner, E. (2013). Give me liberty! an american history. (Seagull 4th ed., Vol. 2, p. 708).
Hitchens, C. (2003, August). Forcing Freedom: War Can Be an Engine of Dynamism and Innovation. Reason. Retrieved from http://reason.com/archives/2003/08/01/forcing-freedom/1
... freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with the destiny of America." This statement unwaveringly rings loud and clear and still inspires hope in confidence in the reader this many years later. Closing with such a statement destroys all illusion of fear and ends the letter with a confidence that makes everything the audience read shine and remain imprinted on the mind.
Foner, Eric. Give Me Liberty. 3rd ed. Vol. Two. New York: Norton &, 2011. Print.
“What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security didn’t depend upon the threat of instant U.S. retaliation to deter an enemy attack?”
In comparing the average citizen in a democratic nation, say the United States, to that of a non-democratic nation, for instance Egypt, it will be found that the citizen in the democratic nation is generally better off – free of persecution, free from fear of the authorities, and free to express his opinions on governmental matters. And while national conflicts occur everywhere, incidents like violent revolts have shown to be more prevalent in nations where citizens are not allowed to choose who governs them. It is slightly paradoxical that democracy, so inherently flawed in theory, can lead to such successful outcomes in practice. The question, then, becomes: “If democracy has so many weaknesses, why does it work?”
The democratic peace theory was not always seen as the substantial argument and significant contribution to the field of International Relations that it is today. Prior to the 1970’s, it was the realist and non-realist thought that took preeminence in political theoretical thinking. Though the democratic peace theory was first criticized for being inaccurate in its claim that democracy promotes peace and as such democracies do not conflict with each other, trends, statistical data, reports have suggested and proved that the democratic peace theory is in fact valid in its claim. Over the years, having been refined, developed and amended, it is now most significant in explaining modern politics and it is easy to accept that there is indeed a lot of truth in the stance that democracy encourages peace. The democratic peace theory is a concept that is largely influenced by the likes of Immanuel Kant, Wilson Woodrow and Thomas Paine.
Mingst, K. (2011). Essentials of international relations. (5th ed., p. 70-1). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company