Discussion

George W. Bush argues in "The Bush Doctrine" that there is "a single sustainable model for national success," which is based on "freedom, democracy, and free enterprise." The president states:

People everywhere want to be able to speak freely; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children-male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society-and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages.

Do you find Mr. Bush's arguments to be persuasive? Does the United States have a duty to protect democracy around the world? Does democratization promote peace and American security? Is the "democratic peace" a "law of politics" or an historical accident? What role do procedural restraints and normative influences play in the "democratic peace?" As more countries become democratic, should we expect a decline in the incidence of war?

Essay

In The Bush Doctrine, George W. Bush argues that national success can be sustained by "freedom, democracy, and free enterprise." His arguments presented in this statement are convincing. I believe that democracies do not fight each other. In my opinion, for the most part, democracies generally choose to stay peaceful and out of trouble with other democracies.

No deed is done without consequence, and I believe that democracies are aware and conscious of this. Democracies are reluctant in engaging negatively with each other. Strong and powerful democratic nations survive independently, however these democracies choose to not go at war with one another.

Working together and staying peaceful amongst one another, allows for strong fellow democracies to avoid the security dilemma. For example, during the Cold War, China worked together with the United States. While China was not a democratic nation during the era of the Cold War, because of its history with the United States, China helped the United States in working against the Soviet Union.

I believe that democracies do not fight one another for many reasons. One reasoning being is that I believe that democracies have involvement with one another, such as trade benefits, therefore democratic nations choose to not go at war with one another in risk of losing that advantage. I believe that another reason for why democracies do not go to war with one another is because they share common values and norms. The fact that these democratic institutions share common norms promotes peaceful interactions.

I believe that as more countries become democratic, we should see a decline in war. Democracies, holding the same views and strength, are more inclined to stay away from war and more probable of breaking free from the security dilemma.

Fellow democracies can be used as good partners in diplomacy and as well in trade with one another. Democracy began to spread and went outside of just Western civilization, for example, after the Cold War countries such as Taiwan and South Korea turned to democracy.

I believe that the idea of democratic peace is the future and that democratic reform in nations throughout the world can eventually allow the world to escape the concept of war and armed conflict. Ultimately, democracies tend to be more peaceful than non-democratic nations, and have reasons for not fighting with one another.