I agree with this to an extent, but aren't there a range of policies short of "pushing our democracy crusade onto other states"? Yes - states are frequently a source of stability. But they're also frequently a source of instability, and it's not always due to lack of governance or weak institutions. Sometimes it's due to the internal construction and dynamics of the state in question - how it makes policy, who makes policy, and so on. For example, there's a relationship between the method of U.S. elections and the frequency of government shutdowns due to lack of funds. That simply does not happen in some other legislative systems. Regime type and design are relevant to policy preferences and outcomes. Now I think it's a major leap to go from acknowledging that states need reform to pre-empt instability to the U.S. should actively promote it's version of democracy through force of arms.Originally Posted by Bill
So - yes - I think the U.S. needs to be pro-active in encouraging and facilitating reform. And yes, I also think the U.S. needs to be careful and deliberate in that process. No more "Operation [Axis of Evil State Name] Liberation" - well, unless there's a good case to be made for it.
Bookmarks