Liberal and realist advisors have contrasting views with the making promotion of democracy abroad a top US priority. Liberalist believe in the freedom of the individual economically and politically. Therefore, democracy would be a positive change. The goals of realists are making decisions about war and peace with states as the primary actors. With the spread of democracy, realists would have to go through longer processes to make those decisions because it would have to get passed by members of congress. The National Endowment for Democracy helps the US government spread democracy to other countries around the world.
Liberalism and democracy have a direct relationship, meaning democracy focuses on the rights of the individual as its own advocate in the government. People have the ability to elect representatives in office that lead their country. The liberal advisors would react positively to accomplish their goals with other countries and prevent …show more content…
If the spread democracy occurred, the ability to declare war would be a much slower process and it is believed that democratic states would not fight each other in war. They would all live in peace. Power and influence are major factors measured with realism. Their material capabilities include military, weapons and natural resources. The social factors include customs and ideologies. This contrasts with liberalism because their goals are wealth, peace and the protection of one’s rights. The realist advisors would not support the shift in priority of democracy because they want war all the time to establish power, instead of being equals with countries with similar forms of government. They prefer structural anarchy, in which there isn’t a central authority to settle disputes. (Holsti, 4) If other countries became democracies they would all work together to create peace and prosperity, which is the opposite of how realists view the
Liberalism and democracy have a direct relationship, meaning democracy focuses on the rights of the individual as its own advocate in the government. People have the ability to elect representatives in office that lead their country. The liberal advisors would react positively to accomplish their goals with other countries and prevent …show more content…
If the spread democracy occurred, the ability to declare war would be a much slower process and it is believed that democratic states would not fight each other in war. They would all live in peace. Power and influence are major factors measured with realism. Their material capabilities include military, weapons and natural resources. The social factors include customs and ideologies. This contrasts with liberalism because their goals are wealth, peace and the protection of one’s rights. The realist advisors would not support the shift in priority of democracy because they want war all the time to establish power, instead of being equals with countries with similar forms of government. They prefer structural anarchy, in which there isn’t a central authority to settle disputes. (Holsti, 4) If other countries became democracies they would all work together to create peace and prosperity, which is the opposite of how realists view the