U.S. Primacy is globally desirable.

Pro Case C1: U.S. Primacy maximizes the spread of democracy [1] Kagan writes, “History shows that the distribution of world power at the top affects the course of smaller and weaker nations across the globe.” With the fall of the Nazis, Italian Fascists and Imperial Japanese the world saw an exponential rate of growth from authoritarian type regimes to democratic types regimes, accounting for about 40% of the world’s governments. However, this was short lived with the emergence of the U.S.S.R. as a bipolar power-player on the international stage. The growth of democracy was halted and even reversed with a dozen or so democracies returning to authoritarian type regimes. This coupled with the expansion of Communism in Latin America, Africa and Asia led the world to be a solid bloc between democracy and totalitarianism. However, between the 1970s and 1990s, with a decrease in soviet influence, the number of democracies increased to 120, well over half the world’s nation population. This is commonly referred to as the 3rd wave of democracy. The common dominator in this rapid expansion of democracy is U.S. primacy. Detractors will say that democracy is either inevitable or the result of different variables such as economic growth, however this is historically not the case because with each previous cycle of democracy there has always been a reverse wave: Ancient Greece, Rome and Venice turned into monarchies; the democratic revolutions of the 1800s were easily suppressed by the dominant autocracies; democracies of the early 20th Century hit a reverse wave with the emergence of fascist-authoritarianism; democracies of the 1960s and 70s was hit with a reverse wave; synonymously, the period of the two largest periods of growth in GDP and other economic variables was correlated to the expansion of authoritarianism. U.S. Primacy was necessary for this 3rd and continuing wave of democracy: in the 1970s and onward the U.S. reversed its policy of aiding dictatorships financially and militarily which was critical for regime survival; the U.S. compelled the international order to protect human rights in the Eastern bloc and other Soviet satellite states; Carter promoted democracy in the Dominican Republic and Reagan in Granada; the U.S. prevented military coups in Honduras, Bolivia, El Salvador, Peru and South Korea; the U.S. influence on governments such as Poland, Chile, Portugal and Taiwan gave the edge necessary for democratic victory. The list goes on, but I will stop here. Impact 1: Democratic Peace Theory [2] In short the democratic peace theory states that democracies rarely if ever go to war with each other. Two internal links are isolated: (1) Ideological. Democracies have ideological ties to one another which make them more willing to enter into agreements and alliances. Liberal ideologies which pervade democracies make these nations more susceptible to negotiations, alliances and agreements which make it very difficult to go to war. (2) Structural. The structure of governments within democracies make it difficult to go to war. For example, public opinion would be a main hindering factor for war. The majority of a public wouldn't be open to war as easily unless clear evidence was given for its need. But, statistically democracies have much lower rates of war than autocracies do, so even if the democratic peace theory isn’t 100% correct, it is better to have democracies than autocracies. Between 1900 and 1980 there were 0 wars between democracies; between democracies and authoritarian or totalitarian regimes there was a casualty rate of 1,570,000; between authoritarian/totalitarian and authoritarian/totalitarian there was a casualty rate of 4,224,422. Thus, Rummel concludes two points: (1) democracies do not go to war and (2) democracies, if they must fight against authoritarianism, the rate of casualties are significantly lower than that of wars between authoritarian regimes which means democracies have a lower intensity rate of war. Impact 2: Democide [2] Rummel concludes from his findings that democracies are much more unlikely to commit democide (genocide, political killings, etc) than authoritarian or totalitarian governments. Thus, the best way to prevent atrocities is to promote democracy. According to Rummel, 99% of the world’s democides are caused by authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. C2: U.S. Primacy maximizes the spread of free trade [1] [3] There have been two periods of history with a profound global expansion of free trade: the Pax Britannica in the 19th Century and the Pax Americana in the late 20th Century continuing into the 21st Century. Olson tells us that democracies are much more likely to have free trade agreements and policies especially with the help of the US. This is true because democracies have a vested interest in exporting and importing goods more freely as a way to increase the flow of capital within society. As opposed to autocracies or authoritarian regimes, democracies are much more receptive of other nations, especially other democracies. This is analogous to the ideological factor within the democratic peace treaty. Since democracies tend to be commercial democracies, trade agreements and free trade are accepted by interacting nations. Kagan goes further to say that the U.S. and Britain were prime hegemons for free trade because both were commercial republics and both were sea powers. Britian and the U.S. are both “islands” and both isolated and thereby needed to control the sea to protect its trading ventures. Olson goes further in saying that free trade is good because it reduces the risk of great recessions, spurs innovation, expands capital flow, creates lower prices, increasing the variety of goods and increases productivity. His studies demonstrate that nations with free trade tend to be wealthier in comparison to nations with protectionism, e.g. the Asian Tigers and also that empirically nations with free trade have shorter lasing recessions. C3: What’s the Alternative? China [1] At this moment, if the U.S. lost its primacy the nation to fill the power vacuum would be China. This is true because of China’s economic bubble growth and its rapid expansion of its military and military related technology. As implied by the expansion of democracy correlating with U.S. power perception, the opposite is true: as democratic powers collapse, autocratic and authoritarian regimes take control. This can be historically seen from the emergence of fascist governments in the early 20th Century and subsequently the expansion of communism in the mid and late 20th Century. According to Kagan, a perceptual decrease has led to this occurring already: China increasing its influence in Africa by propping up dictators in exchange for raw materials, China’s support of the Iranian regime in exchange for oil and China’s support of weak communist nations in Asia such as North Korea, Vietnam and Laos. If the U.S. loses primacy the result will most likely be a rapid retroaction of the Arab Spring, the collapse of democratic movements in the post-U.S.S.R. states and pretty much no chance for democracy in Africa. As China’s past openness to free market policies have created a huge expansion of GDP without benefiting the majority of Chinese citizens the threat of regime collapse increases. As such, China is starting to close sectors of its economy to benefit the lower and middle classes. Kagan writes, “For as it happens, both China and India are increasing their naval capabilities. This has produced not greater security but a growing strategic competition between them in the Indian Ocean…and the South China Sea…China is trying to use its growing naval power not to open but to close international waters…They have already begun closing some sectors to foreign competition and are likely to close others in the future.” [1] Kagan. The World America Made. [2] Rummel. Power Kills: Democracy as a Method of Nonviolence. [3] Olson. The Logic of Collective Action.