AFF
FRAMEWORK (meow)
Herbert Croly, intellectual and influential leader of the progressive movement in 20th century America who aided in the development of president Roosevelt’s New deal, once profoundly declared, “The American economic, political, and social organization has given to its citizens the benefit of material prosperity, political liberty, and a wholesome of natural equality, and this achievement is a gain, not only to Americans, but to the world and to civilization.” The political organization Croly speaks of is democracy, which influences both the economic and social structures of regions that utilize. Because of Herbert’s quote, it is evident that democracy is a worthwhile venture—one that must be spread. It is because I agree with the legendary Herbert that I affirm today’s resolution: Resolved: The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East.

We value a democracy” in the resolution contextualizing it as a question with the ideals of democracy presupposed.

The Oxford Dictionary defines democracy as “A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives”

Prefer the Oxford dictionary because
They come from the most reliable sources
The most commonly used and most useful definition of a word comes first and we have used the first definitions of democracy in these dictionaries
They match the definition of democracy that normal citizens would associate with the word

Our value criterion will be fulfilling the obligations of the government
Americans have an obligation to assist others due to the innate value of all people
Lynn-Jones 98 [(Sean M. Lynn-Jones, Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security) "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy" Discussion Paper 98-07, Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University] AT
First, as human beings, American should and do feel some obligation to improve the well-being of other[s] human beings. The bonds of common humanity do not stop at the borders of the United States.19 To be sure, these bonds and obligations are limited by the competitive nature of the international system. In a world where the use of force remains possible, no government can afford to pursue a foreign policy based on altruism. The human race is not about to embrace a cosmopolitan moral vision in which borders and national identities become irrelevant. But there are many possibilities for action motivated by concern for individuals in other countries. In the United States, continued public concern over human rights in other countries, as well as governmental and nongovernmental efforts to relieve hunger, poverty, and suffering overseas, suggest that Americans accept some bonds of common humanity and feel some obligations to foreigners. The emergence of the so-called "CNN Effect"-the tendency for Americanse to be aroused to action by television images of suffering people overseas-is further evidence that cosmopolitan ethical sentiments exist. Since Americans care about improving the lives of the citizens in other countries, then the case for promoting democracy grows stronger to the extent that promoting democracy is an effective means to achieve this end.
Contention 1: Affirming helps the Middle East
Subpoint A: Democracies have higher quality of life and liberty
Lynn-Jones 98 [(Sean M. Lynn-Jones, Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security) "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy" Discussion Paper 98-07, Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University] AT
The United States should attempt to spread democracy because people generally live better lives under democratic governments. Compared to inhabitants of nondemocracies, citizens of democracies enjoy greater individual liberty, political stability, freedom from governmental violence, enhanced quality of life, and a much lower risk of suffering a famine. Skeptics will immediately ask: Why should the United States attempt to improve the lives of non-Americans? Shouldn't this country focus on its own problems and interests? There are at least three answers to these questions.

Sub point B: Even the majority of people in the Middle East want Democracy. Technically, the most democratic thing to do would be to give Pew Research ‘12
[Most Muslims Want Democracy, Personal Freedoms, and Islam in Political Life; Pew Research; 10 Jul 2012; http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/07/10/most-muslims-want-democracy-personal-freedoms-and-islam-in-political-life/; retrieved 8 February 2016]

Majorities in five of the six nations ( in the middle east) polled (and a plurality of Pakistanis) believe democracy is the best form of government. Moreover, there is a strong desire in these nations for specific democratic rights and institutions, such as competitive multi-party elections and freedom of speech. Other goals are also clearly important. Many say political stability is a crucial priority, and even more prioritize economic prosperity. When respondents are asked which is more important, a good democracy or a strong economy, Turkey and Lebanon are the only countries where more than half choose democracy. Egyptians are divided, while most Tunisians, Pakistanis and Jordanians prioritize the economy.
Those that value other goals to democracy would end up getting both anyway through the promotion of democracy
Contention 2: Economy
Subpoint A: Democracy enhances economic development.
Mark P. Lagon, [Adjunct Senior Fellow for Human Rights], “Promoting Democracy: The Whys and Hows for the United States and the International Community,” Council on Foreign Relations, February2011.]
There has long been controversy about whether democracy enhances economic development. The dramatic growth of China certainly challenges this notion. Still, history will show that democracy yields the most prosperity. Notwithstanding the global financial turbulence of the past three years, democracy’s elements facilitate long-term economic growth. These elements include above all freedom of expression and learning to promote innovation, and rule of law to foster predictability for investors and stop corruption from stunting growth. It is for that reason that the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and the 2002 UNF financing for Development Conference in Monterey, Mexico, embraced good governance as the enabler of development. These elements have unleashed new emerging powers such as India and Brazil and raised the quality of life for impoverished peoples. Those who argue that economic development will eventually yield political freedoms may be reversing the order of influences—or at least discounting the reciprocal relationship between political and economic liberalization.
Subpoint B: Economic growth makes the world better for everyone — it’s a moral imperative.
Noell and Smith 13 [(Edd S. Noell, Professor of Economics and Business at Westmont College; Stephen Smith, Professor of Economics and Business at Gordon College) “Want A Better World? Let's Work On Boosting Economic Growth,” Forbes, April 23, 2013] AT
If we as a society want to live in a better world, we must start taking economic growth seriously. It’s easy for economists to understand why growth is so important—but too often, economists fail to explain why it matters. With increased economic growth, the lives of millions of people around the world—in countries both rich and poor—can be transformed. Both authors of this column have witnessed growth’s power in person. One grew up in 1960s Hong Kong. While today Hong Kong is a wealthy financial capital, in the early 1960s it was engulfed in poverty. His earliest memories include images of the flood of over one million refugees into his city from Mao’s China. But by the time he reached high school much had changed. Children born in shanty towns now lived in apartments with electricity and running water. Each morning, crossing Victoria Harbor with its glittering view of Hong Kong’s burgeoning skyline, he could see the trade, construction, and growth that provided jobs, increased wealth, and lifted families out of poverty. Since then, in our frequent professional travel to Asia, we have both seen first-hand the fantastic poverty reduction triggered by growth in Korea, China, and much of Southeast Asia. The immense power of economic growth is easy to see in dramatic surges like Hong Kong’s, but the transformative power of growth is not limited to poor countries. In wealthy countries like the United States growth and the prosperity that it brings allow us, as a society, to afford to do many good things[like]. It is quite remarkable that someone such as the climate activist Bill McKibbin argues that growth is “the one big habit we finally must break.” When he looks at growth, he sees a malevolent force driving our desires to consume ever more fossil fuels. We could not disagree more. With greater growth our economy can afford to buy green products, offset our carbon footprint, and conserve and replenish the renewable natural resources we consume. Growth means, literally, the increase in the production of goods and services in an economy. Since production of goods and services requires that workers and firms’ owners be paid, the value of production is basically the same as the value of households’ income. So growth measures the increases in a country’s ability to take care of itself. With growth, families are better able to purchase goods and services. A cynic may only think of the purchase of another 80” TV, but economists understand that the “goods” a society gets from growth go far beyond the ones you can pick up at Best Buy. With greater growth we could invest even more in basic research to help find cures for diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Greater growth would allow us to avert the coming intergenerational fight over how to pay for trillions of dollars of entitlement promises we have made to the needy among us, and to our parents and grandparents in the form of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. These are profoundly moral concerns. In short, the supporters of growth—who usually make their case in economic terms, about tax and spending policies—are on to something. They understand growth’s potential to ease economic problems. Right now the United States is growing at about two percent per year—but to get the U.S. unemployment rate down to a healthy level (under six percent) within four years will take approximately four percent growth per year. That is not just a number on a press release—it’s the dignity of a paycheck and the security of an income for millions of families across America. So if you care about long-term human wellbeing—in rich and poor countries alike—you must care about economic growth. Before we as a society can consider how to achieve such growth, we must recognize that getting growth right matters. Not every instance of economic growth in every country is beneficial. But time and again, hard data documents its positive impact on the things that ultimately matter: education, environmental care, physical health, political freedom, and healthy culture. Failure to realize the transformative power of growth would be a failure of our moral imaginations. We would risk leaving a world for our children in which diseases persist, rivers remain polluted, and the elderly and sick receive inadequate care. Growth must not be sold short. Growth is not just morally defensible; it is a moral imperative for achieving lasting human flourishing
Contention 3: Violence
The failure of democracy movements in the Middle East emboldens terrorism
Lilli 15 [(Eugenio, PhD in 2015 at King’s College London (KCL), War Studies Department, founding chairperson of the KCL US Foreign Policy Research Group) “The Arab Awakening and US counterterrorism in the Greater Middle East: A Missed Opportunity” JTR, Volume 6, Issue 2–May 2015] AT
All that considered, the events of these last few years have the potential to severely damage US current and future counterterrorism efforts in the Greater Middle East. To begin with, the hitherto failure of the Arab Awakening to significantly improve the political, economic, and social conditions of affected Arab countries has left the region open to extremist groups ready to exploit unresolved grievances, including widespread corruption, sectarian discrimination, high unemployment, and disregard for human rights. After that, the 2011 uprisings overwhelmingly started as peaceful protest movements. Because of the lack of meaningful success, disillusioned protesters may draw the dangerous conclusion that change in the Greater Middle East cannot be achieved by peaceful means; Arab protesters may buy into the extremists’ narrative that resorting to violence is their only chance to ameliorate their lot in life. Additionally, anti-Americanism was a negligible aspect during the early phases of the Awakening. Indeed, Arab protesters were predominantly calling for reforms in line with traditional US values and ideals. However, the Obama administration’s half-hearted support for the popular uprisings drew many criticisms, especially in the Greater Middle East, and it was deemed partly responsible for the eventual failure of the Arab Awakening to deliver meaningful change. In other words, the complex dynamics set in motion by the transformative events occurred since 2011 have sowed the seeds for future, wider, and possibly more anti-American, terrorist activity. As of early 2015, clear signs of a renewed terrorist threat are already visible across the region. The proliferation of new and old extremist groups in almost every post-Arab Awakening country is hard to ignore. The Islamic State and the Nusra Front have undoubtedly emerged as two of the strongest actors involved in the Syrian civil war. Since the ouster of President Mubarak, the formation of Ansar Bayt al Maqdis has represented a persistent and challenging menace to Egypt’s stability. Three distinct extremist groups, sharing the common name Ansar al Sharia, have stepped up their operations in Tunisia, Libya, and Yemen. In Yemen, AQAP remains perhaps the most dangerous of all Al Qaeda’s franchises. Even in relatively-quieter Bahrain, radical opposition factions have become more organized, claiming responsibility for increasingly frequent violent actions. While these extremist groups primarily focus their attacks on local targets, US officials have identified them as credible threats to the United States or its allies, and to US national interests in the Greater Middle East.(Humud & others, 2014)
Contention 4: It’s even worked before

For example, USAID has been effective
Burnell 07 [(Peter, Professor in the Department of Politics and International Studies at the University of Warwick) “Does International Democracy Promotion Work?” Discussion Paper / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik ; 17/2007] AT
Second, a slightly more up-beat but still sobering assessment of democracy assistance comes from US Agency for International Development (USAID), the largest national provider of such projects and programmes. A USAID commissioned evaluation (Finkel et al. 2006) concluded that over the period studied, 1990–2003, USAID’s democracy and governance assistance to well over one hundred countries on average left them with higher Freedom House and Polity IV scores for democracy than they could have been expected to achieve otherwise. The study surmised that the benefits were lagged and cumulative. Interestingly the findings for human rights support were negative. The overall democracy dividend was itself very small anyway, because the aid commitment had been so very small (the average eligible country received only US$ 2.07 million per year during the period). Unlike the EU study which drew on a number of qualitative sources (interviews; focus groups, and so on) as well as quantitative analysis, the report commissioned by USAID was exclusively and rigorously quantitative, which means that it carries all the potential pitfalls associated with gathering and interpreting evidence on that basis.