Spreading democracy abroad: A duty, not a whim

The question whether or not the new American administration should continue former President Bush's plan of promoting democracy around the world has been up in the air for years and seems now to be getting its answer. As I mentioned in my previous post, there has been no reaction from the Obama administration to the new charges being brought against jailed Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky once the country's richest person and owner of the most transparent company in Russia. 

I was looking for any proof that this silence was just an accident and instead found an article that suggested the opposite. As reported in an article entitled "Quiter approach to spreading democracy abroad" from the New York Times:

Four years after President George W. Bush declared it the mission of America to spread democracy with the goal of “ending tyranny in our world,” his successor’s team has not picked up the mantle. Since taking office, neither Mr. Obama nor his advisers have made much mention of democracy-building as a goal. While not directly repudiating Mr. Bush’s grand, even grandiose vision, Mr. Obama appears poised to return to a more traditional American policy of dealing with the world as it is rather than as it might be.

The logic of the new administration is understandable. The fight against totalitarian regimes in the world unfortunately seems to have would up bringing more tangible costs than benefits at this point. But nevertheless I think that not trying to promote democracy in other countries is the same as not trying to help a person who is about to commit suicide. It may look to him for the moment that you aren't acting in his interests, but in the end he will be thankful if you save his life.