Bryan Pfeffer Post 2

           The democratic peace, at the true core of the theory, is specific only to the international system. States are classified as “democracies” and “non-democracies.” However, the heart of the theory is based on more applicable premises. The democratic peace theory is predicated on states with similarities (with a democracy being the unifying element) having better relations. While this is not the only explanation offered, I think it is the most valid. Empirical data shows that states are most likely to have conflict when transitioning from democratic to non-democratic and vice versa. In this situation, they are severing their ties with their like-minded allies and have yet to join the other group. This leaves them susceptible to a wide range of attacks without many allies based on similarity.

            This theory, that bodies related by a unifying factor are more likely to have positive relations, is applicable to many other things. One that I will discuss is the interaction between politicians. 

            Politicians, you may have heard, also have a distinct unifying factor. Political partisanship. One may argue that this is because people choose partisanship based on their views. I would agree, but they do not perfectly align on every issue, yet they still tend to have much better relations with those of their own partisanship.  For example, in the Republican Party, there are many different sects with differing beliefs. There are fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, moderates, and libertarians, among many other groups. However, in the party, they often work together for establishing and accomplishing goals. These particular goals may or may not align well with the aggregate beliefs of the party, but the fact is they are willing to work with differing members of their own party, and less partial to working with others.

            Unions also work with a similar unifying quality. Once again, many people have different needs to be fought for. Some employees would prefer a higher wage rate; some would prefer safer work conditions; some need better health benefits. However, they are also unified by the fact that they all have a similarity: their employer.  So when unions are fighting for better work conditions while an employee might rather get a higher wage with the money the company would spend to improve conditions, that employee likely will still support the union. This is because they have the distinction of their employer.

            A final system that operates based on group membership is very evident here at Maryland, and much less official. The way that people interact depending on if they go/went to the same school is very dynamic. For example, I know that personally I cannot say that everyone I have met here at school has been a likable person. There are definitely people here that I would prefer not to spend any time with at all if possible. However, this becomes inexistent in two settings, the first being sporting events. At Maryland football games, we become unified by the fact that we all go to Maryland, and relations drastically improve. The second setting is when I am in places other than school. It’s very easy to make conversation with Maryland students or alum based on our unifying fact.

            These examples may not be perfect, but they all portray the fact that similarities that unify groups effect the way they act. This applies to the Democratic Peace Theory as well. States with similar traits (democracy or non-democracy) are less likely to feud.