Former USAID administrator J. Brian Atwood hits the nail on the head for why it is in the US national interest to support democracy over stability. Writing in the Huffington Post, Atwood correctly observes,

Many liberals argue today that stability is a more realistic goal in a chaotic world. They even see advantages in the relative efficiency of autocratic regimes. Yet these regimes will eventually meet political and economic pressures that will either force internal change or create conflict that can be contained only with violence. When this happens, the United States is better off having been consistent with its fundamental principles. Short-term, so-called “pragmatism” can place us on the wrong side of history.

I agree completely.  The US was in a much better position to help countries in the former Soviet Union transition to democracy after the empire’s collapse because the US Government had been pressuring the Soviets to respect human rights and increase individual freedom long before the Soviet Union fell apart.  Does anyone believe that had the US Government been propping up the Soviet Union it could have engaged with reformers after its fall?

Michael Allen at Democracy Digest has more.