Yeah I would refine that argument a bit and say the US will sometimes support (or rather, ally with) dictators when the only viable alternative is an arguably worse dictator. There aren't exactly a lot of democracies in the middle east we could be supporting instead.

Like supporting Al Qaeda to overthrow Assad.

Exactly. Unfortunately, "arguably better" doesn't always turn out to be "actually better" once you have the benefit of hindsight.

there weren't a lot of democracies in the world until recently. And even a good many of them are effectively oligarchies.

if you want a good path to true improvement in civil rights (not a useless piece of paper or declaration) just track the wealth of a country. Wealthy countries that didn't rely on natural resources to get wealthy tend to treat their citizens better because, well, they make up the fcking economy.

most western countries had a shortcut to that via colonialism and slavery. It's very rich to then point at countries that don't have that cushion and talk about being morally superior.

Nice theory, but it seems demonstrably untrue to me. Has China made any major strides in civil rights since their economic miracle? They seem as determined to stamp out the few remaining bastions of civil rights in their corner of the world as ever.

Democracy is a morally superior system of government, because it's fundamentally premised on a moral idea; that governments "derive their just powers from the consent of the governed". Dictatorships and aristocracies can make no such claim.

Democracies are not a guarantee of civil rights and easily turn into authoritarian and repressive regimes.

Usually only after they stop being democracies. It's rather difficult to repress people who can fire you if they don't like the job you're doing.

But in principle I agree, democracy on its own doesn't guarantee morality. There's such thing as the tyranny of the majority.