It is true to say that much that is represented as being about ideals is really something else in disguise. And there is rampant corruption and so forth.
But it takes cynicism too far to say that ideals never factor in. There are many principled people with ideals having impact in the world every day, and there is nothing enlightened about deriding their efforts or pretending they don't exist.
The US government, post ww2, fights for Corporations in the NATO axis that benefit from a particular regime being in power in a particular country.
Sometimes these regimes are democratic, other times they are not. The ideals are kool aid to sell to the public to garner support for war.
For eg, US has toppled democracies in Haiti and Iran to support corporate interests. It supported dictatorship in Haiti, Saudi, Indonesia, Pakistan, Iran etc to promote the interests of NATO corporations.
Government decisions are made by human beings in positions of power. Being in a position of power, such as the president of the United States, is a balancing of owns personal beliefs/morality and the interests of the United States. The composition of those components and the position of the pendulum in that balance varies depending on who you are.
Your position supposes nobody with ideals becomes members of government or that members of government somehow compartmentalize American cultural ideals/identity. Plenty of hypocrisy abounds, no doubt, but your take is overly cynical.
I have cited several examples, you cant call it kool aid because it disagrees with your beliefs. Feel free to offer counter examples.
Counter examples I am looking for
1. American support for a democracy that is not conditioned on alignment with NATO.
2. Or equivalently displacement of a dictatorial regime that is aligned with NATO, with a democratic regime that is less or equally aligned with NATO.
I can easily predict with 100% accuracy which faction the US government and media will support from this simple principle of NATO alignment.
The most hilarious example of this was when US fought against ISIS in Iraq, while supporting ISIS in Syria - because they were fighting against Assad(who aligned with Russia). To prevent Americans from cognitive dissonance, ISIS factions in Syria were referred to in US media as "rebels". With US media highlighting and magnifying tweets from Syrian ISIS accounts, when Assad wrested control of Aleppo from ISIS and Al Qaeda affiliated "rebels"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleppo_offensive_(October%E2%8...
Check out the composition and history of the "rebel" groups.
Army of Conquest
Fatah Halab
Ansar al-Islam
Jabhat Ansar al-Din
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-alep...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/world/middleeast/aleppo-t...
https://www.wired.com/2016/12/powerless-people-aleppo-tweeti...
Here US media amplifies and propagates evidence free ISIS propaganda in Syria. If these "rebels" were such great humanitarians, why weren't they welcome in Iraq?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/12/last-rebel...
However, when civilians fled the fled to "regime" (read Assad) controlled areas.
"Yesterday, some residents who couldn’t take the bombardment anymore fled toward regime controlled areas, according to Othman."
Amnesty internationals report directly contradicts US media reporting which blamed civilian casualties on Assad.
"Amnesty International stated that the "armed opposition groups have displayed a shocking disregard for civilian lives", deploying weapons "whose use in the vicinity of densely populated civilian areas flagrantly violates international humanitarian law". The organization called the rebel groups to "end all attacks that fail to distinguish between military targets and civilians"."
More honest reporting outside US media, where Obama and Kerry squirm at the optics of supporting Al Qaeda and ISIS against Assad.
https://www.mei.edu/publications/under-pressure-syrias-rebel...
Non US media reports that Kerry acknowledged that US has been supporting "terrorists"
"As the unthinkable was becoming a reality in Aleppo, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry held a day of talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Moscow and agreed to a series of undetermined terms for bilateral cooperation against terrorism in Syria"
I know great people, far better than myself, that have dedicated themselves to these ideals. I feel that it is a disservice to them and those ideals to write them off or discount their existence because of instances of hypocrisy in US policy. That is all I wished to communicate.
I, personally, am not aware of a single counter example. FDR had started to deviate by establishing friendly relations with Stalin's Russia. The possibility of a president deviating from the agenda was put firmly to death by making it illegal for a president to have more than 2 terms, after FDRs death.
As much as I hate Trump and Putin, Trump was the only President to deviate from the NATO consensus on various issues. It was a bad idea and grift by Trump and I didn't support it.
> I know great people, far better than myself, that have dedicated themselves to these ideals.
I 100% believe that. I believe Obama was well intentioned as well. For example, he tried to reduce tensions with non NATO countries like Cuba and Iran. However, when push came to shove- he supported ISIS in Syria.
Even Bidens price cap on insulin was written so that insurance Corporations profits are completely unaffected, the costs will simply be spread out to all insurance customers.
As for the folks you know, they could be working with the US Government on providing humanitarian relief to Palestinians and Syrian refugees, while another arm of the government is fucking them over.
The point is - the overall structure of the US government is built to primarily advance the objectives of NATO corporations. There will be thousands of individuals doing good work within the government. I know several of them myself. However, these are secondary- not primary objectives of the state
Another example, George Bush removing democracy in Haiti and installing a dictator
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-mar-02-fg-usrol...
If it was Obama, he probably would have left Haiti alone. Haiti is strategically meaningless to USA. But Bush had to execute a coup.So, yes, the people in the government matter. But the singular thrust of US Foreign policy is alignment with NATO. It's as clear as daylight.
https://www.france24.com/en/20120715-egypt-clinton-urges-us-... https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/world/middleeast/egyptian...
I would also consider the continued humanitarian support of Afghanistan as not aligned with NATO corporate interests, broadly speaking. EDIT: As compared with the continued occupation of the country.
https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/jun-28...
Double edit: Also as far as know European members of NATO hated the backtracking of American policy on Iran due to business interests. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-france-busin...
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2013/7/10/exclusive-us-ba...
As for humanitarian support, I have already stated with examples of Syria and Palestine that these secondary activities happen- however, they do not change the primary thrust of US foreign policy. Afghanistan is no different. When I say that primary objective of the United states is supporting the goals of NATO corporations it does not mean that secondary goals such as social security, unemployment reduction and Medicare don't exist.
As for Iran, I already stated that Obama moved to normalize relationship with non NATO Iran and Cuba by allowing other countries to trade with them etc.
I also explained how Trump is the only president who went off-script by engaging with Russia, ruining the TPP and also harming French/NATO business interests that were developing in Iran. Your edit refers to actions by Trump.
The previous president to do that was FDR. This led to the 2 term limit on presidency as he 1. Introduced social security 2. Normalized relationships with Russia 3. Raised taxes
There was a plot to assassinate fdr as soon as he was elected. Surprisingly enough, nobody was prosecuted
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
"Roosevelt's election was upsetting for many conservative businessmen of the time, as his "campaign promise that the government would provide jobs for all the unemployed had the perverse effect of creating a new wave of unemployment by businessmen frightened by fears of socialism and reckless government spending "
And before WW2, it was for it's own corporations. "I was a gangster for capitalism" is an interesting read.