Thus it's perfectly valid to say that it's never about whether it's morally right to support dictatorships. China is disliked by the US because it's a threat to America being #1 economically, not because it's a dictatorship. The same is true for human rights abuses, of course.
Individual politicians might have certain morals or values. I really believe Obama wanted to close Gitmo but if you look at the results, they're absolutely predictable and not at all based on any morals the US claims to have.
Consider the Twitterfiles, the government is actively censoring speech critical of the FBI and politicians. Think of the Hunter Biden laptop story, do you think that if that speech was not censored that different policies would be supported by the masses and that they would elect different representatives?
People need to know information to make good decisions. If they don't know the information, obviously, they won't consider that in the decision making process
To claim that these representatives don't make their decisions based on morality, or any other value that individuals have, is strictly false.
One might argue that only individuals who have opinions in line with national interests are electable, but that would be bullshit. If there's anything to truly be internalized about the elections of Barack Obama followed by Donald Trump, it's that individuals have a profound influence on American policy. If there were national interests that were solely responsible for US policy, they why was both foreign and domestic policy profoundly different across presidencies?
I'm genuinely curious how your worldview has an answer to this.