>I'm judging it in comparison to your statement that it has promoted and protected democracy around the world

The point I'm making here is that this doesn't always look like we think it should (though it also frequently has). The world doesn't just cooperate. It's a nasty place filled with competing, often hostile ideologies. And sometimes nastiness is required.

>There is no evidence at all...

Of course there is. If I give you examples, you might wave them off as the U.S. merely promoting its interests versus democracy, but these are frequently directly linked. The U.S. does have an interest in promoting democracy in the world, even if there are counterintuitive scenarios wherein we must take a short term approach that reads anti-democratic. For instance, if a candidate were democratically elected, then ruled as a dictator, removing that democratically elected president would conceivably be a democratic action.

Beyond this, the U.S. must protect its interests (and power) if it is to continue wielding influence in the world.

But, it's true that there have also been grave missteps along the way. I want my country to be perfect too. But, alas. Still, I don't believe it's so binary (though I once did).

In any case, we seem to disagree and I'm not sure that this goes much further without us simply repeating ourselves. Thanks for the chat.