Hardly a day goes by without a US politician invoking American values to justify the country’s course of action. The president’s State of the Union address every year spells out for the ignorant listener what defines the United States as a country: equality, pluralism, democracy, selflessness, fairness, opportunity and justice among others regularly make the list. But what for Americans maybe is a fair assessment of their country and summary of its superior value system sounds to many in the international community like a sneer at reality.

The notion that the United States operates according to a higher set of moral values is hardly observable in reality. The decade-long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States treatment of prisoners, its treatment of dissent, its treatment of partners, international institutions and the international community as a whole and of the American people stand in contrast to the politicians lofty rhetoric. Maybe most troubling, however, is the way the United States deals with its own failures to adhere to its own ambitious standards.

The United States has committed war crimes. As part of its global campaign against terrorism it has illegally abducted, detained and tortured hundreds. Dozens were killed in the process. It was widely known during the Bush years and has been further detailed by the Senate’s so-called Torture Report released in December 2014. Yet, despite the facts being known and torture being a clear violation of the Geneva Convention there have been no legal consequences to anyone responsible. George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld who have ordered the CIA and military to torture were neither indicted nor charged. The same is true for John Yoo and Jay Bybee who drafted and signed the legal justification using torture and for George Tenet, the then Director of the CIA, who went along and oversaw the implementation. The actions taken were universally condemned in the US and other nations alike. Yet, the United States with a constitutional scholar as president was unable to level justice against the perpetrators.

While the torturers got a pass in the United States, swift justice was dealt to whistleblowers, most notably Edward Snowden. His revelations shed a light on dramatic government overreach and violations of the 4^th Amendment, started a much needed public discourse about surveillance and had close to no adverse consequences for his nation except his government’s embarrassment. But although he went to great lengths to show his intentions were benevolent and didn’t profit personally but sacrificed his career in order to publish his revelations the Obama administration saw it necessary to drive a young man of 29 years into permanent exile, revoke his passport and label him an enemy of the state. The example of another even younger whistleblower, Chelsea Manning, shows what Snowden can expect should he be extradited. Manning was held without charges or trial for 3 years violating the 5^th Amendment. He was eventually charged with aiding the enemy and currently serves a 35-year prison sentence.

Domestically the United States incarcerates more citizens than any other nation. More than 2 million Americans are currently imprisoned. But while the law reacts decisively on trivial drug offenses the major crimes of Wall Street banks that on the one hand defrauded the country up to a point close to economic collapse while on the other paying their executives multimillion-dollar bonuses went unpunished. Instead of investigating and prosecuting the banks and especially their leadership for fraudulent behavior and find ways to prevent future conduct of that kind they received a bailout at strongly favorable conditions. None of the CEOs and top executives had to face jail time or was even indicted. The banks are larger in 2015 than they were in 2008 and annual cash bonuses are again in the tens of billions.

What does it say about the United States’ character that it is not able to address its own failures and injustices within its own borders? What does it say about its character that it rather hunts down and jails young men who uncover inconvenient truths than torturers who brought grave injury and death to hundreds and criminals who brought poverty and despair to millions of Americans? The ideal of America that is so often confessed to hardly matches the country its actions describe: a country unable to address its own most egregious wrongs, a continuous breaker of its own and international law, a protector of the powerful and persecutor of the powerless. If the United States cannot to stand up for their own core principles and most fundamental laws – American values don’t exist. They are just words. And if Americans want to live in the country they profess to love, their government needs to live up to the ideals it uses to define it.

Democracy is considered one of the major achievements of the 1^st world, the next step in the evolution of governance guaranteeing stability, equality, human rights and rule of law. To Americans it is fundamental to the American Idea, the essence what the United States are comprised of, and their self-proclaimed proudest export. To Europeans and Americans alike Democracy indicates whether a nation is modern and civilized and can be a reliable partner or is backward, corrupt and fundamentally flawed. Democracy is also regularly considered the final form of government. There is no discussion about alternatives and rarely a discussion about possible improvements. It is accepted as a given and a constant not worth questioning.

There are good reasons for holding democracy in such high regard. Particularly its greater ability – in contrast to systems like monarchy or aristocracy – to express the wishes of the majority of the governed instead of a small privileged fraction of its populace only. But it is also true that democracy, as monarchy or aristocracy, is just another form of governance. Democracy is not perfect. It has significant strengths as well as weaknesses, it is not inherently superior and it is not suitable for all countries alike.

Winston Churchill once said that “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” The quote describes accurately one of the major challenges democracy faces. A viable election requires educated voters who are knowledgeable about issues and candidates. In reality, however, only a small minority of voters is actually aware of the current state of its country and could argue his or her position on the issues and most know little about the candidates’ convictions. Voting campaigns are promotion campaigns, often untruthful and helping little to enlighten voters on what they are actually voting for.

Educational platforms and tools that offer transparency by benchmarking parties and candidates exist but are not mandatory and few voters have the drive to educate themselves before casting their vote. Putting tests in place that prohibit voters to participate who are not knowledgeable about the choice they are about to make would be considered undemocratic and elitist.

The results are that voters vote against their own best interests and at times elect leaders that are patently unfit to lead. The status quo is reinforced and no meaningful progress is achieved. The societal evolution is slow and usually only in situations of crisis allows for rapid change.

Yet, despite the problems democracy faces, there is little will for reform and competing systems of governance are treated with condescension. China is one example of such behavior. The country’s one-party system is called a dictatorship and considered illegitimate. This attitude, however, fails to realize that China’s system allows for a much more rapid decisions process than a democracy would which is tantamount to the country’s breathtaking development over the last 30 years that has lifted millions out of poverty. It also fails to acknowledge that China still is a vast developing country and it educational standard has yet to catch up with the West. A great part of its populace would be utterly oblivious to what and whom to vote for if offered the opportunity rendering a viable democratic process unachievable. Lastly, it fails to understand that a party as large as the Communist Party of China never can be one monolithic block. China simply packages many parties in one. There are many factions within the party and arguments exist but the eventual decisions for the country are then executed with one voice.

In the end the merits of the form of government are evident in its ability to produce good leadership and peace and prosperity for its people. The western democracies should not accept the mantra that there are no possible improvements to their form of government, that it indeed is the best option for every country and that competing forms of governance are inherently inferior regardless of the history, societal and economic development of the country in question. Democracy doesn’t grant moral superiority. Only actions do.

The United States like to proclaim themselves the Leader of the Free World. And calling the United States a leading country is certainly justified. It is the last remaining superpower, it boasts the world’s largest economy, it is the richest country on earth with the world’s strongest military force and many of the world’s leading educational and research facilities as well as multinational corporations call the United States their home. In many respects the power of the United States is unrivaled which seems to establish the country as a natural leader of nations.

But good leadership of individuals and nations alike requires qualities that are a rare combination; Competence, prudence, farsightedness and the ability to show restraint, inspire and lead by example and some would argue a sense for the common good. Do these qualities accurately describe the track record of the United States? It is hard to argue.

It is particularly hard to argue that the United States have, as so often publicly proclaimed, been preoccupied with spreading freedom, justice, democracy and prosperity around the globe – all of which might have seemed like a worthwhile pursuit for the Leader of the Free World. The actions taken and the military interventions conducted over the course of the last one hundred years, however, much rather paint a picture of a country preoccupied with defending its economic interests and ideological and military supremacy. Humanitarian aspects were without exception at best a secondary concern for the men shaping US’ foreign policy.

Salvador Allende was overthrown by a US initiated coup in 1973

The United States repeatedly intervened in the affairs of sovereign nations, toppled their leaders and installed repressive regimes to guarantee favorable conditions for its business interests. Iran’s Mossaddegh in 1953, Guatemala’s President Jacobo Arbenz in 1954, Joao Goulart in Brazil in 1964 and Chile’s Salvador Allende in 1973 are only four examples. Prior to toppling leaders the US policy of choice had been military invasions and occupations. Central American countries were the principal recipients of that kind of treatment. In the first 25 years of the 20th century the United States initiated over 20 such invasions or occupations in which would later be called the “Banana Wars”. The financial interests of the United Fruit Company were the overt driver of these military endeavors.

The results of the outlined American policies were hundreds of thousands injured, tortured and dead civilians and soldiers in over a dozen countries in the Americas alone. The countries in question remained in abject poverty with obscene disparities of wealth and populaces suppressed by American-friendly dictators for decades. United States business interest profited greatly.

In Asia American concerns were centering around military and ideological supremacy rather than pure economic goals. The outcome of American intervention from the 1950s onward, however, was as devastating as they were in the Americas if not more so. And while one could argue for Central America and the West Indies to be in the direct vicinity of the United States, the same argument certainly didn’t apply in Southeast Asia.

US bombers over Vietnam

Under the guise of resisting communist aggression Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia were flattened by American bombs killing millions and destabilizing the region as a whole between the late 50s and early 70s. In Cambodia the bombings tore apart the very fabric of society. It gave rise to the Khmer Rouge, one of the most brutal regimes in history that within 4 years killed almost a quarter of its own people.

In the Middle East the US betrayed its pretensions to spread democracy by backing any dictator or autocratic regime as long as it would support US oil related interests. It destabilized the region by arming both sides of the in First Persian Gulf War in the 80s and subsequently waged two wars against Iraq that devastated the country and left the region in turmoil. While hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died US military, security and oil companies like Blackwater and Halliburton made billions.

Proponents of American interventionism and world leadership can point at Germany and Japan as the two shining examples of countries that made a marvelous recovery not in small part due to American investment flowing into both countries after their destruction and defeat in World War II.

For the most part, however, the United States military interventions left countries and whole regions devastated, many did never recover. Central America is still an impoverished region, Southeast Asia does fare little better, the Middle East has been brutalized beyond recognition and living conditions are among the most deplorable in the world.

What does this track record say about the United States? What does it say about a country if it is willing to accept the continued suffering and deaths of hundreds of thousands to guarantee stable profits for its economic interests or to simply make a point in an ideological struggle? What does it say about a nation if it continuously sacrifices its self-proclaimed greatest values to make a buck? What does it say about a country if it has to lie about its motives and falsify facts to convince even its allies of its course being rightful? What does it say about a nation if it manufactures evidence and crisis to arbitrarily exercise force and bully smaller nations into submission? What does it say about the US that is waged more wars in the last 100 years than any other nation?

The military endeavors of the US have helped make it the wealthiest nation on earth and guaranteed profits for its business interest creating some of the mightiest corporations worldwide. For the nations subject to US military campaigns, however, very few will see them as crusades for freedom, justice and democracy and for most of them these values failed to materialize as a result of US intervention.

The US exercise of its leadership or – as some would call it – arbitrary meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations did not bring about peace, progress or prosperity and it is not designed to do so. It is not an expression of largesse but of narrow self-interest to uphold economic and military superiority. The United States leads the world by superiority of force not superiority of ideas.

Looking at the United States’ track record of global leadership one has to ask: Is this the leadership the world wants? Will this kind of leadership help the world progress to a better place in the future? It is hard to argue.