Criticism of the United States government
Historically, domestic and international criticism of the United States has been driven by its embracement of classical economics, manifest destiny, hemispheric exclusion and exploitation of the Global South, military intervention, and alleged practice of neocolonialism, with its unipolar global position giving it a special responsibility which many feel is misused purely for self-gain, in contradiction with the beliefs and values of American people.
Throughout more than two hundred years, multiple stages of isolationism and interventionism, it has gone through distinct phases that have been driven by internal forces and reacted to external regional and global dynamics.
[6] The U.S. has been criticized for making statements supporting peace and respecting national sovereignty, but while carrying out military actions such as in Grenada, fomenting a civil war in Colombia to break off Panama, and invading Iraq.
The U.S. has been criticized for advocating free trade but while protecting local industries with import tariffs on foreign goods such as lumber[8] and agricultural products.
[9][10] The U.S. has been criticized for voicing concern about narcotics production in countries such as Bolivia and Venezuela but doesn't follow through on cutting certain bilateral aid programs.
[15][16][clarification needed] President Bush has been criticized for neglecting democracy and human rights by focusing exclusively on an effort to fight terrorism.
[31] Jim Webb, former Democratic senator from Virginia and former Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration, believes that Congress has an ever-decreasing role in U.S. foreign policy making.
Once the document was finalized, Congress was not given the opportunity to debate the merits of the agreement, which was specifically designed to shape the structure of our long-term relations in Iraq" (11).
"It is difficult to understand how any international agreement negotiated, signed, and authored only by our executive branch of government can be construed as legally binding in our constitutional system," Webb argues.
The issue that remains to be resolved is whether a president can unilaterally begin, and continue, a military campaign for reasons that he alone defines as meeting the demanding standards of a vital national interest worth of risking American lives and expending billions of dollars of taxpayer money.
[37] Some jurists have explicitly stated that US foreign government judicial immunity regulations can hardly be adapted to the provisions of international law.
[38] The International Court of Justice has in several cases declared the US foreign government judicial immunity regulations outside the legal limits.
For example, Barack Obama has been increasingly criticized for his expansive views on executive powers and mismanaging of several situations, including the Syrian Civil War.
In recent years, presidents had relatively more experience in such tasks as peanut farming, acting and governing governorships than in international affairs.
Many presidents have circumvented the national security decision-making process, including Trump, Obama, George W. Bush, Clinton, and Reagan, as well as others historically.
