Not an ally any more. The US is now aligned with Russia against Europe. My brain struggles to truly accept that fact but my eyes see what are in front of them.
Sadly it's the nature of (EDIT: the US system of) democracy, you don't get to pick and choose which parts of a candidate's agenda get enacted. Voted for Trump because of inflation, found the country in an alliance with Putin.
Very broadly I think the US has done a poor job explaining just how beneficial America's position in the world is to America itself. You see it reflected in the USAID stuff too. Soft power pays dividends in ways that aren't immediately apparent so when it's gone people just don't care all that much. It'll be interesting to see where this all lands 20 or so years from now and how the US public feels about it then.
Fair, I've updated my post. I'd argue it's not just FPTP presidential systems, though. Even in proportional representation you still only get one vote so you pick the candidate that's the best fit for you, you still don't get to pick and choose which parts of their agenda get enacted.
Yes, but different people will care more or less about different things and thus vote for different parties which all have to work together to form coalitions, which in theory then have to reflect a negotiated compromise among the different things that different people care about.
It’s not perfectly efficient, and it can suffer from the problem you’re describing, but far less severely than the US system does.
By definition, it is impossible for a single winner contest like the Presidency to be proportionally elected. Proportionality matters for multi-member bodies like legislatures or parliaments. I.e. 20% of the vote nets 20% of the seats. Single winner contests can only represent at best, half or more of the population when working well.
Winner take all (one winner): FPTP, single member district ranked ballots
Proportional (multiple winners): Party lists, MMP, multi-member district ranked ballots (STV)
I don't think the US voting public is ready to see geopolitics from the realpolitik lens instead of the lens of idealism that has been instilled on them from elementary school onwards. Every major US geopolitical intervention has been sold to the voters through ideals like spreading democracy. It'll take a complete rethink of civics education before USians are actually ready to decide the government of the hegemon, both to claim what is theirs by might and to ensure that it's distributed fairly amongst them. I'm also not confident that I want the next generation to become realpolitik bastards before they graduate high school.
He was obviously not going to do anything about inflation despite what he said during his rallies. Actions speak more than words, especially when those words are inconsistent ramblings. We all saw what he did in his first term, and not a single policy decision was made out of concern for ordinary people. It's always about going after people or enriching the super-rich even further.
I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and I wish it was easier to explain this sort of thing to people. Most MAGA people look at any taxpayer money spent abroad, for any purpose, as a waste, when that money could be spent on US citizens locally.
Diplomacy and soft power is a complex, nuanced concept that can't be explained easily.
But in all seriousness, my bewilderment isn't so much that Reagan's stance against Russia was discarded (parties change over time, as well as the relationship between nations), but that it happened with zero pushback and zero discourse. The party leader said, with no explanation, "Our #1 enemy is now our ally" and the party simply said "But of course, no one should doubt this!"
