[Amezarak]

> I would argue he does not represent the main stream of American foreign policy and has continually fought against the majority opinion to protect institutions that preserve these freedoms and liberty (NATO / OTAN) and oppose actions that threaten said freedoms (annexation of crimea, etc).

The mainstream of American foreign policy is completely divorced from mainstream voters, which is one of the reasons for Trump's election: the foreign policy establishment has remained utterly impervious to American political sentiment for decades.

Most Americans are non-interventionist and veering on isolationist. They don't want to send foreign countries billions of dollars of foreign aid and they don't want endless US military expeditions. The US foreign policy establishment has ignored this at their own peril. They were able to neutralize Obama's foreign policy electoral platform; they haven't been so fortunate with Trump.

It's not very clear that American foreign policy has done anything to serve the interests of the average American in the past fifty years. It might have done great things for Europeans - I'm not a European, so I don't feel qualified to judge - but decades of American empire building have, if anything, hurt Americans, who have died in terrorist attacks caused by US foreign policy, been maimed in endless wars, and who have suffered from the economic globalization promoted by the foreign policy class. And frankly, I don't care about European interests or Crimean interests if they come at the expense of my interest.