Making Best Moves for Democracy

American politicians have shown recalcitrance to act for U.S. national interests rather than global interests in recent decades. The nation was founded as a democracy, or a democratic republic as it were. It is worth remembering that British and Roman Catholic papists didn't support democracy. Sadly the Catholic Church history is one of opposition to democracy and support of Habsburgs until comparatively recent times.When U.S. political leadership works for foreign and globalists rather than U.S. interests it also works sedulously against democracy in the U.S.A. Support for illegal immigration is one example of a preference for globalist imperialism against democratic self-determination of by and for the people of the United States.

In foreign policy choices have been made primarily  to benefit concentrated wealth rather than the people of the U.S.A.Those interests are not always in harmony or close to be one.In order to present a little philosophical detachment and reflection about foreign policy criteria that benefit Americans rather than the globalist agenda I will post a brief article on the logic of aggregating winning moves.

In chess tactics trainers at least there does seem to be a 'best move'. One's agenda might always be to choose the best move, although there may be numerous equally valid best moves at various points in a game. Evaluating best moves options ought to be reflexive, rather than possibilities within an agenda doomed to win because it has a winning agenda ideal. If one opts for the end justifies the means agenda then the means must have a sequence of best movies. If one justifies the means are the end-in-themselves, the aggregation of best moves must lead to a winning agenda lest the moves with retrocausality be proven to be less-than-the-best and politically losing.