How did the U.S. go from world leader to world laggard?
Of course, cognitive dissonance is to be expected for short term relief, hence here we are, in a situation where the people who most need the help of others vote for those who espouse "every man for himself" rhetoric.
The US always strikes me as a country dealing with the logical outcomes of decisions made decades ago - a health insurance not care system (I pay more in insurance premiums than the total taxation for a median family back in my birth country!), low investment in urban public transportation, and an overly complex government structure (I live in an urban area with 100+ "cities" that all have their own council, there is a regional government agency, then the country, State, and Federal government agencies. That's a lot of duplication). Every country has it's issues but it does seem that the US is determined to look inward for solutions instead of looking to what works elsewhere.
I'm an immigrant so accept that as the US way (and understand that Americans really value local control) but I do find it interesting/frustrating/admirable at times. I also often wonder what the US could achieve if we resolved some of these fundamental issues out - how many entrepreneurs can't make the jump because they need healthcare for their family or are paying vast sums of money for health insurance...
American exceptionalism at its worst.
In any case, it's not a problem that just popped up overnight when Trump was elected.
Trump won because of the electoral college, a weak Democratic candidate, and because Trump unlike most mainstream Republican Presidential candidates pandered to people's baser instincts.
Too many people do not like Hillary, and they stayed home instead of voting for her. That's the bottom line. Right or wrong, fair or unfair, she is not well liked enough to get elected.
The thing is, that was never a secret. It was obvious even before she got her ass kicked in the 2008 primaries. It was even more obvious afterwards.
So why did she run last year? For her own selfish reasons, that's why. She should have known she would lose. If she actually cared about things as much as she claims to, she would have stepped aside and let someone else, run instead. Then we wouldn't be where we are today. But because she couldn't put aside her own wants and do what was best for the nation, here we are.
(Even her campaign slogan spelled it out: "I'm with her". Clearly, it was all about her, and not about the country.)
There's something tautological about saying someone "wasn't well-liked enough" to get elected. That's why everyone loses an otherwise fair election.
An equally compelling and even simpler narrative is that it's simply rare for the governing party to hold on to the White House for 3 consecutive terms. The opposition party gets to run a "change" election that the incumbent party can't. For a second term in office, where the incumbent party can run the same candidate, they can run a "continuity" election that more often than not beats "change". But they can't do it for a third term, and so the opposition simply tends to win that term.
Clinton's campaign was 100% continuity and that is what her opposition focused on
The party didn't nominate Clinton. Sixteen million individual American voters did. Clinton came within a hairs breadth of the number of votes Barack Obama, the most popular Democratic politician in modern memory, gained. Sanders missed that mark by four million votes.
Of the countries who signed it, which or what percentage followed through and met their commitments?