I didn't suggest behaviour it was exclusive to gov system - it's boring self interest calculus - US simply had 50 years of global hegemony head start and played

I didn't suggest behaviour it was exclusive to gov system - it's boring self interest calculus - US simply had 50 years of global hegemony head start and played the game better as strongest player coming out of WW2 relatively unscathed, so much so that they're in backyards of everyone, and not everyone wants status quo of such arrangement. When has political alternatives succeeded in displacing autocracies/authoritarians? Typically autocrats get replaced by other autocrats. Also plenty of failed liberalizing movements that reverted back to autocratic rule. Getting autocratic systems to liberalize generally requires generations of proactive elite capture and shaping by active US influence/intervention, and condition enabling that is recovering from being wrecked post war where superior power can insert itself into local political structures to regime change (be it US or USSR). The biggest threat is physical attack followed political change compelled from external influence. Political alternatives are easy to crush during peace time if state remotely competent, limit domestic sources of LIO influence, i.e. ban western NGOs. Flip statement around, what is biggest threat to liberal democracies? Autocracies that simply exist fine + liberal democracies that don't. Hence LIO interest trying to undermine autocracies. Many PRC nationals in west / naturalized citizens of LIO countries who experience dysfunction of "alternative" and conclude, no thanks.