Sure, it’s a fair point that there’s no need to assume irrationality on the part of a moral agent, or unnecessarily characterizing some actions as immoral. It’s

Sure, it’s a fair point that there’s no need to assume irrationality on the part of a moral agent, or unnecessarily characterizing some actions as immoral. It’s harder to justify voting behavior which doesn’t prioritize national interests or national sovereignty. Regardless of how much spin you put on an issue, the practical effects of those issues will force voting behavior to address it. Take homelessness for example. It’s currently marketed as an untenable crisis for all of America, when really it’s maybe one or two states near-ish the border which face the brunt of the issue. The relative proportion of homeless versus the U.S. population is 0.0022% (about 771K), and effectively managed in some respects by non-profits and state welfare in functioning states. So, voters don’t prioritize homelessness as an issue. But if lower income earners in local economies are impacted by illegal immigrants, then they will prioritize immigration as an issue to address. Should there be a large-scale discussion on how to address the impacts of colonialism and imperialism on citizens of other nations. Sure, and I think a lot of that needs to be held at nation state level via appropriate bodies such as the UN, or a continental body, so you can curtail the negative effects of poor diplomacy or historical missteps. I’ll just say this though, a lot of what nations achieve (or don’t) depends on their own culture, leaders and elite, but it’s easier to blame nebulous forces. Let’s take Iraq for example. Its GDP has gone up ~1000% since it was bombed in early 2000s. Is lack of money or resources it’s problem, currently. Not necessarily. Note, culture doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with race or religion.