Ok, to start we’re going to have to go over the military situation, because you’re really not informed about it. This dovetails very well with my original point, that people tend to despair due to a lack of knowledge rather than too much.

The US has already verifiably lost billions of dollars worth of equipment - I say verifiably because the media censorship is very heavy. Was the USS Gerry Ford really crippled by a laundry fire? hard to say. But they’ve definitely lost a bunch of very expensive radars, including an E-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft, representing 1/16 of the entire fleet. These planes are a very high value target, and they are literally irreplaceable due to being out of production and having their successor cancelled. This is the first time the US has ever lost an AWACS to hostile fire. They’ve also lost a lot of tanker aircraft, which are also irreplaceable (though available in larger numbers), and which are vital to America’s ability to hit Iran.

Iran is striking US assets in the region effectively and at will. Once again, this is the first time this has happened - post WW2, no US enemy has every been able to hit the US military, consistently, before an invasion has even been attempted. Conversely, the US’s ability to hit Iran is continually degrading because they’re exhausting their stocks of standoff weaponry, which are very expensive and low production. Without standoff weapons (long range cruise missiles), US and Isreli aircraft have to fly deeper into Iran, exposing them to anti-aircraft fire.

But this is all beside the main point. The crux of this war is the strait of Hormuz and its position as a chokepoint for a large proportion of the world’s oil and natural gas. Iran has a knife to the throat of the global economy, and even more importantly, the petrodollar. The petrodollar is a cornerstone of US hegemony because it does most of the work in maintaining the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. As long as Iran is able to keep the strait closed to US aligned shipping, they’ve won, and it doesn’t look like the US has much chance of opening the strait up.

Now for the other particulars:

That’s entirely aside from the point though. You’re arguing the a crack in the facade of hegemony is more responsible for emotional distress than a stark reminder that your next door neighbors are horrible bigots.

You’re misinterpreting my argument. I didn’t say that America losing is the cause for emotional distress, I said that it should be the cause of great hope, but liberals who don’t understand imperialism just have a nihilistic and despairing outlook due to this lack of understanding. Yes, your neighbours are nazi bigots, but they’re also losing.

Will Trump losing power make my neighbor not think we should hang trans people? Will a loss of US influence in global affairs cause us to build a social safety net? Will embarrassing the US military spur a wave of environmental reforms?

The answer to all of those is “hopefully yes”. The bigotry of your neighbours is not some intractable inherent evil, it’s been instilled in them by a propaganda machine that uses social issues to keep the public divided and unable to unite in their shared interests, such as, as you mentioned, a social safety net. As American power degrades, so will the efficacy of its propaganda.

Regarding the environmental issue, the answer is a full-throated “yes!” The massive decline in the availability of fossil fuels caused by the closure of the strait is accelerating the green transition.

I think you’re thinking about global politics a lot, and assuming it must be on everyone else’s mind as well. I don’t think you actually know why people are exhausted and depressed, and you sure as shit don’t know what would improve that.

Once aghain, you’re feeding into my main point. No, American liberals do not think about geopolitics, you think about American politics, and American politics are fucking dire. I am not disagreeing with you in any way on that. Your country is filled with vile Nazis, you live in an economic pressure cooker where a run of bad luck could lead you to becoming homeless, and any kind of change seems remote and unlikely. These things are all true.

What I’m trying to get across is that the US government’s power is premised on being the global hegemon, and that hegemony being under attack also means the state’s power is under attack. In 1905, when Russia humiliatingly lost a war against Japan (a non-European power, so this came as a huge shock), the result was a wave of strikes, revolts, and mutinies that resulted in a revolution - the end of Tsarist autocracy, the establishment of a constitutional monarchy, and a broad democratization. There is plenty of precedent for a humiliating defeat being the catalyst for change.

In any case, you’re still taking a very American-centric view. Ok, suppose that the loss of global hegemony doesn’t result in anything getting better for Americans. So? There’s an entire world out there with billions of people, as opposed to your country of 350 million. If Americans can’t use this opportunity to better their lot, the world still gets the imperial boot off its neck.