Is the US generally a force for good in the world or a force for evil?

[GeneralMacArthur]

The United States essentially defined what it means to be "good" as an international superpower.  Figures like Woodrow Wilson and Eleanor Roosevelt defined the aspirations of the current international order, and the United States has generally seen that as a guiding light ever since -- although this has often taken a backseat to more immediate and pressing concerns, as for example during the Cold War when preventing the spread of the most deadly ideology in human existence by any means necessary was the top priority.

Russia and China, and before them the U.K., France and Spain, had completely different notions regarding what responsibilities a global superpower brings, or what it means to be a force for good in the world.

As a basic example, virtually every empire stretching back to the Romans has seen its primary responsibility as a global superpower to be the spread of its cultural homogeneity via conquest -- ideally non-violent -- and subsequent assimilation.  The United States is the first to (profess to) pursue an objective of assimilating other countries into a framework for maximizing the prosperity of their peoples and the flourishing of their own unique cultures -- so long as those cultures do not conflict with the overall global system meant to safeguard peace and prosperity.

Whether or not the United States always lives up to its professed principles or acts in accordance with them consistently, if you even merely agree that the definition of "goodness" that the United States vocalizes aligns generally with your own personal definition, you really ought to answer "yes", because I can promise you that the Russian and Chinese definitions almost certainly do not; nor would pretty much any great power throughout human history.