The US was smart enough to realise that pressuring a country from outside and launching temporary invasions and coups to put in friendly regimes to further it's power and economic opportunities is more practical and less costly in the modern world than classical imperialism. It's called neo-imperialism and it's not better. It's just more in tune with the modern age of globalism, advanced communications and lower technological gaps between fighting forces than existed in the colonial era.

It's not moral superiority, it's because the very process of decolonization showed that that model was out-dated. It's also part of the reason the USSR lost the cold war. Because the USSR was a direct hegemony, moscow was economically responsible for propping up soviet member states, which was a massive drain on resources. If an african country that the US supported a friendly regime in tanked economically and ceased to be able to trade with america, the US has no similar obligation to prop them up, they can cut ties and shore up connections with other countries(and remember, that frequently means directly violating their sovereignty, applying economic pressure and sometimes outright invading.) If a USSR allied state went the same way, they became a liability.

It's not better than Imperialism, it's an even more disgusting brand that keeps the exploitation but eliminates any chance of a sense of responsibility towards the regions you're exploiting.