The idea that workers in wealthy countries like the United States are part of a “labor aristocracy” bought off with the fruits of imperialism is nonsense. The best way to build a movement against US imperialism is to build the labor movement domestically.
There isn't really tension between 1 and 2 because the primary impacts of imperialism for the imperial core working class have been conversion to service sector jobs (capital for manufacturing was exported) and then cheap goods via an imbalanced exchange. The suppression of wages overseas combined with dollar hegemony means Wal-Mart prices on your goods. Combine that with the free ride of financialized homeownership (for those that could buy homes, which was the vast majority back then) and you've got the consumerized "middle class" labor aristocracy getting way more for what they do than the rest of the proletariat.
Re: not caring about what happens overseas, I would say that is generally true, though that's also a luxury of being part of the labor aristocracy and doesn't change the calculus of exploitation. When you are the beneficiary, the media would very much like you to not really process the sweatshop conditions of children making your status symbol shoes. Laugh at it in some comedy, but don't think too hard about it or ask why. When you live in the country with the sweatshops, you know where the products go and the price you pay for that arrangement. Of course, all of this is under conditions of intense propaganda, so I'm describing a powerful material force, but not the only one.