IL FUTURO DELLA POLITICA ESTERA AMERICANA. (The future of US foreign policy)

Un interessante editoriale di Mara Caputo sul sito "International Relations and Security Network" (ISN, ETH Zürich).

If history teaches us anything, it may be that grandiose promises are made to be broken. Perhaps nowhere has this lesson been taught more frequently than the classroom of US presidential politics, where abandoned campaign pledges have been strewn across the political landscape of twentieth century American elections.
In 1912, candidate Woodrow Wilson campaigned to keep the US out of World War I, while President Wilson committed troops in 1917. Franklin Roosevelt made the same promise in 1940 not to send American boys "into any foreign wars," only to enter World War II a year later. Lyndon Johnson also quickly reversed himself by sending American ground troops to Vietnam in 1965, and Richard Nixon's 1968 allusions to a nonexistent “secret plan” to get American troops out of the war further eroded the public's trust.In 1992, candidate Bill Clinton promised to take a strong position on Bosnian atrocities and against China's "butchers of Beijing," only to be criticized for foot-dragging on these human rights issues. And the current President George W Bush's 2000 pledge to project a “humble” foreign policy and withhold US troops from “nation-building” missions provide the most recent examples of broken election promises.Even the current presidential candidates have acknowledged the oft hollow ring of the campaign pledge. When launching his presidential bid in February 2007, Senator Barack Obama said as much.
"All of us running for president will travel around the country offering 10-point plans and making grand speeches; all of us will trumpet those qualities we believe make us uniquely qualified to lead the country. But too many times, after the election is over, and the confetti is swept away, all those promises fade from memory, and the lobbyists and the special interests move in, and people turn away, disappointed as before, left to struggle on their own."
This US election, voters have been presented with two candidates standing on foreign policy platforms that promise to renew America's sagging reputation and troubled role on the world stage in the wake of a two-term Bush presidency. The reform-minded political identities constructed by each campaign - particularly the “change” mantra of Senator Obama - have created impossibly high expectations for the next president.
And the overwhelming international popularity of Senator Obama only magnifies those expectations; his compelling personal biography that bridges cultures and countries coupled with his eloquent pronouncements for a rejuvenated American diplomacy and multilateralist foreign policy have elevated his appeal to a near messianic-like cult-of-personality among admirers.
But as presidential history has demonstrated, the gap between campaign promises and performance in office has often remained wide. And sometimes the bigger the promise, the wider the gulf between vision and reality.
But why the chasm? Naturally, unforeseen challenges requiring difficult decisions often necessitate policy reversals. Wilson's pacifist promises gave way to a war declaration only following German submarine attacks against US shipping. Roosevelt reneged on his promise not to enter World War II immediately after the surprise Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. Similarly, Bush changed his mind about nation-building following 9/11 - with some prodding from a highly influential Vice-President Dick Cheney.
Also, the campaign trail is free of the institutional complexities that dog an elected president. Candidates are liberated to make any pronouncements they wish, but once elected, they are bound by bureaucratic realities. Fulfilling campaign promises, for example, would be impossible for a president who faced overwhelming resistance from the Congress. And the deeply ingrained institutional conservatism of the foreign policy establishment presents another challenge, further winnowing the potential to implement policy promises.
Despite such institutional constraints and the long list of memorable campaign reversals, studies show - perhaps to the surprise of cynics - that the majority of candidate pledges are ultimately implemented. Rutgers University Professor Emeritus Gerald Pomper concluded that between 1944 and 1976, presidents converted about 70 percent of their party's platform into policy. American University Professor Emeritus Jeff Fishel echoed these findings in his book Presidents and Promises, demonstrating that Presidents John F Kennedy through Ronald Reagan fulfilled their campaign promises about 66 percent of the time.
In the end, then, it appears campaign pledges do offer some valuable guidance about the priorities and intended path of a future president, even if they do not account for the unpredictable, yet inevitable, detour of circumstance.
Election observers would be wise to be neither overly cynical nor euphoric about the next president's prospects for implementing his campaign promises. Instead, the pundits should turn an eye to history to construct a more nuanced and realistic outlook for the next four years.
As famed historian Gordon S Wood noted: “By showing that the best-laid plans of people usually go awry, the study of history tends to dampen youthful enthusiasm and to restrain the can-do, conquer-the-future spirit that many people have. Historical knowledge takes people off a roller coaster of illusions and disillusions; it levels off emotions and gives people a perspective on what is possible and, more often, what is not possible."

Passo e chiudo.
Fra