Following a lively presidential election campaign, to say the least, the four-year term of Republican US President Donald Trump begins on 20 January this year. It so happens that the inauguration of the newly elected president, whose mandate will not be without influence on Washington politics with inevitable international implications, takes place on a date so close to the death, on 29 December 2024 at the age of one hundred, of Democrat Jimmy Carter, President of the United States for a single term from 1977 to 1981.
The victory of their respective presidents brings to mind the concept of “historical courses and recurrences” formulated by Giambattista Vico and therefore stimulates reflection on the respective political-psychological-social climate that brought each of them to the White House and induces us to examine, mainly with regard to the transatlantic relationship, the subsequent international challenges faced by Carter and to consider those that await Trump. In both cases there is no lack of connections both with situations or contingencies that at the time concerned Italy and with those that will soon see Italy involved.
Multiple factors explain the rise to the presidency of the then dark horse (or the little-known nationally) Jimmy Carter, who proved himself not only an idealist with a particular focus on human and civil rights, but also deeply religious in a Baptist Protestant version and, in some ways, populist. These personal traits characterized his commitment in the electoral campaign and, even more, in his mandate as chief of the executive.
The votes he collected can be cumulatively traced back to:
- The impact of the then recent US military intervention lasting more than a decade from 1962 to 73 – accompanied by disorderly and/or violent protests, especially among young people, and by refusal to participate in the draft – on the Vietnam War, which extended to other operations in the Indochinese area until 1975, a war that was poorly understood and poorly supported by the general population, a war that was operationally poorly conducted and marred by fifty thousand American combatants who fell and, finally, even more seriously, a war that was politically lost, despite the absence of a US military defeat on the field.
- The uncomfortable and acrimonious relationship maintained with the media and with Congress by the presidency – masterful in managing the difficult relations with Communist China and the Soviet Union but adversely branded as “imperial” – of Richard Nixon (1969-74), involved in the well-known “Watergate scandal” in violation of correct party competition and therefore resigned before completing his second term, which began in 1973, in order to avoid the criminal consequences of the inexorable condemnation of the constitutional competence of Congress in matters of removal of the chief executive.
- The colorless presidency, not without gaffes attributable to cognitive deficiencies, of Gerald Ford who, as Nixon's vice president, succeeded him for the remainder of his second term and granted him a pardon for any crimes he had committed, an aspect that contributed heavily to precluding Ford's victory in the contest with Jimmy Carter for the White House in November 1976.
- Carter's background, a native and former governor of the state of Georgia, thus attracting the vote of the Deep South (Deep South), who had not boasted of having elevated one of his sons to the federal presidency for over a century, that is, since 1848.
Furthermore, certain attitudes of Carter, more or less populist and perhaps sincere or only theatrical, coincided with the widespread democratic and informal spirit of the times, as can be seen from various episodes. During the election campaign he gave an interview to the well-known magazine Playboy in which he revealed that he had committed acts of lust with his thoughts. Following the ritual presidential swearing-in at Capital Hill, the seat of Congress, he unexpectedly walked part of the way to the White House hand in hand with his wife. Then, during presidential trips he would perform, again without precedent, on the steps of the plane A – reserved for the highest federal office – carrying the coat hanger on his shoulder like a common passenger.
Among the merits in foreign policy, attributed to him mainly by his admirers, are the "moral" closure of the long Vietnamese parenthesis by granting pardon to about ten thousand draft dodgers; the inauguration of diplomatic relations with China and the consequent signing of bilateral scientific, cultural and commercial agreements; the suspension of assistance to some countries violating human rights: Argentina, Uruguay and Ethiopia; the Camp David Accords of 1978 which led, after thirty years, to peace between Egypt and Israel, a decidedly step forward without, however, resolving the conflict that still afflicts the Middle East today.
In the dual context of foreign policy and national defense, the so-called “Carter Doctrine”, pronounced in 1980 in verbal response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in which the United States declared its readiness to intervene against external forces that attempted to control the strategic area of the Persian Gulf.
Furthermore, since the beginning of the presidential term, the protection of human rights at a universal level has officially been a primary pillar and goal of the Carter Administration's foreign policy, as demonstrated by repeated denunciations directed at the Soviet Union and its satellites, as well as other regimes, communist or otherwise, such as those in Cuba, South Africa and Rhodesia.
In this context, the policy set by Carter towards the so-called “Eurocommunism”, a term which arose between 1974 and 1975 with reference to some communist parties which had already existed for some time in Western Europe and which at the same time was a phenomenon which could be alternatively interpreted as the conversion and adoption by those parties – essentially Italian, French and Spanish – of the parliamentary path and the democratic-pluralistic system or as a communist tactic to come to power.
Among these parties, the Italian one stood out due to the considerable numerical size of its electorate, its widespread organizational structure and the consequent socio-political weight, but even more so following the proposal of a "historic compromise" made in 1973 by the communist secretary-general Enrico Berlinguer to the majority Christian Democracy, a part of which expressed its approval of it.
Already decades before the Nixon and Ford presidencies, that is, since 1947, Washington had been pursuing a policy of closure towards the communist parties present in the democratic European countries, as well as towards their possible participation in their respective governments, a closure confirmed by the minimal contacts maintained with communist exponents by American diplomatic representations abroad and by the refusal to grant them entry visas to the United States.
Even after having been benevolently described mostly in journalistic and academic circles as Eurocommunist, the same parties – with the Italian one in the foreground – were scrutinized with distrust by the US federal institutions for their failure to renounce democratic centralism in their suspected “conversion”; for the absence of an effective break with the Soviet bloc; for the uninterrupted almost total alignment with Moscow's foreign policy; and, last but not least, for the unexhausted anti-American sentiment, expressed in terms of anti-imperialism.
As regards transatlantic collective defense, an essential tool necessitated by the Cold War, Henry Kissinger's granite-like conviction prevailed, Secretary of State under both Nixon and Ford, for whom it was inconceivable, with reference to the Atlantic Alliance, the maintenance of US forces in European countries in which communist participation in the national executive materialized and, therefore, also the sharing of programmatic and operational aspects of NATO.
This possible outcome concerned in particular Italy, the seat of the Allied Forces Southern Europe Command (Naples), home port of the flagship of the Sixth Fleet (Gaeta) and site of 58 of the 199 US military installations located in the Mediterranean area. In fact, a 1976 analysis by a high official of the Defense Intelligence Agency attributed primary importance to Italy in the Mediterranean area and defined it essential for controlling the Soviet naval buildup in the Mediterranean. A report from the following year that came from the congress listed, with heavy reservations, Malta, France, Libya and Tunisia as hypothetical alternatives. These clarifications and considerations arose from two observations: the sudden acceptance of NATO (hostilely opposed from 1949 to 1975) expressed in an equivocal or ambivalent way by Berlinguer himself and other significant figures of the party such as Giancarlo Pajetta, Lucio Lombardo Radice and Armando Cossutta and, in parallel, the communist instrumentalization of NATO in the interest of détente to the detriment of defense.
Carter's attitude was different at least initially., probably influenced by his humanitarian ideals and hopeful, although not entirely convinced, that Eurocommunism corresponded to a process of democratization with the possibility of influencing even the Soviet bloc in this direction. During the election campaign he had expressed himself in favor of a policy of liberalization of entry visas to the United States, so much so that once he assumed the presidency Unity he was able to send a correspondent based in Washington. As president he appointed Richard Gardner, who was inclined to dialogue, as ambassador to Italy; in April 1977 he had a declaration released according to which communist participation in foreign governments should be decided by their voters; and the following May he himself, during a speech at the Catholic University of Notre Dame in Indiana State, spoke of boundless fear (inordinate fear) of communism. Equally significant was his choice of Andrew Young as American representative to the United Nations, who declared that he was not concerned with communism but with racial discrimination.
Among those of the old guard who they contested Carter's approach stand out the former president Gerald Ford, who, invited in October 1977 to Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri (where the expression "iron curtain" was coined by Winston Churchill way back in 1946), equated Eurocommunism to a “Stalinism in disguise” and former Secretary of State Kissinger, who at a conference organized by the well-known think tanks The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research and the Hoover Institution on War, Resolution, and Peace at Stanford University had evoked the previous June the democratic and pluralist promises made and not kept thirty years earlier by the communist parties of Eastern Europe.
However, Carter's policy on Eurocommunism, which was embodied in an initial attitude remembered as "non-indifference and non-interference", was resolved on January 12, 1978 with a clarification and at least a partial adjustment of the trajectory when the State Department officially declared: “The United States and Italy share deep democratic values and interests, and we do not believe that Communists share those values and interests.” This declaration attracted criticism from the Soviet Union, a sign of solidarity and not opposition to the Italian Communist Party.
As far as Italy is concerned, it is also appropriate to keep in mind that The Carter Administration coincided with the most critical phase of Italian terrorism, including the kidnapping and killing of Christian Democrat President Aldo Moro, an event whose back-channel reconstructions falsely blamed the United States, with particular reference to Kissinger even though he was no longer in office. The documentation indicates, rather, that Washington, represented by the Carter Administration, was not in a position to provide effective assistance.
In November 1980 – towards the end of his presidential term – weakened by the energy crisis and hyperinflation and overwhelmed by the failure to prevent the aforementioned Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, by the overthrow of the Shah of Persia, a historic American ally, by Islamic theocratic revolutionaries also in 1979 and by the associated occupation of the US embassy and hostage-taking for a period of 444 days, aggravated by the miserably failed rescue mission conducted by US special forces, Carter was defeated at the polls by the neoliberal Republican Ronald Reagan in his attempt at re-election.
As is usual in American society, the conquest of the White House in the elections of November 5th last year by the Republican Donald Trump – not a dark horse like Carter but politically well known as president of the United States from 2017 to 2021 – is attributable, although not in equal measure, to pragmatism and idealism with the addition, especially in this case, of emotion on the part of the electorate.
Strictly economic considerations certainly influenced Trump's victory as president and, at the same time, that of the Republican Party in both chambers of Congress, and at the same time, other factors had an impact, including:
- The globally risky climate of war, due to Russia's aggression against Ukraine, legally and technically classifiable as a war between two states, ongoing since February 24, 2022, as well as attributable to the destructive violence, ongoing since October 7, 2023, unleashed by the attack against Israel by non-state actors such as Hamas (based in Gaza), Hezbollah (based in Lebanon) and Houthis (based in Yemen and operating in the Red Sea), to which are added military actions and targeted special operations, both intermittently, between Israel and Iran, supporter of the aforementioned non-state actors. In fact, not wanting US involvement in distant lands, as in the aforementioned Vietnamese case, the winning electorate took into account the absence of heavy military interventions by Washington during Trump's previous term and decided to put faith in the assertions he made during the second election campaign according to which he would quickly resolve such burdensome situations.
- The conservative reaction against a cumbersome militant minority – among other things rooted in journalistic and academic circles – which since the first presidential term of Barack Obama, inaugurated in 2009, aimed to impose itself on the majority by proclaiming the priority of the politically correct and cancel culture and to propose unbridled “lgbt” claims in contrast with the traditional family. It was not only a vote that has always been conservative, associated with the still white majority, but it was reinforced by the contribution drawn from segments of the Hispanic, African-American or in any case colored communities and from immigrants who recently naturalized as Americans. It should also be noted that the part of the electoral turnout in favor of Trump attributable to religious beliefs was not limited to Protestant Christian fundamentalism, but the presence of the Catholic vote can also be found. On the other hand, the anti-Trump propaganda of the radical-chic circle typical of the world of entertainment and the university environment did not avail itself of.
- The concern is due to a sense of insecurity attributable to the increase in common crime and illegal immigration. Here too, the vote did not come only from traditionally conservative voters.
- Trump's repeated demands that other NATO member countries, whose dependence on Washington for collective defense is fundamental, stick to at least the minimum commitment – hired by them and not maintained – the payment of two percent of GDP to national defense budgets. Believing that this is exploitation of the United States by its allies, that part of the American electorate unaware of the fact that it is in the interest of the most powerful ally to contribute more to collective defense, has enthusiastically welcomed Trump's request.
Furthermore, although Carter and Trump had no affinity in character, the personalities of the candidates played a role in both cases. Trump, for his part, wanted to project the figure of "strong man" carried to the impetus and equipped with equally strong language, without caring about the refinement of expression and diplomatic etiquette, an aspect that has positively reached a part of his electorate, while another part of the same electorate has only tolerated him, giving precedence to the desired ends. Moreover, according to a fairly shared mentality, the figure of a strong man goes well with the concept of America First. Trump was then given an advantage by the failed deadly attack to which he immediately reacted imperiously by shouting Fight, fight, fight.
From the election – or, better, re-election of Trump after four years of absence from the White House – arise above all uncertainties regarding the transatlantic defense relationship given the apparent neo-isolationist predisposition of the newly elected regardless of the effect on international trade if protectionism were to prevail.
Clearly worrying is the risk of a substantial reduction in overseas contributions to NATO, the so-called US “crutch” which remains indispensable in the absence of adequate resources and a compact common foreign and defence policy, accompanied by advanced technological development, on the part of the European Union.
During the Cold War – a conflict that in its entirety embraced ideological, political and economic aspects with risks of a military and possibly nuclear clash – Washington's defence policy, also in consideration of the double American ocean shore, Atlantic and Pacific, envisaged the possibility and capacity to fight simultaneously on two fronts with the addition of an intervention elsewhere, the so-called two and one-half wars, or “two and a half wars”.
While that consolidated approach has consistently persisted over time in the capabilities and intentions of the United States under the Carter Administration, it is on the other hand conceivable that the Trump Administration will depart from it, to the detriment of Europe, in the current historical context characterized by multiple present and potential "fronts" that can be differentiated from the then bipolar East-West confrontation.
Today it is not only a question of the threat posed to democratic and pluralist Europe in a concrete way by another “strongman” named Vladimir Putin with expansionist ambitions that go beyond Ukraine. We must add the multiple forms of unconventional conflict implemented by state and non-state actors of various origins. In this regard it is It is worth remembering that in the face of the transnational terrorist attacks that hit New York and Washington On 11 September 2001, Article 5 of the Atlantic Pact was invoked, which considers an attack against a member state as an attack against all the other contracting states.. Here too, the importance of NATO's continuity and credibility emerges.
For the security of Italy, it is particularly desirable that the transatlantic bond represented by NATO remains strong. It is noteworthy that, while during the Cold War the Italian peninsula was a fundamental component of NATO's southern flank and at the same time a basic element for the control of the Mediterranean, Italy today represents more significantly a front opposed to present and imminent risks. in fieri of various natures attributable to Middle Eastern, North African and Balkan origins.
Unfortunately, Italy, according to authoritative statements attributed to the Ministry of Defense could not repel certain war aggressions alone, is internally plagued by antimilitarist elements and often by self-styled pacifists who exploit heterogeneous protests resulting in demonstrations, even violent ones, of all kinds and, in numerous cases, by groups that are primarily anti-NATO with the support of journalists, actors, musicians, essayists, university professors, political exponents and other well-known figures predisposed in this direction.
According to national press sources, Italy currently hosts 120 US and NATO facilities and “nuclear weapons” in Aviano. The same sources consider Italy “strategic for the United States” and argue that “Trump cannot give up [those] bases and missions.” Hopefully, this would lead to at least bilateral continuity of the defense relationship with the United States.
However, given the uncertainty of the continuity of the US umbrella, both in the immediate and long term, there remains indispensable a solid adaptation of the common defense headed by the European Union and with the participation of other democratic countries of the continent.
* Prof. Vittorfranco Pisano was Senior Foreign Law Specialist in the European Law Division of the United States Congress, from May 1976 to May 1982, a position that included research and analysis for the parliamentary committees responsible for intelligence. During the same period, he maintained his military status, performing duties as a senior officer of the US Army, with a specialization in geopolitics, at the Pentagon. From 1977 to 1981, he simultaneously taught courses in political science at Georgetown University in Washington, on the Soviet Union, Eurocommunism, and the institutions of Italy and Latin Europe.
Photo: US DoD