3 ms·

>The new government simply doesn't care what commitments the previous one made. (See the Paris Agreement.) No, Trump is a real exception here. The US has tradi

>The new government simply doesn't care what commitments the previous one made. (See the Paris Agreement.) No, Trump is a real exception here. The US has traditionally honored treaties signed by past administrations, and even most private agreements. I am not saying it is perfect here, but no country is. >Voters don't have "keeping our word with people who speak with funny accents" at the top of their agenda. But the American foreign policy establishment has long made this a priority. And part of the reason is its members stay in positions of influence over many decades. And another is they realize that a nation will not get very far in the world over the long run if it doesn't keep its promises. And Trump has made it quite clear that he wants to overturn the Washington establishment in general, and this most definitely includes the foreign affairs establishment.

Nomentatus 9y ago
My first sentence should have been clearer - by commitments I specifically meant promises AS OPPOSED TO treaties. (The Paris Agreement wasn't a treaty, precisely because the U.S. insisted it not be one because the Republican Congress wouldn't swallow that.) The foreign policy establishment can't contradict voters too directly, or rather are directed by a President chosen by them. Therefore U.S. has cheerfully reversed policy and commitments many times. Still, even the average voter understands something of the ancient holiness surrounding treaties, and the consequences of breaking those. (The ancient Greeks believed that the Gods would come down on you for breaking treaties since treaties were promises to those Gods.)