More than at any time since 1968, foreign policy is at the core of this year's election, said Nicolas van de Walle, the John S. Knight Professor of International Studies. And while foreign policy used to be primarily bipartisan, he said, "that clearly has stopped being the case and has not been the case for much of the last 20 years."

So, how much change can we expect with a new administration?

Van de Walle, David Patel and Peter Katzenstein took on the question in a roundtable discussion, "American and the World: Foreign Policy Issues for the Next President," before an alumni audience June 6. The event was sponsored by the Mario Einaudi Center for International Studies.

The U.S. has lost credibility and respect on the global stage, the three agreed, and regaining it won't be easy.

But the chances of a major shift in the next presidential term, said van de Walle, are actually very small -- limited by entrenched bureaucracy, groups vested in the status quo and the human fear of the unknown.

"Foreign policy continuity is much, much more likely than discontinuity," he said. A nation's power to effect change can be "hard power," as in military might -- or "soft power," built by ideas and influence, he said; and both will take years to rebuild.

In Iraq, said David Patel, assistant professor of government, recent U.S. strategies have led to less violence; but they may have created new problems by strengthening local tribes and deligitimizing the central government.

The next president will face the complex tasks of sorting out the multitude of competing interests and loyalties there, he said, and of assuring the groups that agreements will be honored into the future.

"Regardless of who's elected, those central challenges are not going to change," Patel said. The best options may be to "make credible long-term commitment ... to be there 50 years, come hell or high water -- or get out tomorrow, [which would] be extremely bloody."

Immediate troop withdrawal would be political suicide for Barack Obama, Patel argued, and John McCain has made his position against it clear. "So buckle up, we've got a couple more years to go in Iraq."

As Patel stepped down, the auditorium was silent.

But: then again, said Katzenstein, who took Patel's place at the podium, perhaps there is hope.

First, said Katzenstein, who is the Walter S. Carpenter Jr. Professor of International Studies, consider the flurry of e-mails the three exchanged the previous night:

Van de Walle: "David, is it fair to say that you will primarily discuss Iraq? Peter, what kinds of issues were you thinking of covering? As I mentioned, I will try to be provocative and suggest that much less will change with a new president than we thought."

Patel: "Hi, Nick and Peter! I'll discuss Iraq. I will also be provocative and suggest that little will change."

Katzenstein (with characteristic twinkle): "Okay. In that case, I will be contrarian and try to be boring, and argue that it makes a difference whether McCain or Obama get elected, just as it made a difference that it was Bush rather than Kerry or Gore."

Katzenstein continued, reading aloud as the audience laughed. "I know it's an untenable position to argue, but what the hell? I'm close to retirement. The cynicism of the smart and young, and the idealism of the stupid and old ... I belong to the last category."

In recent years, he said, the nation has experienced a "moment of madness" disturbingly similar to that of Germany in the early 1930s. "The whole stratum of society has been politicized in a way it has not been ... since the mid-1960s," he said.

"It was a very risky period," he said, but "I never doubted for one second that we would find our way again."

While re-earning legitimacy on the global stage will be difficult, electing new leadership -- whether it be Obama or McCain -- is the first step. "These two politicians now vying for public office are competing in the middle for a constituency that has been polarized for too long," he said.

And using "soft power" is the key, he added.

"Soft power can be replenished; it's not something you own; it's conferred upon you," he said. "It's indirect, diffuse, invisible and mostly dispersive -- expressed through ideas and talk, not through behavior. It exists internationally, and it leads to prestige, standing and legitimacy."

Katzenstein closed with the words of Samuel Beckett.

"I cannot go on; I must go on," he said. "Try again; fail again; fail better. I think that's true, for me, for you and for us."

So: how untenable was his argument, really?

Kathy Stratton '83 (who had heard Katzenstein speak at a previous reunion and came specifically to hear him again) was persuaded. "My sense was that he made a very compelling argument," she said. "I thought it was powerful."

Steve Meersma, her companion, agreed. As did their politically savvy 12-year-old son, Brian (who admitted to having dozed off a bit, perhaps because of the late-night drive to Ithaca from their home in Princeton).

And Katzenstein agreed, later, as well. "It wasn't just talk," he said. "You can actually replenish soft power. That's not to take away from David and Nick's argument -- but, is it meaningless? No, it's not meaningless at all."