Why do successful US institutions fail to be exported to other countries?

By: Ricardo Israel - 28/12/2025

When the National Security Strategy 2025 appeared, outlining what the Trump administration is currently doing or attempting to do, and suggesting that the US no longer wants to impose its institutions on the rest of the world, it is worth asking why what has been successful in the superpower has generally resulted in failure in so many countries, with Germany and Japan (a very illiberal country in any case) being the exception rather than the rule, a situation more attributable to World War II and the fear generated by the former USSR.

The U.S. has been a civilizational empire that nevertheless has not had a colonial past, a country that was born as a republic, and that despite having brought with it the historical novelty of the election of its leaders, it cost it to be a true democracy given its terrible sin with slavery.

The reason why the richest society the world has ever known has had so many failures in exporting institutions that have undoubtedly been successful in its own territory has to do with the way in which a country was created more linked to an idea than to a specific territory, circumstances not easily repeatable, and above all, because of the very special role that its Constitution has played in the development and consolidation of its institutions, since that document continues to play a very special role to this day, having been the true conclusion and consolidation of its independence, two elements without which it is difficult for its institutions to take root in places that do not have that same history.

It's a story worth recalling in light of the polarization of American politics, which has been relentless for almost a decade—a process that strikes me as a true Latin Americanization of its democracy. Although I've traveled frequently as a visiting professor at various universities, my experience since settling here in 2019 has taught me several things, some of them worrying and unexpected. These include not only the polarization and the difficulty its elite has in reaching even minimal agreements, but also the decline of well-known media outlets that I once admired and now find biased, as well as leaders filled with doubts about the deployment of American power. An example of this was the "Wokism" that was present in the Biden administration, reminiscent of President Obama's speech to the Muslim world in Cairo.

A country that remains the world's leading power, although China is now challenging its position, and where a review of the World of Statistics website suggests a more measured approach, since what was an undisputed first place at the end of the 20th century, today, in contrast, there are several indicators where it is more likely to be between fifth and tenth place, although without a doubt, everything indicates that a great effort is being made to maintain its leadership through the boost that Artificial Intelligence (AI) could give it, just as the internet brought it a few decades ago, although AI has the potential to increase many times what other technological revolutions did in the past.

What remains unchanged is that the end result of American historical evolution has been a diverse, thriving, and vibrant society, perhaps more pluralistic than democratic, according to the classical philosophical understanding of democracy. The best of the United States has manifested itself in the quality of its institutions; that is, what distinguishes this country is the Republic, since its democracy is, above all, a democratic republic. In other words, it was created on the basis of an idea that was not invented once and for all, but rather recreated and reinvented in the form of individual liberty, a society more accepting of the idea of diverse lifestyles than of participation as a duty.

What is unique and universal about that experience? The fact of not only being, but also feeling different from the rest of the world, the characteristic of not depending on others and not needing them until recently—how much has this harmed and how much has it benefited other countries? Above all, how much has it benefited and harmed them?

Personally, what strikes me most about this experience are the extraordinary things done by ordinary people, how the country prospered and grew not by welcoming the world's rich, but by welcoming its poor, and this remains true despite the periodic doubts that arise within it, sometimes as a reaction to abuses. A second lesson is that, despite polarized periods, there is a basic stability, which reaffirms an idea present since its inception: that progress is never achieved by prohibiting debate, but rather, on the contrary, by promoting freedom.

So, where does the reason for this column come from? Why has the export of such successful political and economic institutions generally ended in resounding failures, as has recently been the case in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Looking at the problem from another perspective, the attitude of the rest of the world towards the success in the U.S. of economic capitalism and the democratic republic in politics has been unbalanced, since it has oscillated between extreme hatred and passionate love, since it has moved from seeing it as the source of all evils or as the solution to all problems, and it is not and has not been either one or the other.

In the case of Latin America, we bear a great deal of responsibility: our inability to trust ourselves, our failure to embrace modernity from our own unique perspective. Octavio Paz summarized this very well in his magnificent book of essays, The Philanthropic Ogre (Mexico, 1979), noting that the problem has lay in our desire to adopt without adapting, that is, to seek the final product without considering history.

In other words, the reason for the US's success is also the reason for its failure to mechanically impose its institutions on other countries, since it is the result of almost unrepeatable historical circumstances. In the words of the distinguished historian Daniel Boorstin, there is nothing so un-American as expecting others to imitate the US, as he explains in *The Genius of American Politics* (The University of Chicago Press, 1958).

Who is to blame for a vision of the US that prevails in the rest of the world, despite being full of misconceptions? In this case, it's the US itself, since in the past the global success of films and television series has exported an image of what the country is or should be, creating a very difficult obstacle to overcome for a proper understanding of that reality. Added to this is the internet and social media, which deliver what I would call an illusion of knowledge: that of those who, by reading 10 lines about a topic on their cell phone, think they know about it, and place themselves on the same level as someone who has dedicated, sometimes, their entire life to that study. An example of this is those who believe they know the American legal or judicial system because of the police dramas they frequently watch.

Incidentally, attempting to seriously study the United States presents another problem, one that is not new, as it has always impressed those who first arrived and continues to impress everyone: its size. More than a country, it's a veritable continent, with differences from state to state, given its truly federal nature. This fact only underscores how well the French nobleman Alexis de Tocqueville captured the new country in the 19th century in Democracy in America (Akal, Mexico, 2007), a book of enduring relevance and highly recommended reading.

Thirdly, the U.S. is not just politics and economics, since for many people that is of secondary importance, since it is everyday life, popular culture in the best sense, the internet, film, music, literature, images, which, fourthly, show that the U.S. has a core contribution not only in virtues, but also in defects, since it has also served as an example, both of what should be done and what is not advisable to do.

Therefore, in fifth place, the U.S. has been a very important part of one of the great contributions of the West to the history of humanity, that of self-criticism as an element of progress, and in that sense, all American dissenters reproduce one of the oldest traditions of a nation also invented by the discontented and dissidents, an element that greatly confuses countries where they want to reach the final product, without understanding or ignoring this relevant part of history.

The critical tradition of the United States has been tested by fire in its principal historical sin, that unresolved problem of slavery and race relations. It is not the only country to have suffered this scourge, but it has been particularly inefficient in confronting its consequences. It's not that it hasn't tried; on the contrary, perhaps no other nation has kept the issue so relevant and made such similar efforts to appease the descendants of the victims, both symbolically and through special reparations policies, continuously since at least the 1960s. However, despite this, even today there are those who are convinced that one's opportunities in life depend on the color of their skin, which they perceive as a vast gap between the nation's founding ideals and reality.

There is absolutely no systemic racism, as those who dislike the country within the U.S. falsely claim. There is another debt, however, which is unfortunately rarely discussed: the debt owed to the indigenous population, to the native Indians, who are still too often invisible, even to the media.

Finally, there are undoubtedly elements in the U.S. that have historically brought down great civilizations, such as materialism, consumerism, excessive spending relative to income, and moral relativism in the face of vulgarity and violence. Above all, there is such a massive drug consumption that no matter how many efforts are made to curb its entry into U.S. territory, they always seem insufficient given the number of victims, and the effort fails. This is exploited by various dictatorships to wage a hybrid war against the country.

Undoubtedly, these flaws exist, but they are more than compensated for by enormous vitality and creative energy, elements that have not only allowed for the survival of great civilizations, but also for their progress and that of all humanity. Leaving aside the abundant internal rhetoric and the self-serving opinions from abroad that have little understanding of what is happening in the country today, thanks to its republican institutions and its Constitution, the only truth is that the U.S. has been fortunate enough not to have had to choose between tyranny and liberty. It has, however, almost constantly, had to choose between decline and vitality.

Understanding these kinds of phenomena is not easy, as the task is complex. The "what" the U.S. has given to the world is as important as the "how much" and the "how." Thus, for Latin Americans, the starting point for any study or approach should be a historical fact. At the beginning of the 19th century, everything seemed to indicate that the future was more promising for the South than for the North, for the Hispanic part of America than for the Anglo-Saxon part. Urbanization rates, literacy, production, transportation, universities, linguistic homogeneity, and other indicators favored the Latin part of the continent, since there were still states where groups of citizens did not understand the purpose or necessity of the existence of something called the United States.

What happened? Why, just a few decades later, had the balance of power shifted so dramatically and spectacularly in favor of the North? In the 19th century, the original thirteen colonies expanded to become a continent-like nation, transforming into an empire in the following century. But lacking a colonial past, it exercises its imperial role with many, far too many, doubts. Although it has borne responsibilities similar to those of Rome or the British Empire at its zenith, it has lacked both their tradition and experience. Perhaps this is why there have been times when the outside world has been viewed in an extremely simplistic way from Washington, and its politics have been characterized by profound provincialism. This is reflected in an educational system and a media landscape for which the world beyond its borders seems not to exist, expressed in coverage and judicial rulings that simply seem unable to grasp the viciousness of the Venezuelan dictatorship and even question the existence of the Aragua Train.

In the U.S. today, Latinos are the largest minority group, but they still don't act or are perceived in accordance with that importance, which is very noticeable in their marginal presence in Hollywood or in political debate. In my opinion, they lack what African Americans achieved when, through Martin Luther King Jr., they delivered the civil rights movement at the moment the country needed it most—a matter of importance to everyone. Latinos have not only lacked an equivalent national figure, but they have also yet to offer a solution to a matter of general importance, which, in my opinion, should be a key proposal in the area of immigration. Their potential to contribute is greater than others, since, in their diversity, Hispanics represent different races and political positions under the same umbrella. Above all, they share common cultural characteristics that unite rather than divide, which could be a valuable contribution and advantage in this matter.

Perhaps because of a lack of understanding of Latinos, the narrative of identifying them as the primary threat of illegal immigration is having the consequence that Republicans are wasting a historic opportunity to become the main representatives of this increasingly important sector of Americans, just as the Democrats did with African Americans, even though before the 1960s they were nothing less than the party of militancy of the KKK leaders in the South of the country (the Republicans were "the party of Lincoln").

Throughout much of its history, the US and its leaders have sought—at great cost—to be loved rather than respected, resulting in self-inflicted failures with serious consequences for the entire world. Examples include Carter's accommodation to Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, which led to the rejection of his then-ally, the Shah of Iran. This mistake was repeated with the so-called "Arab Spring," which in 2010 ultimately strengthened fundamentalism.

Examples like these from the Middle East help to understand why the attempt to export—happily now seemingly in retreat—successful institutions from the U.S. has failed in other cultures and regions, since if the historical process is not shared it is extremely difficult to mechanically repeat the result, so success will continue to be the exception and not the rule.

On the other hand, the explanation cannot be racist, since, in the case of Spanish and Portuguese America, the mixture of conquerors from the Iberian Peninsula encountering complex civilizations such as the Maya and Inca was one of the best things the 16th century could offer, despite the well-known cannibalistic practices, as it was a much more evolved encounter than that of English puritans and natives of North America.

The explanation isn't there, not even in the independence movements. We find it in the later stage, in the process of the birth and consolidation of the countries. In other words, we cannot expect to have the economic and political outcome of the United States without considering its history, including something that did so much damage to Latin America as "manifest destiny," which led to 13 colonies ultimately becoming 50, by purchasing territory sold by Russia, France, and Spain, but also by taking half of Mexico's original territory upon its independence.

To understand why some institutions and countries prospered and others entered into opposing processes of failure, one must not only know the laborious process of trial and error that has constituted the experience of the U.S., but, above all, its true act of creation that was the culmination of its independence, that Constitution that has already surpassed its 237th anniversary with its admirable brevity of only seven articles, 26 amendments, and a preamble of 56 words that begins with those that until then had not been used in any document: “We the People.”

The political process that began on July 4, 1776 with the Declaration of Independence, continued on September 17, 1787 with the approval of the constitution (ratified on June 21, 1788 with the necessary ninth estate), was a revolution made by non-revolutionaries, generally moderate people and followers of the now forgotten republican virtues, except on one point, that of their tolerance of slavery.

However, nothing can be gained by reproducing that text without its circumstances, since without them it is like flowers transplanted to a strange habitat where they cannot bloom.

@israelzipper

Master's and PhD in Political Science (University of Essex), Bachelor of Laws (University of Barcelona), Lawyer (University of Chile), former presidential candidate (Chile, 2013)

«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».