President Barack Obama’s signature on an executive order dated March 7, which essentially extends the indefinite detention, without trial, of 48 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is undoubtedly a disappointing reversal of policy and a setback for human rights. But it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.

Since taking office, the president has been unable to overcome the legal limbo inherent in further incriminating and trying those ambiguous, unlawful (non-state) enemy combatants. As a result, the U.S. Congress has remained opposed to transferring suspects for civilian trial in American federal courts, and the issue persists. The adjustments that have been made in handling prisoners, such as more frequent, periodical reviews to evaluate guilt based on any possible new evidence, seem nothing more than lip-service when a persistent lack of legally obtained evidence and congressional stalling has resulted in the indefinite imprisonment of dozens for nearly a decade.

Yet, Obama’s stance on this issue, first outlined during his 2008 campaign, now seems to be more the

product of political posturing and catering for votes than the calculated declaration of intent it was taken for.

Moreover, it seems, in the political climate of today’s presidential campaigns, the empty projection of executive promises is acknowledged among candidates as a symbolic burden that more or less explicitly manifests party ideals necessary for victory at the ballot box.

Consider a recent example: Former President George W. Bush campaigned on the promise of a “humble” foreign policy, and, following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, almost unilaterally committed the United States to war in Afghanistan and Iraq and re-established the aforementioned internationally controversial Guantanamo Bay detention facility, among other things.

Before that, former President Bill Clinton promised to lift the ban on gays serving in the military. And as we are aware, the compromise stance that he adopted, known in history as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” represented something far from a fulfillment of that promise.

Moreover, as historian Joseph Ellis points out in A Promise of Unpredictability, “Woodrow Wilson promised to keep the United States out of World War I in 1912, but took us to war in 1917” and “Lyndon Johnson vowed that American boys would never be sent to Vietnam, but reversed himself in 1965.”

Pertinently, even in elections as relatively inconsequential as those for Student Government Association president, promises go unfulfilled. SGA President Steve Glickman, it seems, has learned from the implicit actions of national politicians and has thus far failed to enact to several of the goals he expressed to the student body during the campaign for his first term. For instance, his proposals to combine SmarTrip cards with student IDs or to eliminate Saturday exams have yet to materialize, despite his having been in office for nearly two years. Indeed, the difficulties inherent in the whimsicality of any executive office, as seen with Glickman, are only amplified at the national level.

It seems the more detailed the promise made, the more likely it is to succumb to failure at the hands of stalled congressional debate. As an unfortunate result, the somewhat cynical construction of hollow campaign promises indicates a necessarily flawed system in which candidates scramble to please the perpetually unsatisfied electorate. Ironically, then, the problem seems to be with the voters who irrationally expect the uncompromising fidelity of the elected to their campaign platforms. Broken campaign promises are, to some degree, perceived, exaggerated and perpetuated by the voters themselves. It is for this reason it would be naive to assume a detailed promise, such as the one calling for the closure of the facility at Guantanamo Bay, is any more substantial than the malleable intent of “change.”

Ian Rodenhouse is a junior economics major. He can be reached at rodenhouse at umdbk dot com.