ABSTRACT
Washington analysts prepared a forward-leaning assessment of the Italian election cycle scheduled for 1953, predicting a fragile coalition on the right would slowly drift toward authoritarianism and thereby lose popular support to the Communists. Diplomats in the field strongly disagreed, arguing that a good analysis would put intangible, unquantifiable factors like the public mood at the forefront, and the result would be a narrative that bears a closer resemblance to what people on the ground are actually experiencing. This debate opens a window into a different way of evaluating the quality of analysis, entirely separate from tradecraft standards.
