1983-84

Institute of Politics John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University

PROCEEDINGS Institute of Politics 1983-84

John F. Kennedy School of Government

Harvard University

FOREWORD

The Institute of Politics participates in the democratic process through the many and varied educational programs it sponsors — fellowships and study groups, con­ ferences and debates, internships and research projects — and provides a setting for formal and informal political discourse. Students, politicians, teachers, activists, theorists, observers gather together to break bread, study, and debate public policy issues at informal suppers and luncheons, seminars and training programs, and in the ARCO Public Affairs Forum. Our usual diverse range of programs were ir\fluenced during the past academic year by the national preoccupation with the quadrennial presidential election. Our conference topics, study group and fellowship choices, panelists and guest speak­ ers, reflected both our normal ongoing activity and focussed on the special at­ mosphere created by "Campaign 84." This sixth issue of Proceedings contains a selection of readings excerpted from speeches, articles, debates and reports and a complete roster of 1983-84 programs and participants. The selected readings section provides a sense of the actors en­ countered and the issues discussed; the programs section identifies both the scope and the personnel of the Institute's undertakings.

Anne Doyle Kenney Editor Susan Buechler Assistant Editor I I. Readings Readings

CONTENTS CAMPAIGN '84 9 The Harvard Debates: Democratic Presidential Candidates on Nuclear Arms and Foreign Policy 11 The People's Platform by Francesta E. Farmer 15 On the Stump by Jesse Jackson and Walter Mondale 19 Running on New: The Hart Choices by William G. Mayer 21 Reagan, the Candidate, Can't Afford to Put the Country's Needs on Hold by David Gergen

STUDENTS, TEACHERS AND THE UNIVERSITY 25 An Intern's Experience by Robert A. Henderson 28 The State and the Poor in the 1980s by Manuel Carballo 30 From the Bottom Up by Richard J. Margolis 33 Easy-Going Nihilism: The Contemporary University by Allan Bloom

THE MEDIA 36 The Media and the Congress from a conference sponsored by The Los Angeles Times and the Institute of Politics 39 Television is Public Policy by Edward Asner 41 The Future of Political Commercials by Edwin Diamond and Stephen Bates 43 The Power and the Press by Eric Sevareid WOMEN IN POLITICS 47 Remembering Eleanor Roosevelt by Tamara Hareven 49 Women Leaders by Evelyn Murphy 52 Equity in the 1980s by Eleanor Holmes Norton 56 The Gender Gap and the 1984 Campaign by Adam Clymer, Ellen Goodman and Ethel Klein

POLITICAL REFLECTIONS AND ISSUES 60 Weapons in Space by Hans Bethe and Edzoard Teller 66 Making Government Work by Alice Rivlin 69 Absolutes and Pluralism: Religion in Political Campaigns by Jonathan Moore 72 The Problem That Baffled Jefferson by Judith Martin 74 Remembering Harry Truman by Clark Clifford and David McCullough

Campaign '84

The Harvard Debates: Democratic Presidential Candidates on Nuclear Arms and Foreign Policy

The Institute of Politics sponsored two nationally televised debates by the Democratic presidential candi­ dates, the first on "Nuclear Arms: Build Up, Cut Back, or Freeze?" on October 13, 1983 co-sponsored by the Massachusetts Citizens Coalition for Arms Control, the second "A Debate on Foreign Policy," on January 32, 1984 co-sponsored by The Boston Globe. Participants in the debates were: Reubin Askew, former Governor of Florida (nuclear arms debate only) Alan Cranston, U.S. Senator from California John Glenn, U. S. Senator from Ohio Gary Hart, U.S. Senator from Colorado Ernest Hollings, U.S. Senator from South Carolina Rev. Jesse Jackson, (foreign policy debate only) George McGovem, former U.S. Senator from South Dakota Walter Mondale, former U.S. Vice President

The following quotes are excerpted from statements and responses by the candidates. Nuclear Arms Debate ASKEW: I think that we have to assume that almost anything we can come up with, the Soviet Union can come up with, and so I think that it will be very expen­ sive and I think we ought to be extremely careful and selective. CRANSTON: I suppose the Soviets will break off arms negotiations with us for a time, and they may escalate their own weaponry in one way or another, leading to yet another round in an arms race that has gone higher and higher with each negotiation. GLENN: ... we all wish we could really go back to the days of Lillianthal and Baruch and put things nuclear back under some sort of international control. But we can't do that. That genie is out of the bottle . . . While we are negotiating with the Soviets here trying to get existing weapons stockpiles under control, we must at the same time prevent the spread of nuclear weaponry to more and more coun­ tries or the whole thing will be beyond complete control. HART: In spite of the fact that every president from President Kennedy to Presi­ dent Carter committed themselves to leadership on arms control, I don't think we Campaign '84

committed ourselves enough . . . the decision to go forward with multiple warheads was perhaps the most serious mistake that this country has made. HOLLINGS: We are over-prepared for nuclear and under-prepared for conven­ tional warfare. . . . We should build up our Reserve and Guard, where we are 400,000 shy, we should have money in operation, maintenance, readiness, more steaming hours, flying hours. We should obtain the monies from this by saving $30 billion from the MX, 40 billion from the B-1, allocate some $20 billion to our readiness con­ ventionally and that's the best way to prevent limited nuclear war. MCGOVERN; I think the one central fact we have to keep in mind is that there is no prachcal purpose for nuclear weapons other than deterrence. . . . Under those conditions, the first side to have the common sense to halt any further expenditures on additional nuclear outlays is going to do two things. It's going to assume world­ wide leadership on the peace issue, instead of simply being one more rampaging giant on the road to annihilation. Secondly, it's going to save a lot of money that it can invest in education, in health care, in the environment and in the kind of job- creating enterprises here at home that would put people back to work, MONDALE: The best thing we've done is to ratify the Kennedy Atmosphere Test- Ban Treaty, the SALT I Treaty, ABM Treaty and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaties. The worst thing we've done is to fail to ratify SALT II which is a superb treaty, verifiable and should have been ratified. ... It has been almost ten years since there was a serious discussion between the President of the United States and the head of the Soviet Union on the very question of the survival of civilization.

Foreign Policy Debate CRANSTON: The arms race is totally on the loose, we are moving weapons closer to the Soviet Union, they are moving weapons closer to our shore, there are no negoti­ ations going on and we have only one arms control treaty of a limited nature in ef­ fect. We have a bellicose President, we have bellicose leadership in the Soviet Union and for most of the past four years we've had a Cold War mentality in our government. GLENN: Three members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said the [SALT 11] treaty could not be verified. . . . I'm very surprised that other [Senate] members have would trust the Soviets. I would not do that. HART: There is a great deal that unites all of us here, particularly in our opposi­ tion to Reagan foreign and domestic policies. But the unity should not gloss over some real differences. HOLLINGS: 700,000 Americans who demonstrated against nuclear arms in New York City in July 1982 were more frightened by Reagan than by Leonid Brezhnev. JACKSON: I don't accept the idea that you replace people with machines because machines are more efficient and machines don't come to work late, and machines

10 Campaign '84

don't get drunk, but they don't buy clothes, either; they don't buy cars, and they don't feed families. MCGOVERN: I think the basic weakness of American foreign policy for about thirty-five years under both Republican and Democratic administrations is that it's based too much on what we're against and not enough on what we're for. In other words, it's been based on anticonununism and in that sense we've had a tendency to embrace every tinhorn dictator around the world who waved an anticommunist banner no matter what kind of a scoundrel he was. MONDALE: The other day President Reagan ridiculed these debates that we've been having, and I think he's wrong . . . The fact of it is that those of us on the platform seeking the presidency on the Democratic ticket have participated in more debates, in more public discussions than any presidential candidates in the history of our country. That doesn't make us weaker, that makes us stronger. We're shap­ ing a mandate for our future.

The People's Platform by Francesta E. Farmer

The author, former Executive Director of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, was a spring '84 Fellow of the Institute of Politics. "The People's Platform" appeared originally in the May 1984 issue of Focus, the monthly newsletter of the Joint Center for Political Studies in Washington, D.C

The National Black Coalition for 1984, an ad hoc group of some 50 black leaders, scholars, and elected officials, has issued the People's Platform, a detailed statement of black objectives and strategies for the 1984 election year. Meeting in Atlanta in March 1983—eleven months before the first primary—the group decided that the development of a cohesive black perspective, and a test by which to evaluate all presidential candidates, was as important as traditional efforts to register and mobi­ lize voters.

11 Campaign '84

Everyone present was concerned that the "rightward drift" of politics in Ameri­ ca, signaled by the Reagan victory in 1980, might push black issues even further off the political agenda during this critical election year. The group agreed to form an ad hoc coalition—the National Black Coalition for 1984—under the leadership of Dr. Joseph E. Lowery of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and to is­ sue the People's Platform in cooperation with the National Black Leadership Round- table, a coalition of over 300 black organizations, headed by Congressman Walter E. Fauntroy (D-DC). M. Carl Holman, president of the National Urban Coalition, also played a major role in developing the Platform. What the People's Platform Is The People's Platform begins with a call for a "new realism, a new responsibility, a new politics, and a new dream." It reflects, the introduction says, "the awaken­ ing power of the black vote; our unyielding opposition to the negative economic, social, foreign, and military policies of the current administration . . . and our de­ mand for change." The recommendations fall into nine critical policy areas: the role of government; employment; the economy; minority business development; welfare and income security; education and training; civil rights; defense, foreign policy, and nuclear disarmament; and urban policy. In each of these nine sections, a statement of prin­ ciple precedes an analysis of the effects federal policies have had on black people since President Reagan took office. Where appropriate, the Platform also explains the effects of these policies on the lives of citizens who are not black; clearly, what is happening in black communities will also happen elsewhere unless there is a fun­ damental reordering of national priorities. Then the Platform outlines specific recommendations to remedy problems identi­ fied in the analyses. The National Black Coalition for 1984 is now collecting data on the costs and likely benefits of each recommendation that calls for federal expen­ ditures; this task already has been completed for several key proposals within the Platform (for example, the Skills Development Corporation retraining initiative). Coa­ lition members believe they can strengthen recommendations by demonstrating that they can be financed without increasing the enormous federal deficit and may, in fact, return much-needed revenues to the federal government. Platform Highlights The following are statements of principle and major recommendations from each section of the Platform: The Role of Government: "The nation [must] commit itself anew to a reordering of national priorities that places human needs and investment in human capital ahead of development of . . . weapons of awesome destructive capability." Recommendations in this section call for a restoration of federal budget expendi­ tures on human needs—particularly the needs of the youngest, the oldest, and the

12 Campaign '84

poorest Americans—to FY'81 levels, adjusted for inflation. Other recommendations urge the creation of new health care programs; federal minimum benefit levels for AFDC; increases in child care subsidies; improvements in programs for child nutri­ tion, food stamps, unemployment compensation, and older Americans; and a whole­ sale review of regulatory changes that unduly penalize the poor. Employment. A "war on joblessness" is the only adequate response to the acute crisis of unemployment in the black community. For decades, black unemployment has been more than double that in the white community, both in good economic times and bad. In 1982, one out of every three black Americans was unemployed for all or part of the year, contributing in large measure to an increase in the poverty rate for blacks. At 35.6 percent, the black poverty rate is the highest of any racial or ethnic group in the country. Clearly, this is the greatest crisis facing our commu­ nities, and recent upheavals in "smokestack" industries can only lead to a worsen­ ing of this trend in the near future. The Platform recommends the establishment of a $20 billion Skills Development Corporation that would train persons living below the poverty line and place at least 300,000 of them each year in occupations where there are labor shortages. Addi­ tionally, "the government must assume the responsibility of becoming the employ­ er of last resort by creating short-term, but useful, employment." The Economy. Rejecting "Reaganomics" and its "trickle-down" theories, the Plat­ form recommends coordinated economic planning. Such planning would include a new industrial policy that combines community revitalization, efforts to bolster declin­ ing but critical industrial sectors, and government encouragement of new technologies—all coordinated by a new Reconstruction Finance Corporation. Another component of this comprehensive economic plan would be "a more fair and ration­ al tax system," including a 15 percent minimum corporate tax. Minority Business Development. Minority businesses, including farms, are essential to the nation's economy. As such, they can play a major role in revitalizing local economies and in creating new jobs for black Americans. Yet current policies im­ pede their growth and development. For black farmers, the crisis is particularly acute: it has been estimated that at present rates of decline, black farmers will virtually disappear by 1990. The Platform recommends the adoption of measures such as targeted tax incen­ tives to encourage the private sector to invest and do business with minority firms. A proposed "Minority-Majority Merger Program" would facilitate this collabora­ tion. Other recommendations include an end to the forced removal of some minori­ ty businesses from the Small Business Administration's Section 8(a) program, which permits them to bid on specially set-aside government contracts, a 100-200 percent increase in federal loan support and procurement opportunities for all minority bus­ inesses, and stepped up support for black farmers.

13 Campaign '84

Welfare and Income Security. "The current welfare system is outmoded and needs to be reformed." Urging extensive changes in the welfare system—principally AFDC—the Platform demands an end to the cycle of dependency and dissolution that the system currently imposes on black families. At the same time, the docu­ ment categorically rejects "workfare" and other punative aspects of current pro­ gram requirements. Instead, it explains, the welfare system should emphasize training for meaningful employment. Education and Training. All Americans are concerned about a loss of excellence in education. For black Americans, this loss has been compounded by the federal government's retreat from its role as guarantor of an equal and quality education for all. The recommendations: more, not less, money must be spent—particularly on mathematics, science, and computer studies; black colleges, too, must be helped: perhaps through a quasi-public corporation capable of raising funds for black col­ leges and encouraging collaborative strategies for their growth and development; inner-city schools must be targeted for increased funds and support for bilingual and bicultural education and for efforts to employ and retrain chronically unemployed youth and adults. Civil Rights. "Civil rights laws and guarantees must remain a critical national pri­ ority. We are alarmed by the erosion of vigorous federal enforcement of these laws . . ." Recommendations in this area include: vigorous enforcement of existing civil rights laws; passage of the Equal Rights Amendment and the Economic Equity Act; a ra­ tional and fair immigration system that retains full due process and judicial review; enforcement of all provisions of the Voting Rights Act; and a commitment to meaning­ ful affirmative action. Defense, Foreign Policy, and Nuclear Disarmament. Current and projected levels of defense spending rob the nation of vital resources for investment in human capital and in genuine national development and skew our foreign policy so that it is more confrontational than in any recent peace-time era. Current U.S. policies toward Central America are disastrous; military solutions cannot be substituted for serious attention to the more significant causes of unrest in this neighboring region—causes that are primarily economic, pohtical, and social. The Platform recommends major reductions in defense spending, particularly for destabilizing strategic and nuclear weapons that threaten world peace and raise the spectre of nuclear annihilation. In place of a foreign policy founded on east-west confrontation, it suggests a more progressive approach—a productive dialogue with countries of the Third World about the problems they face. The Platform also urges an immediate repudiation of "constructive engagement" and other collaboration with the racist apartheid regime of South Africa. These steps must be coupled with greater integration of the nation's foreign poli-

14 Campaign '84

cy establishment. More minorities and women must be given key policy-making po­ sitions. Urban Policy. Over 75 percent of all Americans live in urban areas. A dispropor­ tionate number of these Americans are minorities, poor, and poorly educated. Centers of commerce and culture, cities cannot be neglected as they have been in the past three years. We need a comprehensive urban policy. Among other things, the federal government should end block grant distributions that penalize cities to benefit suburban areas, allocate revenue sharing funds to com­ munities with demonstrated need, bolster infrastructure aid, and return housing production to levels that revitalized cities in the 1970s.

On the Stump by Jesse Jackson and Walter Mondale

The follomng are edited excerpts from public addresses by Democratic presidential candidates Rev. Jesse Jackson and former Vice President Walter Mondale. Both addresses loere delivered in the ARCO Public Affairs Forum as part of the Institute's "Campaign 'M" series. Jesse Jackson spoke on February 3, 1984. Walter Mondale's appearance on March 5, 1984 was co-sponsored by the Business and Government Center of the John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Jesse Jackson I'm from Greenville, South Carolina, and I'm at Harvard, and I'm nervous. You- all intimidate people up here at Harvard. You-all got some mightly big reputations. But I understood today that half of those up here who are eligible to vote didn't vote, so that offset some of my intimidation. Because wise people vote, and unwise people don't, so half the folk around here are kind of unwise. With some degree of reluctance, I made the decision finally to run for the presidency because I saw the possibility of winning taking place from so many dimensions.

15 Campaign '84

There's an enthusiasm that's in the air now. The renewal of the spirit, and the revival of the will to struggle is a victory. People are registering to vote for the first time. And others who dropped out are coming back in, and that's a victory. There are some who in despair decided to explode through riots. Others decided to implode through drugs and despair. Others decided to leave the country. But now these ele­ ments have come back together to provide the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, and make room for the locked out and that's a victory. The fact is that some­ one who embodies Third World aspirations, an element of America's locked out, will now run and be respected, whether it's someone black or Hispanic or female or Asian or handicapped. Twenty years ago we marched to establish a floor in democracy. Twenty years later we marched to remove any artificial ceiling that would limit our ability to grow because of our race, our religion, our region, or our sex. To remove that barrier is a victory. America's not likened to a blanket of one piece of unbroken cloth, of one color and one texture; America's more like a quilt, with many pieces and patches of different colors and textures and varying lengths of string, but everything and everybody fits somewhere. That's a victory. The fact the Democrats cannot take us for granted and Republicans cannot write us off, that's a victory. The Third World is now on the front burner of the Campaign '84 agenda. In our foreign policy from now on, we will count the foreigners, not have a foreign policy that's foreign to American people and American values. We will not have any more debates at Har­ vard where we go through two thirds of a foreign policy debate, and leave out three fourths of the world and that's a victory. The brightest of us are still looking into the side of the mountain; we still will not see as high as those who are less bright, from a higher vantage point. So in part my running is an attempt to put a range of issues on the agenda from the perspec­ tive of the disinherited, the damned, the rejected, and the forgotten. On another level, it's an attempt to bring to that table of ideas and debate the experience of one who has known occupation within this country, who has had to negotiate with a colonial power for survival. When I grew up, no one in my neighborhood had the right to vote, or the right to protest the vote. On weekends, the police would come by, and they were called the Law. They were not called the police; they were called the Law, because they had the right to knock on your door and be let in or kick the door in and then sign your warrant, to round up the men on charges of vagran­ cy, hold them over in the stockade for the weekend, and on Monday morning have them in striped uniforms and chains on their ankles. The chain gang, it was called. And they would clean out the gutters, and cut the grass, and sweep the streets. It was in fact slave labor. And I saw my friends have to go and get their children to ask the captain of the chain gang to give their father a cigarette or a sandwich. I was more than 21 years of age when I saw my first black policeman, or fireman. We used books three to four years after whites used them. They did not have backs

16 Campaign '84

on them for the most part. They had in those books the dates when they had been used. And when we would get a new desk every now and then, we would fight over that desk, because the desks were hand-me-downs also. It was illegal for black teachers to make the same amount of money white teachers made; it was against the law. And so I grew up in apartheid, in occupied territory, and had to negotiate with the colonial power to get public accommodations, and the right to vote, and open housing. There is a distinction in culture and language in third world peoples, but a kin­ ship in suffering, empathy and understanding. As surely as those who had been disinherited in this nation rose up to find their place in the sun, that movement has taken place all around the world. When I say we must measure human rights by one yardstick, it is bom of that experience. You cannot be for civil rights for blacks and Hispanics and not be for ERA, for women to get their civil rights. You cannot be for civil rights and be for ERA, and not be for the Anti-Defamation League, be­ cause Jews have been violated and vulgarized. You cannot be for anti-defamation and then not stand with the Arabs who were vulgarized and discriminated against as well. Because you cannot have moral authority unless you're consistent and play the game by one set of rules. You can't call democracy majority rule in America and democracy minority rule in South Africa. So my struggle in part is to win, but it's also to challenge America to rise to new heights of morality and consistency and integrity. There are four billion people on earth and we're about 6 per cent of them; half of them are Asian, one eighth African. We speak of Africa. We can't just speak of South African exploitation and universities' investment in South Africa. We can't just speak of that. We cannot very well just relate to Africa on aid and deficits and put up import quotas and not allow them to engage in trade and grow. The reason Liberia is undeveloped essentially is because Liberia cannot take its raw materials, and on them make a loan from a bank, and manufacture those materials and sell them to this country. The favored nations agreement that allows Europe to grow is denied Africa. Thus Africa does not grow, not for reasons that are natural, but for reasons that are quite discriminatory. And beyond that, it's economically dumb, because when you engage in restraint of trade, you hurt the restrainer and restrained. So if our nation is to be great, we must conduct ourselves as a superpower, and not have super power and then have a very undeveloped mentality and unwilling­ ness to wrestle and grapple with the world.

Walter Mondale One thing that has always appalled me is the way that government and business tend to look at each other: through caricature, through exaggeration. I think this country has suffered greatly from the absence of consistent, sophisticated, ongo­ ing, practical dialogue, in which we understand and develop the best possible prac-

17 Campaign '84

tical and effective working relationship between business and the public sector. The miracle of American agricultural abundance started first with the role of the federal government, investing heavily. Today, for all our problems, the American economy is still the envy of the world. Today, American workers have the highest productivity on earth. If you want to know why, you've got to go back to our educa­ tional system, our system of social justice in the workplace, working conditions, equal opporturuty, and other contributions made by government to that objective. In the future, no less than the past, American economic growth will depend on strong leadership. In my opinion, government's role is not the task of central economic planning. Above all, it must not deny the primacy of the private sector in generating jobs and growth. Any effective public leadership must accept the discipline and reality of an unintimidated private credit market. We must learn to work together just as our competitors did after World War II. The words cooperation and nonconfrontation get thrown around all over. But I think we have to try new and creative and innovative ways of doing so. I served on those tripartite committees in steel and autos in 1979 when we simply sat down for the first time—government and labor and management—to see what we could do to make the auto and the steel industry competitive. They were marvelous. It's surprising what you learn when you start talking to each other as equals, comparing complaints, and figuring out ways to resolve them. I went to a General Motors plant outside of Tuscaloosa. They were going to close the plant down because they didn't consider it to be competitive. The management, the union, and the University of Alabama sat down there, and the union made some concessions, the University of Alabama came up with some exciting new ways to cut transportation costs, to better train students, and management made some con­ cessions. Now that plant is one of their most profitable plants in the country and a stable source of jobs and revenue in that community, and more important, an ex­ ample of what happens when people sit down in a spirit of cooperation and try to work out their problems for the long-term good of the community. I thir\k that is the lesson for our future. One of the things that American business—the wise leaders—understand is the most important single ingredient to a good business climate is a socially stable soci­ ety. The next step is to get a much closer cooperative relationship going between university centers of research and private business centers of research. "Hiey ought to be working together seeing ways in which discoveries get out into the commer­ cial field much more rapidly than they do today. I know that we cannot have a healthy America unless business is profitable and feels secure, and is growing and is competitive. I think the people are starving for a nation which will stop shouting at each other and start working together, and respecting each other as Americans.

18 Campaign '84

Running on New: The Hart Choices by William G. Mayer

William G. Mayer is Special Assistant to the Director of the Institute of Politics and a Ph.D. Candidate in the Department of Government at Harvard. The following is excerpted from his article, "Running on New: The Hart Choices," which appeared in Commonweal, April 6, 1984.

Though Hart likes to associate himself with John F. Kennedy and the events and spirit of the 1960s, the formative experience in his evolution as a public official is not the New Frontier but the landslide defeat of George McGovern, in 1972. For the Democratic party's established liberal leadership—McGovern, Ted Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey—Nixon's victory was a great disappointment, but not a reason to reassess their entire political ideology. For Gary Hart, and the whole new gener­ ation of Democratic politicians who first ran for public office in the mid-1970s, the message sent by the 1972 election was stronger and cleaner. The old liberalism was dead. The American people wouldn't buy it anymore. And since, as relative new­ comers to politics, they weren't on record as having created, supported, or voted for the programs of the old liberalism, they possessed a freedom denied to McGovem and Kennedy: to reshape their images, rhetoric, and political philosophies in a way more in tune with these "new realities." In Hart's case, the about-face was particu­ larly abrupt. As early as 1973, in his memoirs of the McGovern campaign. Hart was already proclaiming that "American liberalism was near bankruptcy." In 1974, when he first ran for the U.S. Senate, his stock speech was entitled "The End of the New Deal." In revising the liberal vision. Hart started by trying to draw a distinction between the values or principles of liberalism, and its methods or policy instruments. The values—equality of rights and equality of opportunity—must be kept, but the methods should be rethought. In the 1950s and 1960s, liberals had decided that, in order to achieve their goals, they needed large government agencies and an extensive regula­ tory apparatus. This decision might have been defensible in the context of the 1950s, but it no longer suits the economic realities. Today, Hart says, "we must figure out new methods and new ways of achieving those objectives with a reduction in pro­ grams, less bureaucracy, and fewer regulations."' This general approach seems to make the most sense when applied to the field of economic regulation. A good case can be made that liberals in the 1950s and '60s were insufficiently aware of the complex problems posed by large regulatory agen­ cies, and perhaps too quick to reject market mecharusms as a way of allocating goods or imposing costs. Economists have been arguing for years that the best way to con-

19 Campaign '84

trol pollution, for example, is through the use of effluent fees (sometimes called pol­ lution taxes); yet the idea has never been given a fair trial. (Of course, one should also note in passing that the reaction against regulation is far less of a new idea or a generational phenomenon than the "neoliberals" would have us believe. One of the first major politicians to call for extensive deregulation, after all, was that nasty old-line liberal Ted Kennedy.) But as one moves beyond the area of regulation. Hart's call for new methods to achieve old values begins to look a lot more like a conjurer's trick: a feat of image manipulation that might work for one election but leaves the real policy problems unsolved. The difficulty of separating liberal goals from liberal methods is best seen in one of the issues that Hart doesn't talk about: poverty. In his standard campaign speech. Hart calls for "a compassionate government without.. . outmoded policies of big spending." But if he has any real ideas about how to do this, he hasn't made them public. (The sole exception in his speech is a plan to weatherize low-income houses.) As for his recent book, A New Democracy (William Morrow, $12.95, 180 pp.), the poor are almost invisible in it. The thrust of his economic proposals is to restore economic growth and make the United States more competitive internationally; the notion that special steps must be taken to ensure that the fruits of growth redound to the benefit of all Americans seems never to have occurred to him. The subjects of welfare, day care, food stamps, legal services, and sustained housing are never mentioned in his book. Health care and nutrition are dismissed in one sentence: they must be ensured for every American child (adults are presumably not covered), but there's no indication about how this is to be accomplished. The closest Hart comes in this direction are his proposals to secure full employment. Even here, however, the emphasis is on the problems of the established working- and middle-classes. In education, for example, he offers detailed proposals for improving the quality of technical and scientific learning, but offers only rhetorical support for improve­ ments in more basic skills. None of which is to suggest that Gary Hart is a closet Reaganite. He consistently voted against all the Reagan budget cuts and has introduced legislation to restore many of them. My real point is to call into question the extent to which one really can make a clean, neat separation between liberal goals and liberal methods. Hart and the neoliberals aren't the first to try; this distinction was the very cornerstone of moderate Republicanism during the first two decades after World War II. We are not opposed to the goals of the New Deal, Dewey and Eisenhower and Nixon (in 1960) all insisted. We just think there are better methods of achieving them. Maybe there are, but Ike and Nixon never produced them—and neither, I think, will Gary Hart.

20 Campaign '84

Reagan^ the Candidate, Can't Afford to Put the Country's Needs on Hold by David Gergen

David Gergen, former Director of Communications at the White House, was a Feltoio of the Institute of Politics in spring 1984. This piece is excerpted from his article under the same title which appeared in The Washington Post on February 19, 1984.

Naturally, the White House today is preoccupied with winning in November and is bending almost all its energies toward that end. But one has to wonder if suffi­ cient attention is being given to what lies beyond November, where Ronald Rea­ gan's historic reputation could rest so heavily. By all accounts, most of the planning for a second term is being shuffled off to another day and maybe even to the next set of presidential aides and advisers. So far only some preliminary thinking has been done. Adviser Edwin Meese tapped several former presidential aides—among them former national security adviser Richard Allen and former domestic advisers Martin Anderson and Ed Harper—to work with him and Rep. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) in drafting the platform. But with Meese now heading for the office of attorney general, no one appears certain just how the campaign, the platform and second-term plans will be pulled together. In every administration, intellectual capital is depleted in the early years. To bring an infusion of new energy and ideas into a second term, the president would be well served if he assembled a series of policy councils this year, built on outside talent and working closely with insiders. Similar to groups that served Reagan in 1980, they could help get him off to the same quick start in 1985 as at the beginning of his first term. Some of the hard-core conservatives supporting Reagan have never made any secret of what they would like in a second term. They want to shrink basic domestic pro­ grams even further so that responsibilities they believe should never have come to Washington—education and welfare, for example—can be returned in toto to the states. They are willing to support tax simplification, but only if there is no increase in the tax burden for those now paying. They reject tax increases disguised as tax re­ forms. They want to continue full throttle on a defense buildup. And they would like to see Reagan concentrate on enactment of the social agenda—anti-abortion laws, school prayer, tuition tax credits, anti-crime measures—and stem resistance to Soviet expansionism. By 1988, they hope, there will be a majority of bona fide conserva-

21 Campaign '84

tives on the Supreme Court to carry out the social agenda, and the Soviets will be well on their way to the ash bin of history. It is only natural that the hard core feel this way. Some of them worked hard to put Reagan in the White House, and he is their best vehicle for major social change. But is this the agenda that really best serves Ronald Reagan, most conservatives or the country? If the Reagan legacy is to be positive and the "Reagan revolution" is to last, his team may want to consider a somewhat different course. Consider three central areas of policy: • The Economy. Can there be much doubt that the single overriding concern ought to be keeping the economy on a healthy path of expansion? It cannot be empha­ sized too often that the fulfillment of all Reagan's dreams will depend on continued economic growth. Over the past three years, the president has had the best of both worlds; the public blamed everybody else but him for the recession, and now gives almost no one but him credit for the recovery. But if there is another recession, Rea­ gan inescapably will be blamed for it. That means the Reagan team has as much of an interest in reaching a compromise on the deficits as do Sens. Robert Dole (R-Kan.), Howard Baker (R-Tenn.), Peter Domenici (R-N.M.) and other GOP stalwarts looking toward the future. It's silly to pretend that everything will be fine if the recovery can just continue until Novem­ ber. Those Reaganites who look only to the 1984 elections, and not to 1986 and be­ yond, are selling short the president, and may be selling out his legacy. Much work plainly needs to be done to achieve further spending restraints. A few weeks ago, the president wisely backed away from the idea of a bipartisan commis­ sion on the deficit, to report after the elections. Now he has an open field to cam­ paign against excessive spending and then assert a clear mandate after November. Judging from recent polls, the president has good reason to believe he can gener­ ate grass roots support for more reductions. But in the meantime, the administra­ tion might appoint a blue-ribbon panel to look at entitlement programs such as Medicare and report this December after the elections. As in the case of Social Secu­ rity, the bipartisan support must be built and the country needs to be educated on the difficulties in those programs before action will be taken. To postpone that process until next year will only bring unacceptable delays in legislation. All but those in the first pew of the supplyside church now recognize that even with another round of spending cuts in 1985, the deficit gap will not be significantly closed- So a hard choice looms: will the administration in the second term be will­ ing to raise taxes and stretch out defense increases in order to prolong the recovery? Perhaps the answer can be postponed for a while, but the tax studies now under­ way at Treasury should surely be redirected to consider proposals that would not only simplify and broaden the tax base, but would also raise more revenue from those now paying. If the "Reagan revolution" depends on a growing economy— and it does—there is no other choice.

22 Campaign '84

• The Social Agenda. President Reagan deserves credit for his firm devotion to bas­ ic social ideas such as prayer in schools and tuition tax credits. Agree or disagree, at least we have a president who sticks to his principles. But has the time not come for the Reagan team to adopt a broader social agenda, one that shores up the Repub­ lican base for the long haul? The unfortunate fact is that great chunks of the electorate are now alienated from this administration, and their bitterness is growing. When this campaign is over, it is imperative that women, blacks and others who have voted against Reagan not fee! that he will then vote against them. Neither he nor his party can afford such a gulf with so large a portion of society. The president has taken a number of steps to improve the lives of women, not many of them well understood (for instance, increased tax credits for child care, reduc­ tions in the "marriage penalty" tax, and liberalized Individual Retirement Accounts for working women and women who stay home), but there is an issue of enormous opportunity still waiting: equal pay. It is disgraceful that women today continue to face so much discrimination in the workplace. The administration would be well served if it called off the lawyers at Justice who have wanted to intervene against "comparable worth" in a Washington case and instead set them to work on finding out why women's pay is still only six-tenths of men's. We need a frontal attack on the barriers to equal pay for women that are rooted in discrimination. Indeed, there ought to be no higher task for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the Department of Labor. There are similar opportunities for the administration to reach out to blacks. So much time has been spent in recent years defining what the administration is against—quotas and busing—that people have lost sight of what it's for. And it should stand for a lot more than black colleges and minority business enterprise. Early in the administration, the president told a press conference that he was against quotas, but favored affirmative action. In the ensuing months, too many observers have come to believe they are the same thing, and that Reagan is against both. The administration could take a major step forward if it defined once and for all what it means by affirmative action and then moved aggressively to give it new life. • Foreign Policy. The central thrust of the administration's approach to the world these past three years has been clear: correct the imbalance of power with the Soviet Union so that the United States will once again achieve a "margin of safety." Other issues such as Central America and Lebanon have intruded, but that one has been fundamental. Apparently, most of his advisers and the president himself now believe the basic goal has been achieved. They were willing to accept some risks along the way— they knew for example, that the Soviets would storm and shout—but they sincerely thir\k that the United States is at last safer and more secure. Reagan's speech this January about U.S.-Soviet relations marked the turning point in their thinking.

23 Campaign '84

So what comes next? What will be the central thrust of a second term? One good answer would be to urge upon the president a single thought: turn your creative energies to building a different, closer relationship with the Soviets, one that re­ mains realistic but also allays tensions and finally brings real progress on arms control. Reagan has a golden opportunity in his second term. No one else has the trust and confidence of the country to deal head-to-head with the Soviets. Just as Nixon, not Hubert Humphrey, could go to China, so Reagan, more than Mondale, has a chance of negotiating with the Soviets overseas and making it stick back home. Carter couldn't do it; Reagan can. To take advantage of this opportunity, however, the administration must do far more than moderate its rhetoric. It must undertake a searching examination of its whole arms control team and its thinking. Can more heavyweight strategic thinkers be found to come into the administration in a second term? Can a top-flight Soviet specialist be found to serve as a special counsel to the secretary of state or the presi­ dent, one who has large influence? If we can have special diplomats for the Middle East and Central America, after all, why not one for Soviet-American relations? Can the leaders of past administrations, Democratic as well as Republican, be brought into closer consultation? (Reagan tried this once at a luncheon with former Secre­ tary of State Henry A. Kissinger and others, and was thoroughly pleased with the dialogue.) Finally, why not bring leaders of Congress more fully into the arms control process as observers? Recent consultations between administration and Congress over the build-down concept of arms reductions show how much can be achieved by a com­ mitment on both sides toward bipartisan cooperation. What course will Reagan steer in a second term? His own instincts, I believe, will tug him toward the center—toward continued economic growth, a broadly-based party and a more constructive relationship with the Soviets. Forces of history will pull him in the same direction. But many critics of left and right foresee a very dif­ ferent future.

24 Students, Teachers and the University

An Intern's Experience by Robert A. Henderson

Robert Henderson (Harvard '84) received a stipend from the Institute of Politics in Summer 1983 in support of his internship at the U.S. Conference of Maj/ors in Washington, D.C. He wrote the Allowing piece as part of his evaluation of the internship experience.

On the second Wednesday in June 1983,1 decided suddenly that I needed a part- time job. After living in Washington a few days, I realized the $1300 grant that the Institute of Politics awarded me was too meager to support me for my three-month internship. That afternoon, after leaving my air-conditioned office on I Street down­ town, I took my regular bus to the outskirts of Georgetown, where I was living for the summer. I walked to Wisconsin Avenue, the nearest commercial street, and de­ termined that I would walk down the street and not stop walking until I had a job. Having previously worked in restaurants, I figured that my best shot at landing a job would be at a restaurant, and I knew that shortly before the dinner hour was usually a good time to contact the manager. So I inquired at each restaurant's door. With each negative response came a greater determination on my part to get a job now, doing anything, anywhere, and on my fifth or sixth inquiry I was successful. 1 spoke to the manager at a better-than-average restaurant. I told him I could wait, bus, or wash dishes. He told me that the positions of busboy and waiter were high­ ly sought after and only went to those who had worked with the company for months or years. I told him I was an excellent dishwasher and that I went to Harvard. He said he would hire me and I accepted the offer. Then he started asking questions: did I know French, or Spanish? I said I knew some French. He then warned me that some of his Salvadoran workers had quit because the other workers spoke French, and he advised me that I might have a language problem with the other workers, but not to worry about it. I left the restaurant, set to start work the following Saturday. I was troubled that perhaps I had made too hasty a decision in my rush to get a job. Then I comforted myself with the thought that I had had lousy jobs before and had always survived them. They had usually turned out to be worthwhile learning experiences. After beginning work, my earlier expectations were met. It was a horrible job, it was survivable, and it was a learning experience. The first thing I learned was that it was not a job an average American would take. The kitchen staff worked the hardest

25 Students, Teachers and the University

and got the lowest pay in the restaurant. 1 was paid the District of Columbia mini­ mum wage of $3.90, but was subjected to mandatory meal deductions every day I worked, whether or not I chose to take a meal. Out of the dozen or so kitchen workers, I was the only American. Curiously, all of the waiters, waitresses, hosts, hostesses and bartenders were white Americans, but the kitchen staff was a dis­ tinctly different lot. There were two Spanish-speakers, one from Puerto Rico and one from El Salvador. All the rest were French-speaking blacks; two were from Haiti and most of the rest were from Cameroon in Africa. I could not speak to the Hispanics. They knew nothing of my language and I knew nothing of theirs. My worst nights in the restaurant were those spent with Castro, the Salvadoran. The almost unbearable conditions of dishwashing—scrubbing, spray­ ing, loading, and stacking dishes in an environment that is 95 °F and humid even before the dishwasher is turned on—were made even less bearable by the total lack of verbal communication. The only thoughts that passed between us were com­ municated either through hand gestures or through signs of friendship, such as a handshake or the sharing of some wine we had looted from the busboy's tray. On the other hand, the Africans were a pleasure to work with. They had so many outstanding qualities, I lost, for a short time, my ability to think anything negative about them. Each of the Africans had a very specific personality, and I run the risk of making ethnic generalizations when I lump them together as a group—but 1 do feel that this particular group of people shared important characteristics. From the beginning, they were all friendly, more so than most American blue col­ lar workers I have worked with. They were unusually friendly to me. They appreciat­ ed the respect with which I treated them (in contrast to some others in the restaurant) and they were delighted that I was the first person in the restaurant to make an effort to speak to them in their language (French). Several of them were also curi­ ous about Harvard and Boston, since they had heard of these places before. They were also intelligent, and were impatient with my slow learning. I admired the skill with which they cut pineapple or prepared lobster tails, and when I did these tasks incorrectly they insisted that I do them again until I got them right, but the Africans would not become angry with me. After working at the restaurant a few weeks, I learned that most of the guys were college students. Some went to Howard, but most went to the University of the Dis­ trict of Columbia (UDC). I wound up spending much time washing dishes with Gabriel, a Cameroon economics major at UDC. After I asked him a few questions about Africa's economic and political situation, we engaged in increasingly involved political discussions throughout the summer. Gabriel was typical of the students from Cameroon in that he was in the United States as a sojourner. He, like most of the others, was here to earn a bachelor's degree and a master's degree, and then return to his country. "In my country, there is no educational opportunity," he said. "Those in control

26 Students, Teachers and the University

of the government want to make everyone else stay low. But in America, you can get anything you want, as long as you work hard." After saying that, he was even more psyched up than usual and there was an extra-fast spurt in his work. "In Cameroon, people with degrees from American universities are always the best. They are always the best!" "When I return to Cameroon, I will be very, very respected." I certainly respected this man. He was doing one of the worst jobs in the United States, for minimum wage, and he loved it because it was the only way he could put himself through school. He was going to school full-time, even though it was summer, and he was working almost full-time. He had political ambitions in Came­ roon, too. He told me about how his president used public funds and international loans for his own private purposes. "If I were president of Cameroon, everybody would be happy," said Gabriel. After having these discussions with Gabriel, I was in awe of the entire concept of the sojoumer-scholar. Imagine these altruistic Africans, making this sacrifice for the good of their society! I respected and still respect these people, but in mid­ summer, I was too much in awe of them. I did not see their ordinary human flaws or inconsistencies. When I finally did come around to the omnipresent fact of the human flaw, I was shocked. One day in July, Gabriel said to me, "Tell me, why, in the United States, do you have to pay a girl to make love to her?" My face must have turned pale. Gabriel related a story about his recent experiences on Fourteenth Street, Washington's "Combat Zone." I told him I thought it was disgusting to patronize prostitutes, and that most Americans do not consider it acceptable behavior. A couple of weeks later, Gabriel asked me where the best standards of living and employment opportunities were for blacks in the U.S. 1 told him that D.C. was prob­ ably the best area. Gabriel also told me about how he bought a car, because American girls are im­ pressed with cars, and about how he bought new furniture because American girls like nice things. I asked him where he got his extra money. He said he had a sixty- year-old white American girlfriend who gave him money whenever he wanted it. Later, he told me more of his experiences with prostitutes. He had asked an Ameri­ can prostitute to marry him. Though she refused, he told me he would marry an American woman if the opportunity arose. I ended my summer with great respect for my African co-workers. But my mind was certainly more troubled than it was after its first impression. I had pictured these people as saints, here in the United States to free Africa from the bonds of dictator­ ship and poverty. I did not anticipate the human weaknesses. Here was Gabriel, the most politically-minded of the Cameroonians. He was an ambitious, intelligent economics student. But he was also, as I came to find out, seduced by the material­ ism of American life and had accepted prostitution as a way of life, which I could

27 Students, Teachers and the University

not accept. He was even putting his plans to return to Cameroon in jeopardy. He was actually thinking about settling down in the United States! I find myself spending a lot of lime thinking about my African friends, especially Gabriel. It will be a long time before I sort out my thoughts about Gabriel's admira­ ble qualities and those which I simply could not respect.

The State and the Poor in the 1980s by Manuel CarbaUo

Manuel CarbaUo, one of the Institute's dearest friends and the Kennedy School's finest teachers, died on January 27, 1984. He was a Fellow in the fall of 1977 after which he joined the Kennedy School faculty. He became Secretary of Human Services in the Cabinet of Governor Michael S. Dukakis in Janu­ ary 1983. Mr. CarbaUo wrote the following which is excerpted from his introduction to The State and the Poor in the 1980s, an Institute of Politics-sponsored publication.

The faces of poverty are many and varied. At the most essential level we are talk­ ing about people: Weary young faces, and buoyant old ones. Children in patched, spotless dresses, and children covered with grime. Blacks, whites, native Ameri­ cans. Speakers of "spanglish," Black English, broken English, and the King's English. All of these people are in the gallery of poverty's faces. Some are poor because nature betrayed them at birth; others, because a textile plant moved to Taiwan. Some are poor because they were not taught; others be­ cause they did not study. Still others are poor because at times Protestants have despised Catholics, and Catholics have despised Protestants; because men have op­ pressed women; because whites have enslaved non-whites; and because the greedy have exploited the hewers of wood and drawers of water from times before history. Some are poor despite unending virtue, work, and toil; a few, because they revel in sloth, cunning, and artifice.

28 Students, Teachers and the Universit}/

We avoid explicitly the question of what causes poverty because our purpose in this book is to assist in formulating public policy for dealing with poverty—no mat­ ter how it came about. We build the discussion very much on the substantive research of ourselves and others, but seek to cast it here in terms of public policy and debate. The intent is to partially bridge the gap between theory and practice, and thereby improve both. None of which means that we do not operate within an implicit framework. One implicit premise is that the causes of poverty are multiple: Different people are poor for different reasons. Some are poor because the economy is bad and will cease being poor when the economy recovers. Others are poor because they are single parents who have no choice but to, or indeed out of simple love want to, rear their own children rather than entrusting them to "strangers." Still others are poor because of limitations of age, health, mind, or body. This variety of causes suggests that a variety of responses and remedies are need­ ed. Some situations will require remedies from the several areas discussed in our chapters; others require merely sound nutrition at birth. For conceptual purposes, however, it may be useful to think of remedies in three categories: (1) activities that might prevent poverty; (2) those that ameliorate its condition while permanently or temporarily present; and (3) those that finance and direct preventive and ameliora­ tive activities. As will become apparent, the categories are totally artificial because all these elements interact and overlap, just as do our chapters on jobs, housing, and transportation. But we must distinguish the parts before we can appreciate the whole. This complexity in defining who is poor and what should be done is com­ pounded by a parallel complexity in deciding who should do what can be done.

29 Students, Teachers and the University

From the Bottom Up by Richard J. Margolis

Richard }. Margolis, Director of the National Rural Voter Project, zoas a Fellow of the Institute of Polit­ ics during both the fall '83 and spring '84 semesters. This article is his fall semester fellowship report.

"These unhappy times call for . . . plans .. . that build from the bottom up and not from the top down, that put their faith once more in the for­ gotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid." -F.D.R., 1932 Outside my window they are building from the bottom up—cement mixers slowly turning, orange cranes pirouetting against a pale blue sky. The scene is a wonder of industry and accomplishment: on the girders workmen come and go, welding tomorrow's status quo. Here at my typewriter, where achievements are measured less concretely, it oc­ curs to me that 1 may have been building from the top down. Certainly it is true that the people I have met at the Institute and the friends I have made here operate from positions several notches above the pyramid's base. Equally certain has been the peculiar weightlessness of many of the words and ideas—the cranes and mixers of our trade-that we have cheerfully exchanged these past three months over coffee and sherry. Groping for solid ground, for an adequate explanation of the American condition, we fleeting Fellows have constructed our share of "mansions in the skies." If I begin on this somewhat discouraging note, it is only out of respect for balance. The truth is, since early September 1 have been enjoying a state-of-mind roughly akin to euphoria. Even now, with the days growing short, I am delighted to linger and reluctant to carp. To a most happy Fellow, toughminded assessment does not come easily. Still, as JFK once noted, "Of those to whom much has been given, much is required"-including, in my case, this report. Some of the other "requirements" associated with the Fellowship turned out to be more surprising. Who could have predicted, for example, that I would devote many hours here to the aid and comfort of undergraduates, one at a time? Quite a few students found their way to my office, some in search of help with theii writing, some in need of career advice, but most, I suspect, just wanting someone to talk with. It is possible to be very lonely at Har­ vard, especially if one is young, rural and unaccustomed to breathing air charged with high-voltage ambitions. To some, at least, my office provided an occasional port in the ongoing electrical storm.

30 Students, Teachers and the University

Not that I minded—quite the contrary; and not that I came up empty-handed, either. Among my souvenirs from Harvard students are: several recommended books that proved personally important; valuable help with my research (and much warm encouragement); new insights to ponder and new friendships to nurture; and invi­ tations to socials, dinners and discussion sessions. One upshot has been my renewed respect for the talents, ideals and dilemmas of the present student generation, as well as a fresh perspective on the days of my youth. The Study Group I led—"American Politics and the New Rural Vote"—extended my range of student acquaintances, including a number of graduate students. One reason we were able to learn a great deal from each other was that the graduate students came with rich political backgrounds and asked sharp political questions, though on occasion one or another might lapse into pedantry. The Kennedy School student who informed us, for instance, that "Researchers investigating the quan­ titative impact of deregulation on rural public transportation have found the num­ bers inconclusive"—may have learned her lesson a mite too well. The response, offered by a freshman from North Dakota, speaks worlds about the difference be­ tween scholarship and experience. "It's pretty hard now," she said, "to get to Grand Forks by bus." In general, I am glad the graduate students came to our Student Group, though I wish more undergraduates had come as well, and that more of those who did at­ tend had found their voice. Also—since I seem to be listing small regrets—I wish that the Rural Action Conrniittee, a student organization that was thriving three years ago when I led an earlier Study Group here, had been able to summon as much energy this time around. I spoke at RAC's only fall semester meeting, at Phillips Brooks House. The last I heard, they were still searching for a chairperson. I do be­ lieve that student interests tend to follow social fashions, and that the subject of rural politics has probably been out of fashion at Harvard since Thoreau left Cam­ bridge and tramped back to Concord. The Institute showed its mettle in making it possible for me, a self-appointed rural specialist, to drop a few morsels down Har­ vard's urban maw. Part of my work at the Institute has been to focus on the political folly of our ur­ ban ways—not just because rural Americans merit an equal break, but also because they make up nearly one-third of the total electorate and their proportion is grow­ ing each year. I have written a paper, "Notes on a Rural Electoral Strategy for 1984," that makes the case for considering rural Americans as a discrete and significant voting entity. The essay, which I hope to expand into a book, is a direct product of my Fellowship, without which I could have found neither the time to write nor the scholars to help me think. The resulting work can be considered pioneering or pointless, depending on future events. My own guess—and the wish may be father to the thought—is that both politicians and political scientists in years to come will be paying much more attention to rural citizens and their voting behavior. What

31 Students, Teachers and the Universit]/

Mr. Dooley said of Supreme Court decisions seem equally true of political fashions: they follow the election returns. One of the enzymes now at work in rural political chemistry is choice. People to­ day are living in what Margaret Mead has called "elective villages," whereas a gener­ ation or two ago village residency seemed more an accident of birth, and often a grim entrapment to boot. The difference becomes clear when one compares the poetry of the two periods. To E.A. Robinson, village life was "as familiar as an old mis­ take, as futile as regret." To John Gill, an upstate New York poet born in Chicago, it is a constant delight. Even blizzards can entertain Gill, who sits at his kitchen win­ dow enjoying the view of a pheasant in the deep snow, "his bronze, his red car­ nival colors" against the white. More than ever before in this century rural people have become the subjects of poetry written just down the road from them. Yet most remain unfamiliar with the poets and their works. Since last summer I have been trying to persuade the National Endowment for the Humanities to support a project that will bring rural poets and rural residents together in a series of regional confer­ ences, on the theory—to cite JFK again—that "When power narrows the areas of man's concerns, poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of his existence." NEH recently turned down my first proposal on grounds that the sponsoring or­ ganization I had chosen, Rural America, might "politicize" the proceedings. (Rural America is a liberal advocacy group in Washington.) But NEH officials encouraged me to try again, this time with an application offering assurances that the program will be bias-free. Some of my time at the Institute has been spent in drafting a se­ cond proposal, with the benefit of valuable advice from Professor Helen Vendler, whose course in poetry I had the good fortune to audit last semester. Among other things. Professor Vendler introduced me to a list of rural poets whose works I had not read. I am reading them now and rebuilding the proposal—from the bottom up.

32 Students, Teachers and the University

Easy-Going Nihilism: The Contemporary University by Allan Bloom

The following is excerpted from the opening and the closing segments ofa public address by Allan Bloom, member of the Committee on Social Thought and Professor of Political Philosophy at the University of Chicago, in the ARCO Forum on January 9, 1984. Professor Bloom's appearance urns co-sponsored by the John M. Olin Foundation and the Institute of Politics.

Tonight I shall discuss what we consider to be our virtue: openness. There is one thing a professor can be absolutely sure of: every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative. If this belief is put to the test, one can count on the students' reaction—they will be uncomprehending. That any­ one should regard the proposition as not self evident astonishes them, as though he were bringing into question two plus two equals four. These are things that you don't think about. The students' backgrounds are as various as America can pro­ vide, some are religious, some atheists, some are to the left, some to the right, some are poor, some are rich. They are unified only in this, and in their allegiance to equal­ ity, and the two are related in a moral intention. The relativity of truth is not a theo­ retical insight, but a moral postulate, the condition of a free society, as they see it. They have all been equipped with this framework early on. It is the modem replace­ ment for the inalienable natural rights which used to be the traditional American grounds for a free society. That it is a moral issue for them is revealed by the charac­ ter of their response to the challenge, a combination of disbelief and anger. "Are you an absolutist?" which is the only alternative of which they've heard, uttered in the same tone as, "Are you a monarchist?" or, "Do you really believe in witches?" This latter leads to the indignation, for someone who believes in witches might well be a witch hunter and a Salem judge. The danger that they have been taught to fear from absolutism is not error, but intolerance. Relativism is necessary to open­ ness and this is the virtue, the only virtue, which all primary education for more than 50 years has dedicated itself to inculcating. Openness, and the relativism which makes it the only plausible stance in the face of various claims to truth, and various ways of life, and kinds of human beings, is the great insight of our times. The study of history and of cultures teaches this. All the world was mad in the past. Men always thought they were right and that led to wars, persecutions, slavery, xenophobia, racism, and chauvinism. The issue is not to correct the mistakes, and really be right, but not to think you are right.

33 Students, Teachers and the University

The true believer is the danger. The students, of course, cannot defend this opin­ ion. It is something with which they have been indoctrinated. At best, they point out all the opinions and cultures there are and have been. What right have I or any­ one else to say one is better than the others? If I ask the routine question designed to confute them and make them think, such as, if you had been a British adminis­ trator in India, would you have let the natives under your governance bum the widow at a man's funeral? They either remain silent, or say the British should never have been there in the first place. It is not that they know very much about other nations, or their own. That is not the point. The purpose of their education was not to make them scholars, but to provide them with a moral virtue. Every educational system has a moral goal which it tries to attain, with which it informs its curriculum. It wants to produce a certain kind of human being. This intention is more or less explicit, more or less the result of reflection, but even the neutral subjects like reading, writ­ ing, and arithmetic take their place in a vision of the educated person. In some nations, the goal was the pious person, in others the warlike, in others the industri­ ous. Always present as an important factor; it is the political regime which needs citizens who are in accord with its fundamental principles. Aristocracies want gen­ tlemen, oligarchies men who respect and pursue money, and democracies lovers of equality.

Democratic education, whether it admits it or not, wants and needs to produce men and women who have the tastes, knowledge and character supportive of the democratic regime. Over the history of our republic, there have obviously been changes of view. The present is closed to doubt about so many things which im­ pede the progress of its principles that unqualified openness to it would mean the forgetting of the despised alternative to it, knowledge of which makes us aware of what is doubtful in it. True openness means closeness to all the charms that make us comfortable with the present. When I was a young teacher at Cornell, I once had a debate about education with a professor of psychology. He said it was his func­ tion to get rid of prejudices in his students, he knocked them down like ten pins. I began to wonder with what he replaced those prejudices. He did not seem to me to have much of an idea of what the opposite of a prejudice might be. He reminded me of a little boy who gravely informed me when I was four that there is no Santa Claus, who wanted me to bathe in the brilliant light of the truth. Did this professor know what those prejudices meant for the students, and what effect being deprived of them would have? Did he believe that there are truths that could guide their lives as did their prejudices? Had he considered how to give them the love of the truth necessary to seek for the unprejudiced beliefs? Or would he render them, the students, passive, disconsolate, indifferent, and subject to authori­ ties like the professor or the best contemporary thought? My iitformant about Santa

34 Students, Teachers and the University

Claus was just showing off, proving his superiority to me, and after all, I don't sup­ pose he was all that clever. He hadn't created the Santa Qaus which had to be there in order to be refuted. Think of all we learn about the world from men's beliefs in the various kinds of Santa Clauses and all we learn about the soul from those who believe in them. Merely methodological excision from the soul of the imagination which projects gods and heroes on the wall of the cave, does not promote knowledge of the soul, it only lobotomizes it, cripples its powers. I found myself responding to the profes­ sor of psychology; I personally tried to teach my students prejudices, since nowa­ days with the general success of his method they had learned to doubt beliefs before they believed in anything. Without me, he would be out of business. Descartes had a whole wonderful world of old beliefs, of prescientific experiences and articulations with the order of things, beliefs firmly and even fanatically held before he even be­ gan his systematic and radical doubt. One had to have the experience of really be­ lieving before one could have the thrill of liberation. I proposed a division of labor in which I would help grow the flowers in the field, and he could mow them down. Prejudices, strong prejudices, are visions about the way things are. They are devi- nations of the whole and hence the road to a knowledge of the whole is by way of an erroneous opinion about the whole. Error is, indeed, our enemy, but it alone points to the truth and deserves our respectful treatment. The mind which at the outset has no prejudices is empty, it can only have been constituted by a method which is unaware of how difficult it is to recognize that a prejudice is a prejudice. Only Socrates knew after a long time of unceasing labor that he was ignorant. Now every high school student knows that. How did it become so easy? What ac­ counts for our amazing progress? Could it be that our experience has been so im­ poverished by our various methods, of which openness is only the latest, that there is nothing substantial enough there to resist criticism? And we therefore have no world left of which to be really ignorant? Have we so simplified the soul that it is no longer difficult to explain? In an age of dogmatic skepticism, nature herself in all her lush profusion of expressions might appear to be prejudiced. In her place w^e put a gray network of critical concepts, invented to interpret nature's phenom­ ena, but which strangle them and therewith destroy their own raison d'etre. Perhaps it is our first task to resuscitate those phenomena so that we may again have a world to which we can put our questions and be able to philosophize. This seems to me to be our educational challenge.

35 The Media

The Media & the Congress from a conference sponsored by The Los Angeles Times and the Institute of Politics

On October 2S, 29 & 30, 1983, The Los Angeles Times and the Institute of Politics co-sponsored a conference on ' 'The Media & the Congress.'' The following piece is excerpted from the first roundtable discussion, "Congress Problems vis-a-vis the Media," with comments by: Stephen H. Hess, Senior fel­ low in Governmental Studies, Brookings Institution; David R. Obey, U.S. Representative (D-WI); Bill Frenzel, U.S. Representative (R-MN); Barber B. Conable, U.S. Representative (R-NY); Gary Hymel, Executive Vice President, Gary and Company; Roger Mudd, Washington Correspondent, NBC News; fames P. Cannon, Editor, Des Moines Register; James McCartney, National Correspondent, Knight- Ridder Newspapers.

HESS: What is it that you hate the most about the way the press covers Congress? OBEY: In terms of the way much of the press, especially the networks, cover the Congress, I guess the number one problem is their basic superficiality. I think that the press does emphasize the conflict rather than the mood of the House on many issues. And I think that often, especially on institutional as opposed to issue-oriented questions, it is almost purposefully negative and pejorative. FRENZEL: The news that I read and watch seems manufactured. Instead of report­ ing news, the press is inventing news, and trying to make it exciting and trying to sell an extra ad or grab a headline or do something. Also, the press has only discovered the Congress in the last decade, and it uses the Congress as an attempt to embarrass the President. I am badgered and words are put in my mouth as to whether I'm against him. I'm sure David had the same thing when President Carter was in office. Another problem which bothers me is that the press only tiiinks it can report events, and Congress in not an event. It is a process. And either the press doesn't under­ stand that or it assumes the public doesn't understand it. I have a little problem with what I call the cheap-shot syndrome as well. I have a splendid daily (in my district). I have been on its front page three times, once for growing a mustache, once for shaving off a mustache, and once for reporting my taxes late. And I suspect that I have done something more significant than those things in thirteen years and they are probably aware of it. CONABLE: My complaints are fairly general, and I'm afraid they are almost in-

36 The Media

herent in the way a free press operates. In that respect I find the man-bites-dog syn­ drome is real affliction for our body. What makes news is the exception and not the rule. And clearly what makes news also is what feeds public suspicions and basic negativity about representative government in the first place. Thus, if ten Congress­ men are misbehaving, the public thiiOcs the condition is epidemic and forgets that there are 425 others that are living with their wives, keeping their hands out of the cookie jar, and probably doing a good job of trying to represent their constituency. Now the problem with that is the press is an essential ingredient in the dialogue of representation. It means that we are almost instinctively on the defensive about our function and our institution, in the mass type of communication that's neces­ sary if we are to have any understanding of what's going on in Washington. I think the press does have to take some responsibility for accurate description of institutions and not just feed the doubts that people have about them. As long as representative government is going to be based primarily on a dialogue between the members and their constituents, and as long as the press is going to be an inher­ ent part of the process, they have to have a responsibility beyond reporting the news and have to accept some degree of detachment in the process. HYMEL: Staff people's complaint generally was that the press is lazy. They won't come into a committee and talk to the staff director, to get background on a bill and try to understand the issue. They are looking for the sensational quote or the piece of film that creates sensation. Or they just come to a staff director and ask what good confrontations are you going to have today. And they base their research not on trying to understand the problem and trying to explain it to somebody, but in getting the quick quote and the chance to satisfy the editor. HESS: Well, members of the media, you have been called simplistic, negative, you deal in manufactured news and only events. You've been known to take cheap shots and feed the doubts of the people. You have been called lazy and your com­ petency has been called into question as well. Roger Mudd, have they left anything out? MUDD: Well, most of us at the table grew up covering Congress and learning to stand outside closed doors, knowing we weren't really wanted inside, and sus­ pecting the worst. Knowing that there were such things as unrecorded votes be­ cause Congressmen didn't want their names to be listed. We know that Congressmen changed positions and issued press releases to cover up the change in positions. And so I think the negativism is as much a fault of Congress as it is of the press. Because there was so little air let circulate, particularly in the House, we were left to try to reconstruct events as they happened on the floor, particularly for television. That's an imperfect way to report. And when Mr. Frenzel says that we discovered the Congress only ten years ago, it was only about ten years ago that the Congress really wanted to be covered in any intensive way. GANNON: I think we, the press in general, do a terribly poor job on substance.

37 The Media

We do a marvelous job on the conflict and the confrontation, but we do a terribly poor job on the substance of the legislation or the issue. And I think that it is our greatest failing. I don't think you can blame it on the public, that the public won't read or watch it. I think if you can do it well, they will read about what's going to happen to them as a result of a tax bill, or what's going to happen to them as a result of natural gas deregulation. But I don't think we do that very well. HESS; Well, it's clear I started on the wrong foot, I should have started with the press telling us what's wrong with the press, and let Congress defend the press. Jim McCartney, are you going to plead no contest too? MCCARTNEY: I plead guilty across the board to every charge. There's no charge that's been made here with which I do not agree and about which 1 am not appalled. I can remember when I was working for a college newspaper some years ago dis­ covering in the reporting out of Washington that you could never find the substance of legislation. It was always presented as a horse race. That's still true. The press in handling a bill will give it a label, usually a cliche. It's referred to by the cliche forever after by the headline writers and reporters, and nobody ever finds out what's in the bill. The questions is, what do you do about it? And I think that's what we ought to be focusing on, because from the point of view of a reporter. Congress does one lousy job in making it possible to find out anything in an intelligible way. If you ever go to a meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on a sub­ stantive issue you get a bunch of speeches by politicians trying to get into the paper in the most hopelessly childish way, and very little discussion of the substance of the legislation or the problem. I think you've got to turn this thing around, those of you on the congressional side, and think of it in terms of we are not idiots. There is incompetence, no ques­ tion about it. It's an issue if I were speaking on the congressional side I wouldn't raise. But we are not idiots. We are able to digest a fantastic amount of information if it's presented in anything like intelligible form.

38 The Media

Television is Public Policy by Edward Asner

Edward Asner, actor and political activist, was a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of Politics on October 17andl8, 1983. The following is an edited excerpt from his public address, "Television is Public Poli­ cy," delivered on October 17th in the ARCO Forum.

It is a sobering thought that by age 16 the average child has watched 15,000 hours of television—more time than he or she has spent in school. Some argue, however, that this is not necessarily bad. In 1977, Newsweek suggested that "in general, the children of television enjoy a more sophisticated knowledge of a far larger world at a much younger age." On the flip side of what Howard Beals told us in Network, "You're beginning to think the tube is reality and your own lives are unreal. This is mass madness." For example, crime on television occurs at ten times the rate that it does in real life. Fifty-five percent of prime-time characters are involved in one crime each epi­ sode. The result of that? Nearly half of heavy TV viewers when polled said they believe their neighborhoods and society are unsafe, full of dangerous and mean strangers. But only about twenty-five percent of light television viewers had this "fearful" perspective. Such inaccurate perceptions lead viewers to believe that problems can be solved in thirty minutes or even thirty seconds. When they can't, we become frustrated, depressed and angry. So what we have is the premise that entertainment television, whether it's good or bad, is a powerful force; and that any program seen by enough people for a long enough time can channel the course of public policy. And, if you believe that televi­ sion has become "the dark side of the force," then what do we do about television in America? Before I suggest some choices, I must infuse this discussion with the reality that the television business is a business. After all, where would we be without the es­ sentials of life such as "Are you hungry for a Burger King now?"; "You deserve a break today at McDonald's"; or "I'm a Pepper, you're a Pepper, be a Pepper now." Frank Mankiewicz accurately observed that "the men and women who control tele­ vision are animated by little more than a simple search for profits. They are neither good or bad people, but only good or bad businessmen." But that doesn't mean that what comes between commercials for "Prell Concentrate" and John Houseman's espousals need be vacuous or banal. The purists in the audience would probably intone that shows like "The Holocaust" are pap—nothing more than night-time soap operas. And compared to probably one

39 The Media

of the best historical documentaries ever made, "Worlds at War" hosted by Laur­ ence Olivier, they would be right. But "Worlds at War" garnered only a few hundred thousand viewers, and in the showing of "Holocaust" millions upon millions of viewers became apprised, many for the first time, of this dark episode in our his­ tory. Sometimes you have to walk before you can run, especially when you've been crawling until now. So we have a few options for the educated American community to exert a posi­ tive influence on television programming: First, take more interest in the quality shows on the air to boost their all-important ratings. And let the networks and advertisers know if you like a show. Just as a small veto group can often scare sponsors away from a program, thoughtful sup­ port can often save a beleaguered show. With spiialing costs of production and in­ tensified ratings wars, networks are tending to give new shows an ever-shorter lease on life in the face of low numbers. If "All in the Family" were premiered this sea­ son with the ratings it garnered the first time out, it would now be in the sitcom junk-heap with the likes of "Hello Larry". You may wish to bear in mind the words of one CBS programming vice presi­ dent: "I'm not interested in culture. I'm not interested in pro-social values. I have only one interest. Thai's whether people watch the program. That's my definition of good; that's my definition of bad". Second, modify the networks' ratings system to reflect the true interests and in­ telligence of our citizens. To a large degree, market forces may take care of this— network viewership is on the decline as competing forms of home entertainment take hold. Cable, pay TV and videocasettes all allow viewers to become their own programmers. Consequently, networks won't be able to take their audiences for granted. Third, networks and producers should people their organizations with bright young people such as yourselves, who have a point of view and aren't afraid to express it. Responsible creative ideas that are well executed and attract an audience will spawn more such programming. Finally, and most importantly, don't dismiss network television as the opiate of the middle classes unless you want your life to be dominated by today's ideals and values of the flickering screen. Let's translate America's love affair with television into a way to uplift and to educate—all while entertaining. If thoughtful, well-educated Americans become active participants in broadcast television, we don't have to stand by as television swallows up our freedoms, in­ dividuality and self-expression. If not, we can expect to see more of the same. Pub­ lic policy will continue to be more a reflection of "Mr. Smith" and "Mr. T" than Ralph Nader or Izzy Stone. And Ronald Reagan will reaffirm his belief that women desire the shallow life of Sue Ellen Ewing. I don't know that E.B. White fully realized how on-target he would be when he

40 The Media

wrote in The New Yorker in 1938, "I believe television is going to be the test of the modem world, and that in this new opportunity to see beyond the range of our vision we shall discover either a new and unbearable disturbance of the general peace or a saving radiance in the sky. We shall stand or fall by television—of that I'm quite sure."

The Future of Political Commercials by Edwin Diamond and Stephen Bates

Stephen Bates is research coordinator for the Institute of Politics study, "New Communications Tech­ nologies, Public Policy, and Democratic Values." Edwin Diamond, a senior lecturer at MIT, has taught several lOP Study Groups. They are authors of The Spot: The Rise of Political Advertising on Tele­ vision (copyright 1984 by MIT), from which this article is adapted.

The Republican party officials who in 1952 turned down Rosser Reeves's proposal to test the effectiveness of his "Eisenhower Answers America" spots may have been shrewder than Reeves thought. From the start polispots and television campaigns have been entertaining and at times informative, but without magical powers. Spots can surprise, capture attention, engage interest; they may even put something past the audience, though not for long. As Joseph Napolitan says, "Something is new only once." For 1984 and beyond the media managers have plans for high-tech advertising that will test the intelligence and good sense of voters. The Republican consultant Eddie Mahe anticipates that cable television channels will be used in concert with direct mail. "1 may decide, if I have a message I think you as a nurse or doctor are interested in—medical insurance—that the best way to get my message to you is to send you a mailgram saying, 'Watch channel 42 at 8 o'clock tonight. I have a mes­ sage of specific interest to you, on federal medical insurance.' Bingo! I've got your attention."

41 The Media

Cable will also let national campaigns further narrowcast their television appeals, as they frequently do now on radio. Robert Squier scared some listeners recently when he described a kind of invasion of the mind-snatchers: "At the beginning of the evening, you would get a short, simple quiz on your interactive cable system. You would be offered an opportunity to see a tree movie if you'd answer a few sports questions, some other questions, a lot of political questions. We wouldn't have to ask a lot of demographic questions, because if you were a cable subscriber for more than a year, we would have all we needed to know about you from other quizzes. We would know how much you vote, how you vote, what kind of programs you watch, how many times you switch over to the X-rated channel. Then you'd take the test. The system would determine your particular brand of undecidedness, based on previous polling in the population. The computer would then have been pretest­ ed in focus groups. Then it would play on your TV that night, on everything you'd watch on cable. Later in the evening you'd be given another test, asking some of the same questions. If we've persuaded you, we'd know it right then." Every tech­ nique Squier described, he adds, "is now in existence." In the end, still, we are willing to leave the polispots and the media campaigns to the knowing judgment of the audience. The typical thirty-five-year-old American has been watching television for three decades now and has been through more than a dozen political campaigns as a television consumer. The majority of the au­ dience belongs to the party of skeptics, and not just about political promises; a 1977 Harris poll showed forty-six percent of those surveyed assenting to the statement that most or all ads on TV are "seriously misleading." Narrowcasting on cable and high-tech interactive systems will not alter that balance of doubt. The media managers line up with us on this point. "As politically unsophisticat­ ed as voters are, they are extremely sophisticated as TV viewers," says Ken Swope. David Sawyer concurs: "There's no way you can manipulate the voters. There's no way you can go back now and talk about a government as decent and beautiful as the American people. There's no way you can go back now and show the candi­ date wandering down the beach, with his jacket over his shoulder and a dog run­ ning by his side. Those are the cliches from the period when political television was naive. People now are looking with sophistication at your messages. Put out a mes­ sage to con them, and they'll figure it out like that." Of course it is still possible to run unfair, or scurrilous, or racist campaigns on television—just as it has always been possible to run them in newspapers, leaflets, and speeches. Political television does not manipulate the electorate in a new, pernicious way; it mainly spreads the candidate's message more widely and more efficiently. The message still must tra­ vel past watchful eyes—the press's, the opposition's and the voters'. In the aftermath of Richard Nixon's victory in 1968, reporter Joe McGinniss con­ cluded that the new Nixon was the product of the "adroit manipulation and use of television" by Roger Ailes, Harry Treleaven, and the other image makers. As

42 The Media

McGinniss recorded Ailes, the hyperenergetic young producer, at Nixon's election- eve telethon; "This is the beginning of a whole new concept. This is it. This is the way they'll be elected forevermore. The next guys up will have to be performers." In 1983 an older, fleshed out, bearded—and calmer—Ailes offered a different con­ clusion: "The TV public is very smart in the sense that somewhere, somehow, they make a judgment about the candidates they see. Anybody who claims he can figure out that process is full of it." In 1984 and beyond we are sure the media managers will continue their search for the key to the voter's decision process. Just as surely they will fail to find it. The creation of political advertising will remain a problematic art.

The Power and the Press by Eric Sevareid The following piece is excerpted from the third annual Joe Alex Morris, Jr. Memorial Lecture in the ARCO Public Affairs Forum on April 11, 1984 by Eric Sevareid, former CBS Nexi>s correspondent. Mr. Sevareid's appearance xoas co-sponsored by the Nieman Foundation for Journalism and the Institute of Politics.

It's only the American press that 1 can pretend to know much about. It's the news business, but we in it know it to be much more than a business or most of us would not be in it. The late Randolph Churchill, who was a friend of mine and quite a good journalist, thought maybe the word was "calling." And what's the end purpose of this calling? Henry Mencken thought it was to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. I don't think so. I think the end purpose of it is to find the truth as best we can and to transmit it with what talent and courage we can summon. That's all it's about. This very difficulty in defining and labeling the press should suggest something to those, including so many officials and lawyers, who ache to codify the press somehow—to lay rules upon it. I think it must remain uncodified

43 The Media

by outside forces. I would rather that it be at least somewhat irresponsible than too cautious and prudent, for our society's safety. It seems to me the very occasional harm done by publishing some secret or other is far outweighed by the harm done by secrecy itself. Of course, there is tension between the First Amendment and let's say, the Sixth on fair trial, but maybe that's just what should be. Were one or the other to become definitely dominant, perhaps something would be lost, so the emphasis would be on one at one period of our history and on another, at another period. Maybe that's how our basic system of balanced powers was supposed to work. There can't be a sizeable commuruty in this country where the press has not broken paths to bring wrongdoing to justice, one way or another. It has done the work of law enforcers thousands of times, but there must be exceedingly few cases, in com­ parison, where excesses by the press have resulted in serious miscarriages of justice, at least in the sense of innocent people going to jail. I'm not one who thinks the American Bill of Rights is about to shatter like glass next week. I do think there is a kind of unorganized but insidious assault on these freedoms going on all the time, and getting a little more troubling all the time, and therefore countervailing forces have to come into play more and more. In our coun­ try, that's stiU possible. In the world at large, alas, it's increasingly impossible. You've seen the reports perhaps from the International Press Institute in London. They say that the role of the journalist has never been harder than today; only a small part of the globe can boast that free speech is respected and honored. They say the rest of the world is gagged. Think of the courage it takes to be an opposition journalist in various Latin American countries, for example, or a country like South Africa. Those men and women are the real press heroes of today, not any of us who still have a shield, and we owe them homage and gratitude. What we owe to ourselves and those who will succeed us is a very close attention to this precious shield. Some heavy, hostile arrows are striking that shield and some are sticking. I'm sorry to say that the Chief Executive of this country has a rather reckless atti­ tude toward the First Amendment, as he has toward some other areas of concern. Like most ideological thinkers, most true believers of right or left, he has a wide streak of the authoritarian instinct in him. In spite of his immense popular support, the fungus of paranoia that spreads through nearly all administrations took hold even earlier than usual with this one. Like so many others, this consummate politician resents criticism, takes praise for granted. He never admits a policy mistake of a serious nature. He's very upset with those who point them out. He puts a high premium on government secrecy. He has supported propsals to put thousands of civil servants through lie detector tests, to make many, many thousands sign lifetime self-censorship agreements, to nar­ row the scope of the Freedom of Information Act.

44 The Media

He approved the barring of the press, the only independent eyes and ears that the people have, from the undeclared little war in Grenada. We saw that scene only two days later when everything was pretty well tidied up. We don't know for cer­ tain what really happened and to whom, during those 48 hours, and the govern­ ment argument that they wanted to protect the safety of the war correspondents seemed like almost a slur on my memory of some very good people and some friends, too, as well as Joe Alex Morris, Jr. The military got away with it. In this case, right was simply might. We face hostility from the While House crowd and perhaps most serious of all we face it from the Supreme Court. It's not only the standing handicaps like the special and surely unconstitutional restraints on broadcasting, or the extraordinary go-ahead to plaintiffs in libel cases to subpoena evidence revelatory, they think, of a journalist's "state of mind;" it's a whole new tide of libel cases and the fact the Burger court, so far as I know, has never yet found in favor of the press in these cases. If this President is re-elected, we are certain to see a renovated court weight­ ed even more heavily to the right well into the twenty-first century. For the life of me, I never could see how you could constitutionally abridge and bend something so fundamental as the First Amendment just because of technolog­ ical changes in the dissemination and reception of information and ideas. They are telling us that the most pervasive form of communication must have rules laid on it and the less pervasive shall not. I say the most pervasive, not necessarily the most persuasive. Now my mind is as unscientific as it is unlegal, and I could never under­ stand this thing of the people's airwaves. So far as I know there's the atmosphere and there is space; there is no airway in any practical sense 'til somebody develops the wit and the resources to put a signal into atmosphere and space, and I would have thought government had no more right to regulate the content of that signal than it has to regulate the content of the newspapers carried in newspaper trucks on the people's highways. For thirty years 1 have kept a copy of some words spoken to the Overseas Press Club in New York City by Dr. Charles Malik, who was then Foreign Minister of what we thought of as a nation but what seems to have become just a killing ground for all the hatreds in the Middle East, and that is Lebanon. He said to us: "These are not ordinary times when so-called factual reporting can tell the story of what is really happening. The real facts are the hidden clashes of will and outlook and culture whereby today whole civilizations are in the balance. If you aim at the real truth—the deep, hidden, tragic truth—if you always faithfully bring out what is ulti­ mately at stake today, namely, that there's a rebellion of the elements against all you held true and holy and sacred for thousands of years, then," he said, "1 believe you will put the entire world in your debt." Very few established American journalists are doing this with any success. The oncoming generation of American journalists had better include quite a few young

45 The Media

men and women whose education is not confined to political science, and sociolo­ gy, and economics, but who spend some years immersing themselves in foreign languages, in comparative philosophies and religions, and, of course, history. In all this, my generation of journalists comes up, I think, rather short. We need new minds for this new time of extraordinary human upheaval. But, old or young, we're going to find our efforts to small avail if our shield is broken. There are many Americans, and some of them have power, who simply do not comprehend what is at stake, what will happen if we allow the underpin­ nings of this open society to be shaken loose. These are, simply, those civil liberties that people get so tired of hearing about. But remember, they are their own defense. They can be defended only as long as we still have them. I would go so far as to say that if these American liberties are lost, then the peace of the whole world is going to be lost, because if both the superpowers were semi-closed, paranoid, hostile, suspicious societies, then surely world tensions would become explosively un­ bearable. In this polarized world there is a point where individual freedom and collective survival become one and the same. So civilized people everywhere had better pray, and all of us had better pray and work, for the preservation of this country's inter­ nal domestic liberties, beginning with the liberties of speech and press and assem­ bly because they, not our soldiery or our weaponry, make up the first line in our defense of peace and safety.

46 Women in Politics

Remembering Eleanor Roosevelt by Tamara Hareven

On March 3, 1984 the Institute of Politics and the Kennedy School Women's Group co-sponsored a day­ long seminar honoring the centennial of the birth of Mrs. Roosexxlt. This piece is an edited excerpt from the first session of the seminar, "Remembering Eleanor Roosevelt/' a public address by Tamara Hareven, author of Eleanor Roosevelt: An American Conscience.

There used to be a time in the 1930s when it would have been impossible to open a newspaper without constantly seeing Eleanor Roosevelt's name, either praised or denigrated, and it would have been impossible to open a newspaper without seeing one cartoon or another about Eleanor Roosevelt. One of the most typical showed a miner down in a pit in West Virginia, looking up into the sky and saying "Gosh, there comes Eleanor again". Eleanor hasn't come for a while, and I think that the American reform tradition has suffered from her absence because above and beyond everything else, she was a conscience. When I struggled in 1968 to find a title for my book that would properly express the multiplicity of her activities, some consistent and some inconsistent, and when I struggled to find a common pattern, the only phrase that encompassed every­ thing was "An American Conscience". Eleanor Roosevelt emerged as a social reformer at a very crucial point in Ameri­ can history. She became nationally known when her husband became president. The or\ly political power that she had was through her husband's office. It was much to her advantage that the position of First Lady had had no definition and no clearly circumscribed boundaries and no official functions attributed to it. It was basically up to each First Lady to infuse the position with a particular content. As we know, most of the First Ladies who proceeded Eleanor Roosevelt had defined that position as a ceremonial one. To the American public, the most baffling and bewildering and shocking aspect of Eleanor Roosevelt's emergence on the scene was that while she continued to maintain the ceremonial aspects of the position, and wear blue gowns for inaugurations and host musicians and dignitaries at the White House, at the same time she translated and transformed that position into an instrument for emergency measures in an effort to alleviate the crisis and the suffering of the Great Depres­ sion. Rather than acting as an extension and as the female domestic counterpart of the President, she used the position of First Lady as an instrument for social reform.

47 Women in Politics

Her enemies felt most betrayed by that very fact. She refused to remain confined in the sweet domestic sphere. First, the members of her class felt she had betrayed them by advocating, at that time, far-reaching social reforms; and many of the women who had subscribed to the ideal of domesticity were enraged by her conduct. They very brutally wrote to her, in public and in private, blaming the divorces and the failure of her children on Eleanor Roosevelt's neglect, what they perceived as neglect of her domestic duties. Perhaps one of the most vicious and pettiest letters she received was from a woman who claimed that when she was walking up the ban­ nister in the reception room at the White House, her white gloves got soiled with dust on the bannister. The letter said rather than tearing about the country to be everybody's busybody, you'd be doing better to see to it that the dust is properly wiped in the White House. Once she came into the White House, she began to use her position for a variety of activities, and she developed as they emerged. On the public level, she became the self-appointed spokesman of the New Deal. She saw her major role, not simply in making the New Deal's measures known to the general public, but in arousing the public conscience to an understanding of the kind of crisis that American socie­ ty was facing. From Eleanor Roosevelt's perspective, the crisis of the Great Depres­ sion was not merely an economic disaster, the Great Depression was a spiritual crisis. It was the end of the old order, it was a manifestation that many of the values that American society had subscribed to, particularly unbounded individualism and laissez-faire, had, in fact, become debunked, and that the government, especially the federal government, had to begin to undertake a positive role and to become an honest broker state. As an educator of the public, Eleanor Roosevelt made thousands of speeches, and it was the first time in 20th-century American history that anyone associated with the presidency came to the most remote communities in the nation. She traveled thousands of miles, and the purpose of her travel was not simply to deliver speeches but to act as the eyes and ears of the President. What she brought back to the White House were detailed and very careful reports of the conditions she saw. And she shared those reports not merely with the administrators, but with the public at large through her column, so that the plight of the Depression, and the plight of people whose suffering was intensified by the Depression, but who had been endemically poor for generations, suddenly became known nationwide. Eleanor Roosevelt's role was unique and crucial in that sense in channeling not only the ir\formation to the President, but in channeling a whole host of proposals for new measures and for new programs which individuals brought to her and which she then proposed to the President. In doing so, she was ruthless, her approach was way beyond what any husband would normally want to tolerate from a wife. Franklin Roosevelt had a way of not listening when he didn't what to listen and of changing the subject matter politely but firmly. But whenever such a plan was

48 Women in Politics

proposed, Eleanor Roosevelt would repeat it again, and when it was ignored again, it would show up on the breakfast tray, and there was no escape. I'm not trying to appear here as an Eleanor Roosevelt partisan and to present Frank­ lin Roosevelt as someone who was indifferent or someone who had to be besieged in this manner, but what I think we should understand here is the tension between the two. Eleanor Roosevelt, in her own thinking and in her own aspirations for so­ cial reforms, was much more far-reaching than the President, because of her per­ sonal exposure through her variety of travels. She was able to perceive the urgency of certain measures which the president had been unaware of, and he was grateful to her for that, he instructed her to do that. But secondly, through her travels, she became conscious of lasting inequalities in American society, the plight of blacks and sharecroppers, and Indians, and immigrants in slums whose suffering had been precipitated by the Depression, but was a result of long years of discrimination. The President was less comfortable hearing about those groups, because dealing with those issues necessitated more "radical" action.

Women Leaders by Evelyn Murphy

Evelyn Murphy is Secretary of Economic Affairs, Commonwealth of Massachusetts and a former Fellow of the Institute. The following are edited excerpts from her remarks on November 29, 1983, at a panel discussion, "Women Leaders: The Massachusetts Cabinet," co-sponsored by the Kennedy School Women's Group and the Institute of Politics.

Q: How much power do you actually have? I think we all have as much power as we want to exercise. These positions have enormous power. I spent the first year in Environmental Affairs being awed by how much power was invested in any one of these cabinet positions and how little I un-

49 Women in Politics

derstood it before. In some measure, that power is negative. It is saying no to lots of things. It's sitting over regulatory agencies. There's a lot of public agency busi­ ness which is regulatory, and to that extent, the power is awesome, because you have the ability to stop, slow down things, say no to people, say no to projects. That's the most distasteful, usually the most controversial part of the business—but phenomenal power. One part of the power gets exercised vis-a-vis Washington. There are very few state officials that go to Washington to actively promote legislation. I was the only state official to testify on the Economic Equity Act. It's n\ind boggling. In a day or two of hearings crucial to women, I couldn't find any counterparts from any other state. Another part of the power is to set the state's agenda on issues that are im­ portant, that the press will naturally follow you on. As long as you keep pushing them, you'll get the attention. So, agenda setting for a state is enormously impor­ tant power. And the final power is the power over budgets. Once you get through the hoops a couple of times, both with the legislature and within your own agencies, you've got a lot of space to play in and a lot of ways to influence the thousands of em­ ployees working for you.

Q: Is it more important for women to be in elective or appointed positions? It's important at both levels. To have women as cabinet secretaries instantly dis­ pels the old stereotypes of who can do what kind of job. It's fascinating to watch how quickly you can turn around the images of all these offices that were held by men just by a woman serving there. Same thing with the governor, lieutenant gover­ nor, secretary of state. We've been around a couple hundred years and we've yet to get a woman elected to state-wide office, where the kind of leadership and the attention to the issues that women will raise is so important. We should all at some stage serve in public office, and I'd urge every woman here to run for public office. It is intellectually far more interesting than I ever thought it would be. You learn so much about the state, and about people. It's the only way you really get a Ph.D. in Massachusetts.

Q. Is it important to have women mentors, men mentors? Did you ever have a mentor? I don't think it matters too much. The sheer definition of a mentor puts a kind of strange burden on the relationship, and from my own experience, I've looked to various people for different things, men and women who've served as advisors for me. What's more important is to build that set of advisors over the decades, people that you can turn to when you're going to make a major decision and say, what do you think? That you know personally, that know you professionally, who will give you a straight answer. That's far more important than looking at the mentor model.

50 Women in Politics

Q. How did you get to your present position? Well, I got a Ph.D. in economics. I always figured I was going to have to work doing something and that economics would be a useful degree, so 1 got the Ph.D., and had no work experience at all. I started working on War on Poverty programs and became increasingly critical about how government was running things. I start­ ed writing a book about what had happened in the War on Poverty. And then sud­ denly, Michael Dukakis became governor, and there was a great fanfare about four women being appointed to his cabinet. I was approached when there were three jobs left to discuss: economic affairs, environmental affairs, and consumer affairs. I said, "I don't know anything about the environment; 1 don't know anything about consumer affairs; I'm a trained economist. I've run companies, how about econom­ ic affairs?" The transition people said, "No, that's for the man." That's nine years ago. I became Secretary of Environmental Affairs and I loved it. When we all got thrown out of office, I reasoned that this appointive process was such a fickle business that the surest way back into state government was to run for elective office; so I set out to be lieutenant governor. When that didn't work, I then pursued the Massporl Authority job because that looked marvelously interest­ ing. Then lo and behold, Economic Affairs came along. You've got to keep going at those issues. You just pick yourself up off the street and you get going again. The Massport saga gave me more face recognition and name recognition on the street than running for lieutenant governor. If you really want to be in the public sector, it is a very strange business, some part of it is the timing and the good fortune, and some part of it is just dogged work and pursuit of what it is that would really challenge you, that you think you could serve well in. So, that's why I'm here.

Q. What is the most useful background to have as Secretary of Environmental Affairs? I found the economics background to be the most important thing I could have, because the tangles were between the business community and the environmen­ talists. The environmentalists were accusing the business community of such pollu­ tion that it was going to make everybody sick, and the business community was saying the envirorimentalists are overregulating. This was back when there was an awful recession, high unemployment. That kind of nastiness and rancor meant that you had to sit back and say, what's really true here, because in fact companies were not moving out of the state because of overregulation; we weren't even enforcing any regulations because we didn't have any regulators there. The only other background that would have been helpful to me at the time was engineering because I kept looking at these enormous elaborate plans of sewage treat­ ment plants, and roads. As we moved through the '70s, having a chemistry back­ ground with all the hazardous waste, acid rain, the increasing sophistication of the

51 Women in Politics

chemical issues means that too would be a solid professional background to go at the environment with.

* * »

Equity in the 1980s by Eleanor Holmes Norton

Eleanor Holmes Norton, former Chair of the Equal Emploi/ment Opportunity Commission, was an In­ stitute of Politics Visiting Fellow on March Wand 20, 1984. The following is an edited excerpt from her speech, "Equity in the 1980s" in the ARCO Forum on March 19th.

This evening, I want to look briefly at the reasons our special historical experience has led to the development of special remedies for some Americans which were not necessary for most. Why even a conservative Supreme Court has sanctioned and expanded these remedies. How the remedies work and what their future may now be. In the early 1970s, almost everyone in a position to know complained that affir­ mative action was too weak. The Congress, scholars of the subject and other objec­ tive observers of equal employment opportunity in particular were all highly critical of the results, and civil rights' and women's rights' advocates spoke of discrimina­ tion remedies with something close to derision, claiming that the techniques were too mild, and the results too scant. But the posture of the respective sides of affir­ mative action has changed markedly. As the remedies and their enforcement im­ proved, it is the foes of affirmative action who have assumed the offensive. This change of posture occurred gradually as the remedies became more muscular and found strong sanction from every federal circuit court in the country and even from a conservative Supreme Court which approved them in such controversial decisions as the Bakke and Weber cases, developments that in themselves might well have vindicated the fairness and appropriateness of the measures. But if the controversy did not go away, the old debate has changed. That change is a quite remarkable

52 Women in Politics

reversal of all we expected when Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed. If anyone had claimed in the 1960s, when as students we were shock troops in the civil rights movement, that within the very next decade, the courts, the govern­ ment would be accused of pressing antidiscrimination remedies too vigorously, they would have bought themselves a sure argument. If NAACP lawyers had been warned that these remedies would become so strong that white males would soon sue, claim­ ing reverse discrimination, the suggestion would have seemed so far fetched as to have been unworthy of serious discussion. But it has developed to something more than a discussion. The Bakke and the Weber litigation gave the remedy something close to sensational exposure in the media. Later, William Bradford Reynolds, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, and now the civil rights commission, used federal office to escalate the drum beat, the first time in memory highly placed federal officials have assumed so dis­ tinctly a polarizing posture in equal rights matters. The controversy has dismayed minorities and women. Their reality, their objective experience seems to them so lacking in quality, with advantage as they see it so skewed toward others, that these groups have been impatient with the failure of the present administration and many of their fellow Americans to understand what these groups believe is the transpar­ ent necessity for the remedies. They regard charges of reverse discrimination as simply incomprehensible, but the counter reality, that of those who oppose affirmative ac­ tion, is not always a bogus excuse for maintaining the present job monopolies, or evidence of antipathy to equality. The competing views on affirmative action call upon deep ideals coexisting wi­ thin the American value system. The ideals involved are not hard to locate. On the one hand is the promise of equal treatment, a promise with a very special and tragic history in this country. On the other hand is the conception that personal progress in America is to be self brought, unassisted by government intervention, an ideal that many Americans embrace because they have seen it work for them and the white ethnic groups from which they derive their heritage. These two ideals are, of course, not irreconcilable, but they can be reconciled only with skill and caring national and local leadership that until now has been insufficient. The fact is that the sisters, wives and daughters, and the mothers and aunts of America, by virtue of their numbers the chief beneficiaries of affirmative action in employment today, have not penetrated very deeply or changed attitudes very much. White women experience such massive job discrimination, and constitute such a huge proportion of the work force that they have long ago realized that they have an unusual stake in the maintenance, expansion, and success of affirmative action and they advocate the techniques every bit as ardently as minorities, for employ­ ment discrimination for women represents a particularly pure strain of discrimina­ tion traceable to the immutable characteristic of sex. After all, except for minority women, women as a group have not experienced social, economic or cultural disad-

53 Women in Politics

vantage, and for that reason, absent discrimination, they might be spread across the occupations like their brothers rather than bunched in a few women's jobs. Affirmative action and the remedies it embraces are among the least understood and most controversial social tools in America today. The fact is that affirmative ac­ tion is far more complicated, more subtle and ultimately more effective than an oc­ casional quota case. For correctly done, affirmative action uses dozens of techniques to bring permanent institutionized change to the total personnel system of an em­ ployer. It erases the tendency toward a white male preference that currently exists for most jobs except those at the bottom, growing in part from the more obvious and easy availability of these candidates without an extensive search. It opens the all important recruitment process, requiring business to recruit from a diversity of sources. It gets rid of tests and credentials that are not related to the job to be per­ formed and substitutes selection devices that are job related. It uses goals and time tables, and it involves dozens of other techniques that free personnel systems of bias and introduce minority and female candidates for competition for jobs from which they have been historically barred. By allowing the concept of affirmative action to be debated exclusively around quotas, we have poorly educated Americans about the intricacies of affirmative action, a tool that needs explaining and needs leader­ ship if the nation is to successfully get through this period. Still, the new equality dilemmas are real, the post-1964 remedies raise unprecedent­ ed philosophical challenges for the American people because they depart from the natural generational process that typically has brought extraordinary mobility to or­ dinary people. Yet Americans are successfully absorbing and coping with these great changes, to the great credit of American workers and American business. Remedies to redress inequality have been accepted, not always embraced, but nearly always accepted in the work place. People do not walk off their jobs or even engage in pro­ tests when quotas or goals are imposed or voluntarily applied in the work place. Today, controversy over affirmative action is being generated by neoconservatives, by a few politically motivated members of Congress and by the Reagan administra­ tion which has thus far preferred to exploit the existing puzzlement and concern over affirmative action than to offer responsible national leadership on this and other difficult equality issues. Finally, despite the current controversy, I am not pessimistic about the future of the remedies. Solidly grounded in the rule of law, the remedies will be respected by the American people. If more vigorous and responsible leadership is exercised and greater care is taken to encourage better understanding of the remedies, there will be greater public acceptance. The public must be truly confused today by the difference between the rhetoric of some politicians and appointees on affirmative action, and the consistency of the courts in mandating the remedies. Indeed, politi­ cal efforts to weaken affirmative action have caused some temporary setbacks, but they cannot ultimately destroy affirmative action. The reason of course is that these

54 Women in Politics

remedies are now built into our system of law by thousands of court precedents, and since courts must follow their own precedents, they cannot and will not refuse to follow fifteen years of court decisions that mandate strong affirmative action to overcome the effect of past exclusionary practices. After almost a generation of enforcement, the public is still unaware of some of the most basic facts concerning affirmative action, facts that would help dispel much of the public concern. For example, affirmative action remedies are not permanent fixtures in the workplace but are automatically inapplicable once an employer cor­ rects a violation. An employer may not be required to maintain a given number or quota once his personnel system is no longer exclusionary, because numerical indi­ cators are remedies only, and permanent bench marks. In the past decade, strong enforcement and voluntary action by employers have brought large areas of com­ pliance among employers, an indication that if strong efforts are reasserted, many companies shall have improved so as to be no longer subject to affirmative action remedies in the future. Perhaps most important, the remedies have begun to have a substantial effect of eliminating some workforce inequality at last. We see this, for example, in the pari­ ty, actual equality in wages that now exists between young college-educated black men, and young college-educated white men. These last-resort remedies, developed and approved by the Congress and the courts, only after lesser remedies were tried for many years, and found to be ineffective, are finally bearing fruit. When the sad history of remedy failure is laid out and the new progress issuing from the new reme­ dies is better known, most Americans will see why the Congress, the state legisla­ tures, the courts, and goverrunent agencies uniformly came to develop and embrace affirmative action remedies and why it is so important to build upon this progress. The alternative is simply unthinkable: permanent second class status or unconsciona­ bly slow progress for minorities and women in what, for most others, has been the most bountiful society in the world.

55 Women in Politics

The Gender Gap and the 1984 Campaign by Adam Clymer, Ellen Goodman, Ethel Klein

The following are excerpts from the panel discussion, "The Gender Gap and the 1984 Campaign," held on February 13, 1984 in the ARCO Forum, co-sponsored by the Student Advisory Committee of the Institute of Politics. Adam Clymer reports on politics for The New York Times; Ellen Goodman is a syndicated columnist; Ethel Klein, who served as moderator, is Professor of Government at Harvard.

KLEIN: The gender gap or the women's vote is something that many of us didn't believe was with us just a year or two ago. Now the question has changed from, "Is there a gender gap?" to "What is the gender gap?" Well the gender gap is final­ ly recognizing that women have political views, they want them expressed, and they plan to have an impact on the political agenda. The gender gap in its hopes and dreams is not new. When I was a college student, I looked aghast when I finally found out that this question of the women's vote, that feminism was around longer than I was. I would like to share some of that with you. In 1920, when women won the vote, it was in hopes of making this a better world, of enforcing legislation that improved the work place. With the threat of a women's vote, we had a child labor amendment and a great deal of consumer protection passed through Congress. There was a lot of concern for equality, the civil service was reformed, and progressive women brought a huge agenda to Congress with the threat of the women's vole to implement it. Some major bills got through between 1920 and 1925 and then it turned out that there was no women's vote, that women did not turn out and if they did, they voted just like their husbands did—even single women voted just like their husbands did. But, in any case, with the pressure gone, a lot of emphasis on progressive legislation, reform legislation went with it. For many women, the hopes of what to them was a better world had to wait, wait for issues like unemployment, social security—the New Deal. And then began a whisper in small corners, and then in loud voices, a demand for a woman presi­ dent. In 1935, you had the League for the Appointment of a Woman President and Vice President, demanding that women be placed in office, and demanding their fair share of a political voice. These issues died as the questions seemed to have no one interested in the answer. What we now see is these questions resurfacing. It is important for us to remember that they've been asked before, and to ask: Why are they being asked now, and why are they now being taken seriously?

CLYMER: We've all looked at this subject of the gender gap one way or another. I started by looking at printouts, especially in 1980 when we started noticing a very

56 Women in Politics

considerable difference in the men and women who said they were going to vote for Reagan. We then paid attention to it through the election itself. The exit poll that we did with CBS showed women going for Reagan, forty-seven to forty-five percent, and men going for him fifty-five to thirty-five percent. We found women much more concerned about Ronald Reagan as someone who might get the country into a war, and women also concerned about his economic program, seeing it as risky. One thing we did not find, though we probably spent more time looking for this factor than for any other, was a preference for Carter over Reagan that could be correlated with support for women's issues, e.g. the Equal Rights Amendment, and abortion. In a sample of seven thousand, maybe one percentage point out of ten could relate to that. But what interested us at the Times was whether this was a phenomenon of this election, whether it was something that would go away. To the degree that there's been a difference between how men and women vote in presidential elections as far back as you can measure it, you would find a slight, much slighter than the ten point difference that you found in '80, a slight prefer­ ence in women for the incumbent, or for the party of the incumbent. Were we fac­ ing a very exaggerated case of that, or were we finding something more lasting? We found a widening difference in party identification, more women identifying as Democrats than men; somewhat fewer identifying as Republicans. And we found differences throughout this administration in images of the two parties, in the im­ age of Reagan himself, and in how people said they would vote for congressional candidates in 1982. Now we did not find, in the exit polls conducted in one state after another in 1982, an overwhelming effect. We found about a four percentage point difference nationally, and that matters. You could find statewide races where it would be fair to say that the winning Republican was elected by men's vote and the winning Democrat was elected by women's. The gap, at least in terms of a presidential approval rating, goes back and forth like an accordian. Sometimes it's as low as eight percentage points, sometimes it's as high as seventeen. That seems more often to be a factor of the instability of the level of male support for Reagan. The gap gets wider when men like him more than they did the previous month. Women have been pretty consistent, and they are more consistent than we thought, than we expected across various sorts of demographic groups of women, that is, married or single, working or non-working, age. We spent a lot of effort in November in a poll that oversampled women so we could make this sort of comparison. What sort of effect is this likely to have in 1984? I think it's considerable. It is not just women disliking Reagan. There is something about Ronald Reagan that appeals, in an exceptional way, to a lot of men in the electorate, so that is pushing him up while women are pushing him down. The effect on other Repub­ lican candidates is likely to be greater than it was in 1982 because of Reagan's name on that ballot.

57 Women in Politics

GOODMAN: Well, Til start off by asking the same questions of myself which I a^ked of the Presidential candidates, which are, "Does the Democratic Party have a male problem? Which way does the gender gap go?" Adam talked about this a little bit and I think it's an interesting question because the Republicans are really anxious to prove that the Democrats have a woman problem. I find it interesting that every time Reagan does something truly dreadful, invades something, you know, or somewhere, his rating goes up with men. Adam is abso­ lutely accurate on why the gender gap increases and decreases over time. I think it is in fact a female gender gap, not a male one, because the men keep waffling, the men are really quite fickle. They like Reagan or they stop liking Reagan. But the women's position has remained pretty much the same. I think that's in\portant because I remember talking with Pat Caddell about this in '82 during the elections and he said that for the first time, women were staking out positions first and men were drifting towards them, and that is something really new in political history. If it is a female gender gap, then what is it about? We are saying now that the gender gap is about fairness, equal rights, and peace, and I think that all of these things are connected in some very important ways. I would rename this, if I could, some­ thing like the caretakers gap, and I'll tell you just a little bit about why I see that connection. Last year I discovered that the Reagan pollster, Richard Wirthlin, was walking around with a copy of Harvard Professor Carol GilHgan's book. In a Different Voice, which struck me as the ultimate Odd Couple. It was Gilligan who described the very subtle, fairly constant differences in the moral outlook of men and women. I think one of the crucial quotes comes from her work when she says the moral im­ perative that emerges in interviews with women is an injunction to care, a responsi­ bility to discern and alleviate the real and recognizable trouble of this world. For the men the moral imperative appears rather as an injunction to respect the rights of others and thus to protect from interference the right to life and self-fulfillment. I think this is a fairly decent psychological description that covers peace, the fair­ ness issue, and equal rights issues, particularly as women increasingly include them­ selves in the number of things they are supposed to care about. Then, I think, too, it's important to look at the figures of who constitute the gender gap in a very careful way. When 1 look at The New York Times survey that asked all those most interesting questions in November, the hardest hard core of all those that form the gender gap were single working mothers. Only seventeen percent of those single working mothers thought Reagan should be running for re-election, and this is the single group which is most clearly not benefiting from any kind of improved economy. When you also look at the kind of jobs that this particular group of women have, there's another clue in this. One out of every three employee women in this country works in human services, compared to one out of every ten men. Among all the professional and managerial women—in other words all the women

58 Women in Politics

who have achieved, gotten fairly high up on the spectrum,—more than two-thirds of these women are in health, education and welfare. I think you see a kind of over­ lapping self interest and public interest that runs all the way through women's lives. In other words, if you are a social worker, if you are a single working mother, you not only feel the effects of Reagan's cuts on your job—your Title 20 funds may have been cut back, maybe two people aren't coming to work anymore, maybe you're working a four day job instead of a five, you see how it's affected the people who you are directly dealing with—it's a kind of negative reinforcement because you are being affected in your own life and in your work-life in some ways that I don't think you saw very much before.

59 Political Reflections and Issues

Weapons in Space by Hans Bethe and Edward Teller

On November 9, 1983, Hans Bethe and Edward Teller debated the issue, "Weapons in Space," an ARCO Forum event co-sponsored by the Student Advisory Committee. Drs. Bethe and Teller are renowned phys­ icists who worked on the Manhattan Project in the 2940s. Dr. Bethe is Professor Emeritus at Cornell University. Dr. Teller is Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford. The following is excerpted from the opening statements by Dr. Bethe and Dr. Teller at the debate.

DR. TELLER: I believe there cannot be the slightest question that our purpose is to prevent war and to prevent nuclear war. The question is, "How to do it in an effective way?" I believe that the proposal connected with the name of Robert McNamara, Mutual Assured Destruction, is not only repulsive, it is unacceptable to the American people. Then I look at the movement, popularly called the freeze movement. I can understand it as a moral protest against Mutual Assured Destruc­ tion. I cannot agree with it as to its being effective. It has been claimed to be as sim­ ple as a can opener. It is also as useful in preventing a nuclear war as a can opener. I believe, however, that effective defense is possible. Unfortunately, I cannot ex­ plain in detail how such defense works. I will say this much: the idea to put battle stations into space looks to me quite improbable. One of the very important things, the main point, in defense should be that it must be less expensive than measures by which the opponent can overcome it. If defense is inexpensive, and the cor­ responding offense becomes expensive, then both sides automatically will be forced into defensive posture. It would be much better not to have two armed camps. I'd rather see two armed camps with shields than two armed camps with the equiva­ lent of destructive force. The real question is, is it possible? I did not think it was possible in the 1950s. By 1969, there was a big debate on ballistic missile defense, by which time I thought there was a real chance. I want to tell you a story about that because it illuminates an important point with which we have to deal. It is not a quite serious story, as you will see in a moment. The media in Montana—very nice people, much nicer than the eastern or the western media—invited me to give a talk in Glacier National Park. One day before the park opened I arrived, in beautiful sunshine, went out for a walk, a few people came along, and then in the afternoon, it rained cats and dogs, and I was introduced with these words; "Here on my right is Dr. Teller. You may remember how the sun shone

60 Political Reflections and Issues

this morning. He went for a walk, some of us went with him, and a couple of hundred yards from the Lodge, he picked up a big stick, and I asked him, 'Dr. Teller, what's that stick for?' And Dr. Teller said, 'That stick is against the grizzly bears.' And I said, 'Dr. Teller, don't you know that a stick is not good enough against grizzly bears?' And Dr. Teller said, 'Yes, I know, but I hope the grizzly bears don't.' Dr. Teller will talk about ballistic missile defense." That was the introduction, I deserved the criticism, and I did not deny it. Because at that time I did not have the knowledge that we shared good enough sticks. But I do know, and I did know then, that the grizzly bears in the Kremlin are ex­ ceedingly cautious grizzly bears. And if they are not sure, if they cannot calculate that they'll win, then they won't start, and we surely won't start because the United States simply can't fight a war unless the people are united. I am not for starting a war, and I don't think anybody in this room is, and I don't think anybody in this country is. The question is: "Can we deter war by a better stick than we had in 1969?" Well, in the meantime, a number of ingenious ideas have been forwarded. You may have heard about x-ray lasers. You certainly have heard about common lasers. There are ways, which I'm not allowed to describe in detail, how this can be used. There is a possibility of shooting down in-coming missiles before they reach the ground. A multiple-layer defense can be effective. You will of course ask, "Can such a defense be ninety-nine percent certain? Even that's not sufficient." I will say, "Let's make it as efficient as we possibly can." And I don't know how efficient it will be. But I say, if, on paper, it is eighty percent efficient, we've got something, because that means that in reality it is fifty percent efficient, or perhaps ninety-five percent efficient. And because those grizzly bears are cautious they will have to assume that it is ninety-five percent efficient. And at least as long as our defense is not very ex­ cellent, we ought to retain some retaliatory force, and by the fact of the possibility of defense, we raise the level of uncertainty. And if we haven't done anything else by it, we have gained time, gained time for cooperation, gained a change in climate where people are less afraid, where the Soviets might be more interested in grain imports from the United States than in expanding their empire. Time is something that could be exceedingly valuable. Now I would like to say a few words in general about offense and defense. I claim that each has its clear advantages. Defense is easier and cheaper, and that is essen­ tial. In the past, whoever attacked had to walk a long time, and he got tired by the time he got to the battle. Today he has to shoot faster, and his expenses are greater than the expenses of those who merely want to defend. That will not hold always, but it is a factor that is helpful for the defense. Offense has a clear advantage: it has the advantage of surprise. Therefore, the aggressor, I believe, puts a lot of money, a lot of effort into the aggression in order to make it sure to win. Whereas the defender may need not to have as much money or as much effort. He must have one thing:

61 Political Reflections and Issues

ingenuity and more ingenuity. For complete safety, you have to have infinite in­ genuity, which does not exist. And therefore no defense will, in the end, be perfect. But it can be very good. If enough of our first class scientists—like my very good friend Hans and many others here in the audience—if we all help, there is a chance of enough ingenuity to deter war so that it never comes. Neither do I think that there is enough ingenuity in the United States. We ought to work together with all our allies, with the NATO people, with the Japanese, sharing all information. All of us prefer peace and the preservation of our way of life to any conflict, let alone a nuclear conflict. Now you have heard terrible things about a nuclear war, and many of them are true. I don't believe that a nuclear war will be the end of mankind. I believe all the evidence is on the other side. But the first world war—and both of us have lived through it—has taken ten million lives. The second world war has taken fifty. A third will take at least a hundred million, and quite possibly a billion. And that will be as bad as the black death was. This is so horrible, that one need not exaggerate. We know of the dangers of destroying the ozone layer at least partially, and includ­ ing ultra-violet radiation. I don't believe either of them are terrible dangers. But now there are new possibilities of a change in climate, of the nuclear winter. That re­ quires many more careful calculations, and we have had preliminary meetings with Europeans and we agreed to discuss together the probable consequences of a nuclear war that may fall back on the aggressor himself. 1 believe it is a moral necessity, and a practical necessity, to develop defense. The Soviets are already developing civil defense, a good defense around Moscow, which they have greatly improved recently. I think we cannot afford not to defend our­ selves. And if we succeed in making defense cheaper, we will have gained more time, more time for mutual understanding, more time for cooperation. And in the end, perhaps, peace. To promise peace today is impossible. To find ways, like defense, that may lead toward peace—that I thii\k is possible. I think it is on that point that we ought to agree, and that we can agree. Thank you very much.

DR. BETHE: Edward Teller has told you that ballistic missile defense has greatly improved in the last fifteen years. It has improved, but I think not enough. The speech which President Reagan gave on the 23rd of March, and which both of us heard directly, is generally known as "star wars." I do not believe that star wars will work. Fortunately, there has been an unclassified publication of many of the plans in Avi­ ation Week and Space Technology. In their issues of October 17 and 24, they discuss some of the proposals of the Fletcher Commission, which was appointed by Presi­ dent Reagan to study the concept of space-based defense. The more sophisticated of these proposals may possibly work, but it is far beyond the present state of the art. It is not expected to be achieved even after 1989 which is the time when the Fletcher Committee wants to have the research and development completed.

62 Political Reflections and Issues

In building a space-based defense, we must remember the statement by President Reagan when he announced the idea of such a defense. He said, "I clearly recog­ nize that defensive systems, if combined with offensive systems, can be viewed as fostering an aggressive policy," and no one wants that. I know that Edward Teller does not want it. But no matter what the intentions of the U.S. government are, the Soviets will almost surely consider Reagan's speech, the Fletcher Committee recommendations, and possible future implementation as announcing an aggres­ sive policy by the United States. They will therefore take opposing action. It is very unlikely that they will choose to follow our example and attempt to build a space- based defense. The degree of sophistication required in such a defense is so high that I doubt whether the United States will be able to accomplish it. The Soviets, being appreciably behind in high technology, are not likely to choose this direction; instead, they will choose the simplest course, and that is to build more offensive missiles. Increasing the number of Soviet missiles will intensify the present arms race. Undoubtedly we will follow and also further increase our missile force. Any space ABM system we may achieve will be severely degraded by having to deal with a larger number of missiles. The Soviets can also take many more direct measures to frustrate our space weapon development. It is possible to attack an offensive missile in three places: the first is in the boost phase, and that has great advantage. The most important advantage is that the mis­ sile, while it is being boosted, emits a very strong flame, which can be seen from far away, and can be used as an aim point by the defense. Of course the missile isn't exactly at the flame, but at least this gives a good guide to the defense where to aim. It has the further advantage that in this boost phase, we have to deal only with a single object, the booster. In addition, that booster is more vulnerable than the reentry vehicles which afterwards come out of it. The boost phase also has great disadvantages; it lasts only a very short time—something like two to five minutes— and therefore the defense will have to be very quick about it. As a matter of fact, most of the defenses which have been considered are confined to operation outside the atmosphere and the time which the missile spends outside the atmosphere is very much shorter—maybe only a few seconds, maybe nothing. The second place to attack an enemy missile is in mid-course—mid-way between the Soviet Union and the United Slates. In that place, there are an incredible num­ ber of objects. First of all, each booster will presumably disgorge ten re-entry vehi­ cles, and in addition, once there is an anti-missile defense, it will disgorge many more, like decoys, so that the defense will have to attack possibly a hundred thou­ sand objects, which may be in space at one time. It seems to me that attack in mid- course is essentially impossible. The last place where you can attack an incoming missile is in the re-entry phase, when it actually hits its target. This is our old ABM. Something has been improved on this; I agree with that. And it is quite possible—would be quite possible—for us

63 Political Reflections and Issues

to reinstall the old ABM, but this is not star wars. And the only place which can be so defended effectively are missile sites, like silos. Now, when it comes to deploying our defense, there are again three places where we might do this. One is in low elevation orbit, maybe up to a thousand kilometers. This has the greatest advantage that you then have very few of your defensive satel­ lites in view of the target, which are the Russian missile sites. Only about two per­ cent will be in view of the target, and therefore you have to put into orbit an enormous number of objects for two percent of them to be effective. And these objects would have to have a very large amount of fuel. Let us say the objects are ordinary chemi­ cal lasers. They would have to have a large amount of fuel. And I have estimated, and this is totally unclassified, you would need approximately three hundred such satellites, each of them weighing one hundred tons, to bring one ton into orbit. Costs a million dollars, and in addition of course, the gadget itself will not be cheap. There­ fore I do not believe that this kind of defense will ever be achieved. The second possibility is to put the lasers into geosynchronous orbit. There you would need very much fewer because they would be in view of the Russian missile sites all the time. But, the trouble this time is that you are very far away from your target, so if you put a laser there, its focusing might be absolutely unbelievable, one part in twenty million, that is, you have to hit a target of one foot diameter in Los Angeles from Boston. And you can imagine what this means. You can imagine es­ pecially what this means if it is in outer space and you cannot personally adjust it. Now finally there is the possibility of so-called "pop-up," that is to say you don't put your weapons into orbit, but instead of that, you launch them only when you detect an enemy attack. The trouble with that is that from any territory of the United States it is very far to go to the Soviet Union, and to the place where the missiles are deployed. And it takes about ten minutes for such pop up if it is launched from western Alaska. And the reason for this is that the earth is round, and you have to see your target in order to get any handle on the target. And I want to em­ phasize in this connection, the aiming accuracy, number one, and will the mirror of the laser stand up—the mirror is a very delicate object—and can you find out whether the target has been destroyed? Then there are counter-measures. For instance, the Soviets can fire their ICBM very rapidly, so that our lasers cannot cope with them. Secondly, they can build still more missiles, and that brings us back to the arms race. In fact a greatly intensi­ fied arms race. Third, they can deploy space mines near our laser battle stations, which would be exploded on the battle stations before war breaks out. Finally, our laser mirror is very delicate and therefore it is very easy to destroy. What shall we do if one of our space stations is attacked? What will the Soviets do if we retaliate by attacking their space installation? We know from the Korean airliner incident that the Soviets are very nervous, even in the face of modest provo­ cation. So I believe the only way to prevent the creeping war in space would be

64 Political Reflections and Issues

to have an arms control agreement on these space weapons. But since the Soviets will be obviously inferior in space defense weapons for a long time, they will have no incentive to enter into an agreement to limit their counter-measures. Moreover, with the many different devices contemplated, it would be almost impossible to draft an arms control agreement on ballistic missile defense, let alone agree on one. In the absence of such an agreement, the uncertainty surrounding defense will make worst-case analysis by the military still more extreme than it has been, so that each side will prepare not for the likely attack from the other side, but for five times that attack. And hence, this will accelerate the general arms race. At best, embark­ ing on space weapons will give us twenty years of intensified arms race and insta­ bility and will nullify any past or future attempt at arms control during that period. If we are successful, then at the end of the twenty years the defense may have be­ come superior to the offense. But more likely, we shall still have that arms race, and at the end, offensive missiles will still be able to penetrate and threaten our country. The President wishes to develop a space-based defense in order to make offen­ sive nuclear missiles obsolete. This would be a great achievement, if it could be done. But it would be far easier, and far less dangerous, to reduce the arsenals of nuclear weapons on both sides drastically in the near future. Thank you.

65 Political Reflections and Issues

Making Government Work by Alice Rivlin Alice Rivlin, former Director of the U. S. Congressional Budget Office and now a Fellow at the Brookings Institution, delivered this year's Codkin lecture Series on March 6 and 7, 1984, on "Making Govern­ ment Work," co-sponsored by the John F. Kennedy School of Government and the Institute of Politics. The following is an edited excerpt from the second lecture.

The last couple of decades, the '60s and '70s, have given us a great outpouring of reform effort aimed at improving the decision processes of government at the feder­ al level and at other levels by making it more systematic and more organized and more orderly and more informed. This grew out of the observations of a lot of peo­ ple in the '50s and '60s that policymaking at the federal government was pretty haphazard and casual, that often programs were continued because of sheer iner­ tia. Nobody really looked to see if they were doing any good. They weren't exa­ mined; they weren't evaluated. The objectives of government programs often were not very clear to anybody. Success was not stated in ways that were measurable. Decisions to do something different might be made just because somebody had a bright idea that captured somebody's imagination. A lot of the war on poverty was like this. There was no real attention to what the objective was, to how it would be measured, to what it would cost, to what alternative ways of meeting that objec­ tive were available. There wasn't much information about program costs and about their effects and there really wasn't much planning ahead. The federal government ran on a year-to-year basis without a lot of thought about where it was going, and furthermore, decisions were often about the wrong thing. They were often decid­ ing about small increments to a program when they should have been thinking about whether there wasn't some major alternative or whether it needed to be done at all. That mind-set or line of thinking brought several waves of reform: the planning programming budgeting system, or PPB; management by objectives; zero-based bud­ geting. These flourished, often with a lot of zest and almost messianic enthusiasm, and they had in common a number of elements. One was the importance of spell­ ing out objectives in measurable terms, so that you knew what you were aiming for. Another was spelling out costs and effects of alternative ways of meeting those objectives. Another theme that ran through all of them was the importance of or­ ganizing information in a systematic way so that it was available at the moment that the decision was made, and sequencing decisions so that they could build up to a final set of trade-offs usually focused on putting together the President's budget. Another consistent theme was making a longer-range plan for an agency or for the

66 Political Reflections and Issues

government as a whole, and then trying to translate back the longer-range thiitking into more immediate budget decisions—trying to make sure that the big issues got addressed, that trade-offs were at the top and not just at the bottom, and that a consistent effort was made to get away from incrementalism. At the beginning this movement assumed that you had an activist government. The Defense Department was fighting a war. There were decisions to be made and there wasn't any question something had to be done—the question was how to do it better. It spread to the domestic side of the government in the mid-60s in the war on poverty, but again in the atmosphere of an activist government there was no question that something would be done. The whole movement persisted in the more conservative Nixon and Ford era where there was great concern, not so much with activism and doing new things but with evaluating what was being done, consolidat­ ing it, weeding out what wasn't useful and managing the government better. This was a period, actually, of great emphasis on experiments in social programs and finding ways of managing the government better. It interests me, incidentally, that the Reagan administration isn't on this kind of wavelength at all; it's very different from the last conservative administration un­ der Nixon and Ford. The Reagan administration, it seems, is very interested in less government, but not really in efforts to manage the government better. It is true that budgeting didn't get all of the attention during that period. The '60s and early '70s were a time when faith in information and reports was extremely widespread. It brought the social indicators movement, which was a movement in the real sense. It was, again, messianic: there were people who really felt very strongly that the good of the country would be much advanced if we could measure better aspects of the social health of the nation and make an annual report on progress towards social goals. That never actually became an annual activity of the federal govern­ ment, although we tried one year, when I was in HEW in the late '60s to put together a prototype annual social report. It was also the era of the housing goals in which Congress and the administration worked very hard to put together a set of quan­ titative housing goals and then report each year on how the nation was doing in meeting its goals. The last legislative expression of this general point of view, I think, came in the Humphrey-Hawkins bill in the late '70s. But after a great deal of debate, the Congress again expressed faith in the importance of the government articulating to itself a quantitative goal. There was an enormous fight about whether the goal for unemployment should be three percent or four percent, which sounds kind of quaint these days. I think the compromise was that it should be three percent adult unemployment, which took the teenagers out and made it a little bit easier to hope that one might meet that goal. That is still, so far as I know, the official goal of the United States Government—to bring unemployment down to that level. There is also some language about what should happen to ii\flation, and the administration and the Federal Reserve Board are required under the Humphrey-Hawkins Act to

67 Political Reflections and Issues

report on progress towards those goals. By the time that bill was actually passed, I think it was already felt that the goal of three percent unemployment was proba­ bly unobtainable at least at any acceptable inflation cost, but it became legislation anyway. Another final aspect of this general view that actually never saw formal legisla­ tion enactment was the sunset movement—the idea that all federal programs should have a finite terminal life on a fixed schedule. Again, there was a lot of argument about whether it should be annual or semi-annual. There were plans and counter- plans about how often to do this, but on some fixed rotational schedule all the pro­ grams of the federal government should be re-evaluated and looked at in terms of their objectives and how well they were meeting them. It reflected the emphasis on evaluation, on periodic reassessment, and 1 think it reflected an idea that under­ lay much of this effort—that one of the problems of federal policy was that we kept on doing a lot of things because we've always been doing them without ever re- looking at whether we really wanted to do them or not. Everybody's favorite exam­ ple in those days was the Federal Board of Tea Tasters. I don't know whether it still survives, but if you were making a Proxmire-type speech you would focus on the Board of Tea Tasters and the supposed advantage of having it sunset at some point with the assumption that no program analysis of any importance would really re-establish the Board of Tea Tasters once it went out of business. The government does operate in an atmosphere of much more relevant informa­ tion about almost everything than it did fifteen or twenty years ago. We do very sensibly pay more attention to the objectives of programs and to evaluating the out­ comes of government activities. We have the benefit in Washington, both in the Con­ gress and in the executive branch, of highly trained professional staffs, trained not just as managers but as professional analysts and professional decision makers. Un­ questionably, we are better equipped at the federal level and better staffed to make decisions than we used to be.

68 Political Reflections and Issues

Absolutes and Pluralism: Religion in Political Campaigns By Jonathan Moore

TTiis essay is part of the published report on the conference on "Religion and the Campaign for Public Office" co-sponsored by the Institute of Politics and the Harvard Divinity School on June 10-11, 1984. Mr. Moore is Director of the Institute.

I found it especially interesting that the discussion among religious and political participants of varying blends revealed both a strong conviction that religion should be active in political campaigns and a persistent reluctance to recognize the problems which could be created by this engagement. Given my own strong belief that politi­ cal discourse should be illuminated by religious values I was pleased with the force­ ful consensus not only that you couldn't keep religion out of campaigns if you wanted to but also that the involvement should be encouraged because of the benefits to be gained. Yet I was discouraged at what I perceived to be too general a lack of ap­ preciation that this combination would also bring trouble which would have to be addressed alertly, with care and constraint. Some among our fascinating group of conferees made this point, but not many. It struck me a little like diving into a rough surf without having thought beyond the dog paddle, or endorsing the notion that there was such a thing as a free lunch. At the least we were not dealing seriously with the consequences of our actions. When deciding to hold this conference, its sponsors were motivated by a concern about indifference and avoidance. That is, too many churchpeople, politicians and voters either didn't seem to care at all or wanted to keep religion out of campaigns. But we were also worried about exploitations. That is, the tendency of others on both sides to use religion as a device to serve narrower, self-interested ends: reli­ gious organizations superimposing doctrine on the electoral process arbitrarily; and campaign pros manipulating religious images and issues for political gain. Our con­ ference dealt better with the first concern than the second. The problem arises when one mixes absolutes and variables. On the one hand, how can one tolerate religious beliefs being compromised, bargained with, submit­ ted to the chaos and anarchy of political combat? On the other, how can one ask political warriors not to plan their battles to win by any means available? Exactly; the situation is a difficult one. This is essentially what's going on in the hassle between Governor Mario Cuomo and Archbishop John J. O'Connor. Cuomo doesn't seem quite to be sajdng religious

69 Political Reflections and Issues

values and electoral politics should be kept separate. Not above playing a little .po­ litics himself, he is also warning about how it's done: be careful not to impose pri­ vate morality or specific religions on one another ... if we don't watch out, it can be divisive and fragmenting and imperil rights . . . it's a tricky business. When Se­ nator Mark Hatfield states that the Christian church is "too political and too secu­ lar" today, it may be that he's suggesting a kind of apartheid for religion and politics, but more likely that he's concerned with the way in which the church uses its unique moral strength and the dangers triggered when it turns to playing with political power. This apparent reluctance, once committed to the fray, to perceive the dangers there­ in was reinforced by two other patterns I noted at our June meeting. One was the argument against a wrong-headed "dichotomy" between religion and politics and for the claim that "we're really all the same" — there's no significant difference be­ tween religious and political organizations and individuals. The first part of the ar­ gument is right, the second is wrong. It's not a question of either complete separation or complete similarity; the reality lies in the combination of shared and differing characteristics. Homogenization, in this respect, tends to encourage excesses and discourage constraints; discrimination, so to speak, tends to encourage mutual respect for each other's role. Presumably, the essentially political actors have special com­ petence for helping make a pluralistic democracy work, whereas the predominantly religious actors can help provide spiritual guidance to the contending factions in the electoral process. We don't want our bishops to be our party chiefs, or our ward heelers to be our evangelists. The preserved distinction is essential to the construc­ tive combination. The second pattern was consistent with the first; the limited ability of the par­ ticipants to move from the exposition of separate positions on the overall subject to an examination of the common problems encountered in the interaction of the two realms and to some ideas on how constructively to deal with them. Should cam­ paign managers aggressively line up religious forces to attack their opposing candi­ dates? Should religious organizations depict the public policy positions of opposing candidates as evil? We had a hard time even agreeing this sort of behaviour might be going on, let alone exploring together what might be done about it. What's the reason for these attitudes? Probably more time than we took is needed to peel the onion and evolve the dialogue. Some of the discussants may not want to expose their views either because they like the situation the way it's working now or they don't. Maybe political people are too accepting of their hurly-burly world or reluctant to second-guess the pulpit from the marketplace. Perhaps religious people, having rationalized their leap from the absolute into the pluralistic, feel too insecure to be able to acknowledge the possible costs and dangers or are confused with how to deal with them. Anxiety about the precariousness of the purity and clarity of their beliefs as they enter the ambiguous political world

70 Political Reflections and Issues

may inhibit discriminating choices concerning types and intensity of political activity. Religious life deals naturally more in doctrine and absolute ideas, and it's not sur­ prising behaviorally that constancy is more familiar than compromise. Politics is rela­ tive, and continuous flexibility is the natural order. Some religious actors will back off from this, others will jump in. Given my own political experience and concern about the increasing reliance on technology, commercialism and negativity in the way we practice our politics, jumping all the way in can be unfortunate. Of course it sounds hypocritical to say "We want religious interests in campaigns as long as they don't misbehave", but when it's arjgued that we need to have our political life enriched by moral and religious insight it's not that we need more direct mail, tele­ vision marketing, and attack campaigning. Politics will accomodate anything that comes along, gobble up all comers; religion has the most to give and the most to lose — given the nature of our politics and ourselves it's not automatic that revela­ tion will be unobscured and apostles untrammeled. De Tocqueville, perhaps a touch too ur\faithfully, wrote: "Once religion is mixed with the bitter passions of the world, it cannot avoid losing influence; the church cannot share the temporal power of the state without being the object of a portion of that animosity which the latter excites." In Harvey Cox's opening talk, he asked how could political discourse be "linked once again to the larger universe of moral vision", and in such a way that "we have a chance of restoring democratic vigor" and a community of citizens actively prac­ ticing duties and obligations as well as enjoying rights. Now that's a very ambitious charge, requiring, it seems to me, the exploration of some helpful and voluntary standards. There is liable to be more trouble, turmoil and conflict, in my view, without some mutual constraint. If we want to perpetuate the active engagement of religion in a pluralistic demoaa- cy, two practices might be considered. First, broad moral and religious beliefs rather than specific laws may make the greatest contribution with the least danger. Ideas of transcendence and spirituality—love and peace, justice and mercy, faith and redemption—both illuminate our political dialogue and enable the individual citizens themselves to make the translations to specific policy positions and judgment on specific candidates. Each respect the roles of the other, and enhances it. If these teach­ ings have the power we attribute to them and if the ideal of democracy residing in the free choice of its individual voters is valid, then the mutual involvement will work well. If religious authorities dictate hard, narrow rules and instructions in political choice, the result will not be as mutually salutary. A second constraint, following closely on the first, relates to emphasis and style. Religious values and beliefs could be urged in terms of their intrinsic truth and power, rather than hustled and merchandised. And, commitment, energy and persistence in carrying the world needn't lead to over-aggressiveness. When religious convic­ tions are pursued militantly in political life it can too easily resemble a holy war. Accusations, intimidation and vindictive ness aren't the best qualities with which to achieve our dual purpose.

71 Political Reflections and Issues

Constraints for any religious activity can be suggested only with trepidation, par­ ticularly by a layman who reveals his own preferences in doing so. But as long as we remain a secular state and a free democracy there are competing ideals and in the open political arena both have to find ways to honor the other.

The Problem That Baffled Jefferson by Judith Martin Judith Martin, a.k.a. Miss Manners, is a syndicated columnist and author who writes on etiquette. This article is excerpted from her speech in the ARCO Public Affairs Forum on May 10, 1984, co-sponsored by the John M. Olin Foundation and the Institute of Politics.

The problem that baffled Thomas Jefferson was an etiquette problem. It was, and remains, the great American etiquette problem: how to adapt European systems of etiquette, based on court life and hereditary social classes, to make them appropri­ ate for a democracy. A number of other American etiquetteers have struggled with this mighty problem as well—Benjamin Franklin, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Eleanor Roosevelt. How is it possible to express equality, individual freedom, social mobility, and the dignity of labor in the language of human social behavior (which is what etiquette is)? The belief that natural behavior is beautiful and that civilization and its manners spoil the essential goodness inherent in all of us noble savages is, of course, the Jean Jacques Rousseau school of etiquette. He began his career as a footman, you may recall. A major influence of Jefferson's time, Rousseau's philosophy survives in the pop-psychology and "human potential" movements of today (the concept that civilization is corrupt and nature is benign is particularly popular in earthquake- and-flood ridden Ccdifornia) and in the child-rearing philosophy that has given us so many little—savages. The natural approach to human relations presumes that to know any person well

72 Political Reflections and Issues

enough is to love him, that the only human problem is a communication problem. This denies that people might be separated by basic, deeply held, genuinely irrecon­ cilable differences—philosophical, political or religious. One has to beheve that all such differences are no more than misunderstandings. Many forms of etiquette are employed exactly to disguise those antipathies that arise from irreconcilable differ­ ences, in order to prevent mayhem. The reason that diplomacy is so stilted is that its purpose is to head off the most natural social relation between countries in con­ flict, namely war. The charge is often made against etiquette that it is artificial. Yes, indeed, it is. Civilization is artificial. I have found that when people extoU the vir­ tues of naturalness, honesty, informality, intimacy, and creativity—watch out. They are about to insult you to your face. Whenever the expectation exists that manners ought to be in full compliance with morals, there arise ethical problems from the very polite fictions or conventions that smooth ordinary life. "Madam is not at home" was clearly understood, in the days of obligatory formal visiting, to mean, "Madam can't face you, any more than you can her, but takes due note of the fact that you have done your duty." Nowadays, we never allow ourselves the convenience of being temporarily unavailable, even to strangers. With telephone and beeper, people subject themselves to being ins­ tantly accessible to everyone at all times, and it is the person who refuses to be on call, rather than the importunate caller, who is considered rude. Those who believe in unwavering, literal truth also claim special license to be rude by giving honest answers to such careless questions as "Do I look all right?" Perhaps the greatest rudenesses of our time come not from the callousness of strangers, but from the solicitousness of intimates who believe that their frank criticisms are al­ ways welcome, and who feel free to "be themselves" with those they love, which turns out to mean being their worst selves, while saving their best behavior for strangers. Finally, the trouble with inventing etiquette forms is that it is a game everybody can play. Each person not only claims the right to design his own etiquette, but also to be insulted if others do not observe it, even if he has not troubled to acquaint them with his preferences. The lack of standardization of manners results in an anger- ridden, chaotic society, where each trivial act is interpreted as a revelation of the moral philosophy of the individual actor, who is left standing there naked in his mores. We must standardize American manners, not only to complete Jefferson's unfortunately sidetracked project of developing a democratic etiquette, but to make order of the current chaos and to relieve people of the burden of developing and defending their own choices in the most common, everyday matters. We need a coherent code of manners. I would prefer ratings based not on commerce-dictated expenditure, but on gentility of manners. I think we will proba­ bly eventually adopt a system of precedence based on age, rather than gender, and I rather think that is a good idea, as it gives everyone a shot at being last and then

73 Political Reflections and Issues

first. But please, let us not require people to pass ideological tests every day. I believe that the only hope for equality in this society is reestablishing the dual­ ism of the commercial and the personal realms. Instead of assigning people to'one or the other by gender, we need to change the society so that everyone can enjoy some of each. Freedom ought to include the right to bestow friendship as one chooses. If we truly believe in the dignity of labor, any task can be performed with pride be­ cause no honest work can demean the basic dignity of a human being. Equality means that one does not take one's identity in society from the job slot one happens to fill. I would hope that a revival of the private realm would preclude hierarchies in which absolute standards, such as job titles and money rather than personal qual­ ities, mark some individuals as obviously superior to others.

Remembering Harry Truman by Clark Clifford and David McCuUough The following are edited excerpts from the panel discussion, "Remembering Harry Truman: A Centen­ nial Retrospective," held in the ARCO Forum on April 24, 1984. Clark Clifford served as Secretary of Defense and as Legal Counsel to the President in the Truman administration. David McCuUough is the author of the forthcoming Harry S. Truman and the American Character.

David McCuUough The state of Missouri, as you know from your map, is right smack in the middle of the country. Truman's part of Missouri is Independence, which is on the west border. It's not at all like most easterners picture it. It isn't flat, it isn't very mid- western; it's very southern, and it isn't hick. Harry Truman has sometimes been portrayed as a wonderful folk figure, a kind of cosmic hick who soars to prominence and greatness through some miraculous transformation worked by the architecture and ambience of the White House. Harry Truman grew up in a thoroughly southern atmosphere with its biases and its charm. He knew poverty, disappointment, phys­ ical handicap, ridicule, embarrassment, hard times, and a very stern notion of right

74 Political Reflections and Issues

and wrong drilled into him by his family, by his teachers, by his preachers, by his town. He is, in a sense, the flip side of the coin of what produced George F. Babbitt. It's easy to romanticize that kind of background, but it's also easy to dismiss it as being corny or inconsequential or passe. He was bom in 1884, which was the reign of Chester A. Arthur. He was a nineteenth century man, a very important point it seems to me. His values were from the nineteenth century. He believed you owned up to your mistakes. He be­ lieved that you pay your bills. He believed that you never whined when you were in trouble, that you were loyal to your family, your state, your friends and to your­ self. And you were very proud of where you came from, and if you were the right sort of fellow, you never forgot where you came from, as he said, and you knew you were going to go back. Thomas Wolfe told us that you can't go home again. Harry Truman, however, in the 1960s as a retired president, did go home again and most successfully. Mr. Truman—they still call him Mr. Truman in Independence- lived in Jackson County, Missouri for seventy years of his life. Only twenty years were spent in Washington. I don't think any consideration of Harry Truman can be complete without under­ standing Franklin Roosevelt, the great position that he occupied, not just in office and in history but in the public imagination. Harry Truman was only two years younger than Franklin Roosevelt, yet he seemed so much younger, he seemed so much more vivid and active physically. In many ways, Truman was much more like Theodore Roosevelt. There are some marked similarities, it seems to me, between Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman. Both were crippled in their childhood by their eyesight, and as a consequence lived within an inner world that they created for themselves chiefly through books. Harry Truman probably knew more history than any president of this century ex­ cept Woodrow Wilson or Theodore Roosevelt or Franklin Roosevelt, and I think it's not coincidental that those are probably the greatest presidents we've had in this century. If we have a language requirement for our candidates for the State Depart­ ment, we ought to have a history requirement for our candidates for the White House. It seems to me that a president must have certain basic ingredients. Number one should be backbone. Number two is a sense of history, context, within which he himself is operating and his times are pertinent. Number three, he should have a capacity to persuade. Truman said there was no power of the presidency except that. Another ingredient ought to be imagination. The Marshall Plan, the Berlin Airlift were acts of imagination. Finally, I think a president has to have a very sure sense of self. Truman knew who he was, he liked who he was, he loved being Harry Tru­ man. He had a very good time being Harry Truman and he had an extremely good time, the best time of his life, being President Harry Truman. He is the only presi­ dent that I know of who was in better health when he came out of the White House than he was when he went in.

75 Political Reflections and Issues

Clark Clifford President Truman's attitude toward his staff is a valuable indicator of the man. He had a personal relationship with each of the men. He was interested in their families and it bound the men to him in a manner not seen in other administrations. He met every morning with his top six advisors in his office at 8 o'clock, and some­ times it took a half hour, sometimes 45 minutes or so. One morning the mail clerk, Bill Hopkins, brought in a letter. It was a large letter, pale lavender, and there was a great regal seal down in one corner and flowing lavendar ribbons. The president said to Bill, "What in the world is that?" And Bill said, "It is a letter to you from EbanSaud, theKingof Saudi Arabia." "Well," said the President, "Let's open it." The salutation in the letter was "Your magnificence." "Well," the President said, "what do you think of that boys? This is pretty good for a Jackson County farm boy. 'Your magnificence!' 1 don't know what you all call me, when you're alone and I'm not there, but I suggest, from now on, you might refer to me as His Mag­ nificence." Well, everybody had a good laugh over it. In about two weeks, the Presi­ dent sent a message to the United Nations, recommending the admission of 100,000 Jews to Palestine. In three days, he had another letter from Eban Saud, which start­ ed, "Dear Sir." Everybody who works for a president always has encomiums to bestow upon that particular president. He feels that he was the greatest president, he accomplished the most of any president, but there were qualities that Mr. Truman had that really were quite rare. One of the great qualities he had was courage. He would take on an issue and see it through, no matter what the cost was to him in distress and pos­ sibly political loss of support. I might pick any number of instances, but let me pick out one that had the greatest impact on me. At the time he entered the White House, the debate over Palestine raged. He early took a position on it: he favored the estab­ lishment of a Jewish homeland, and as the matter developed, he became aware of the opposition that he was getting from the State Department. There was a con­ stant stream of critical comments in the press that came from his own administra­ tion. The Defense Department was unalterably opposed to the establishment of a Jewish homeland because they were interested in the fact that it was the Arabs who had the oil, and someday they felt that that would be a very important asset in the world in the event that we have another war. In the early part of 1947, the impact of the State Department opposition began to increase steadily. By the early part of 1948, we had an extraordinarily embarrass­ ing and humiliating incident. He had the understanding throughout the govern­ ment that under no circumstances would we ever agree to a trusteeship arrangement, and that if it reached the point where temporarily it might be best, just as a means of ultimately getting partition, it should not happen until it was cleared with him. Our U.N. ambassador stood up one day and made a speech, placing the United States positively and unequivocably behind the principle of trusteeship. It took weeks and weeks to get it straightened out.

76 Political Reflections and Issues

Finally, it was announced that on a certain day, the Jewish fathers in Israel would announce the existence and the foundation of the Jewish homeland. President Tru­ man called a conference to try to persuade General Marshall, who was unalterably opposed to it, to try to get him to go along and support the move, and if not to support it, at least not to oppose it, to take a neutral position. General Marshall was a great American with a great reputation he had gained through the war as a loyal dedicated American, and the President needed his support if he was to get any kind of action from the Congress. So the President said to me, "I want you to present our side of the case just as though you were making an argument before the Supreme Court of the United States. Take whatever time you want and I hope that we might persuade General Marshall." I went through the notes that I had of various talks with President Truman and I organized his thinking; they had such an impression on me that I remember them to this day, and it's almost forty years ago. First, he wanted the establishment of a Jewish state because, he said, "Humanity must finally be tired, sick to death, of intolerance, and this will be a step toward ridding the world of intolerance." Second, he said, "I'm opposed to persecution of all kind. Persecution has been endured through the centuries. The time has come to stop it, and this is a perfect time to do it. We, as children of God, must not permit this to go on." Third, he said, "As human beings, we all must have a feeling of some obligation, a feeling of some guilt over the liquidation of six million Jews by Hitler and the Third Reich, and this will be an act to correct that heinous wrong, maybe the greatest wrong ever done in the history of the world." Fourth, he said, "After the war, there were millions of displaced persons in the world, and they all had some place to go home to except the Jews. I want them to have a place to go home to, and I'll fight to the end to see that they have a place to go home." Next, he said, "If you'll read the Old Testament, there's a quotation in Genesis, there's one in Isaiah. If you'll read it in the light of what's happened today, there's an im­ plied promise there to the Jews to have their homeland, and I intend to follow that particular admonition, and I intend to try to comply with that promise." And then, last, the point he had made again and again was that the Balfour Decla­ ration of 1917, as issued by the British minister of state, had definitely promised that the United Kingdom would support the homeland for the Jews. This formed the basis of^my argument when General Marshall and Robert Lovett and two of their assistants came in. General Marshall's face just got redder and red­ der and redder during the course of the presentation. Finally, when I finished and the President turned to him, he exploded, and he said "I don't know why I have to sit and listen to this. I don't even know why Clifford's here at the meeting." And the President said, "He's here. General, because I asked him to be here." Later that day. Bob Lovett called and he said, "I've been dreadfully uneasy ever since the morn­ ing meeting. I hate to see the breach between the President and General Marshall. Why don't you drop by my home and have a drink on your way home?" and I said

77 Political Reflections and Issues

I would. We talked it out, and he led the State Department in the right direction. Finally, General Marshall called the President and said, "I will not oppose the recog­ nition of Israel." Mr. Lovett and I met and spent quite a while preparing the an­ nouncement, I got in touch with the Jewish representative and he sent in the application for recognition. At five o'clock, the Jewish state came into existence, with the name of Israel. Some of us had thought they might name it Judea. Eleven minutes later, the United States recognized the new nation of Israel. I close this story by moving about three months later on. The Israeli prime minister was in New York and President Truman was in New York. He had addressed the U.N. and he called the prime minister, and said, "\ understand you're in New York. I will drop over and see you." The prime minister said, "Well, I can't let you do that; I'll come and see you at the White House." "No," the president said, "we don't need to follow protocol. I'll come over to see you." And the prime miiuster later wrote in a book of the visit that he had had with President Truman. He said I told President Truman that I did not know what his place would be in American history, but I knew that as far as Jewish history was concerned, he would have a preeminent place, that he would always be honored, almost as one of the fathers of their homeland, that he had stood up so manfully with that indomitable spirit of his during this long period of trial. He had finally succeeded. The prime minister said, "As I spoke to him, his eyes filled with tears." He said, "I saw a tear go down his cheek." And he said, "I never had seen a man so moved, and I tried to keep him a little longer, because there were reporters outside and I didn't want them to see him in this condition, but after a while he said he must go and he left, and a reporter came in afterwards and said, "Why were President Truman's eyes filled with tears?" And there the story stopped. I went through it with him, I know why they were. They were because finally his God, President Truman's God had seen fit to grant him one of the deepest wishes that he had ever had in his life, and it was the feeling of joy and fulsomeness that swept over him when the prime minister called his attention to it and paid him that honor. Thank you very much.

78 11. Programs Programs

CONTENTS

ADMINISTRATION AND ADVISORY COMMITTEES 85 Administration and Staff 86 The Senior Advisory Committee 86 The Faculty Advisory Committee

THE STUDENT PROGRAM 87 The Student Advisory Committee 88 Student Study Groups 98 Summer Research Awards 99 Public Affairs Internships 104 Harvard Political Review 106 Student Projects

THE FELLOWS PROGRAM 111 The Panel on Fellowships 111 Fellows' Alumni Advisory Committee 112 Institute Fellows

THE FACULTY STUDIES PROGRAM 115 Campaign Finance 116 Presidential Transition 117 The State and the Poor

PROFESSIONAL STUDY PROGRAMS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS 119 Seminar on Transition and Leadership for Newly-Elected Mayors 121 Seminar for Massachusetts Mayors 124 Presidential Candidates '84 127 Religion and the Campaign for Public Office THE PRESS-POLITICS CENTER 130 History and Rationale 130 The Media & The Congress 134 Seminar on the World Debt for National Political Journalists 135 How the Press Affects Federal Policy Making 136 New Communications Technologies and Democratic Values

138 THE FORUM

Administration and Advisory Committees

Administration and Staff Derek Curtis Bok, President, Harvard University Graham T. Allison, Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Covemment Jonathan Moore, Director, Institute of Politics

Ruth Ballinger, Media Services Coordinator Stephen Bates, Research Coordinator, Markle Project Carl Brauer, Research Fellow Theresa Donovan, Fellows Program Coordinator Carolyn Fontaine, Secretary to the Director, fall '83 Miriam Ford, Forum Assistant Margaret Fresher, Receptionist Karen Jentsch Hurtado, Receptionist; Forum Staff Assistant Anne Doyle Kenney, Internship Program Coordinator Martin A. Linsky, Assistant Director and Project Director, Revson Project William G, Mayer, Special Assistant to the Director Mary McTigue, Financial and Administrative Assistant, spring '84 Wendy O'Donnell, Senior Research Assistant, Revson Project Elizabeth Pleasants, Financial Assistant, Assistant Director, fall '83 Diane C. Pliner, Secretary to the Director, spring '84 Andrew W. Robertson, Research Assistant David Strickland, Receptionist, fall '83 Charles Trueheart, Associate Director Sonia Wallenberg, Student Program Assistant David Whitman, Research Coordirmtor, Revson Project

85 Administration and Advisory Commitees

The Senior Advisory Committee Barber B. Conable, Jr. John C. Culver Mrs. Katharine Graham Milton S. Gwirtzman The Lord Harlech, K.C.M.G., Chair Henry M. Jackson* Vernon E. Jordan Edward M. Kennedy John F. Kennedy, Jr. George C. Lodge Robert S. McNamara Mrs. Jacqueline Onassis Warren Rudman R. Sargent Shriver *The Institute is sad to note the death of Senator Jackson on September 1, 1983.

The Faculty Advisory Committee Francis M. Bator, Professor of Political Economy and Chair of Public Policy Program Ph.D. Committee, Chair Samuel H. Beer, Eaton Professor of the Science of Government, Emeritus Hale Champion, Executive Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government Robert M. Coles, Professor of Psychiatry and Medical Humanities Philip B, Heymann, Professor of Law Stanley H. Hoffmann, C. Douglas Dillon Professor of the Civilization of France Jonathan Moore, Director, Institute of Politics, Ex-Officio Mark H. Moore, Daniel & Florence Guggenheim Professor of Criminal Justice, and Policy Management Richard E. Neustadt, Lucius N. littauer Professor of Public Administration Daniel Steiner, Vice President and General Counsel to the University Robert B. Stobaugh, Professor of Business Administration

86 The Student Program

The Student Advisory Committee (SAC) Steven Grand, Chair, Fall Peter Gelfman, Vice-Chair, Fall John Moore, Jr., Chair, Spring Joseph Freeman, Vice-Chair, Spring Committee Chairs were: Campaign '84 Coordinator Projects Kenneth J. Drexler Charic Daniels, Fall Communications Nadine Parker, Spring Arabella Wattles, Fall Study Groups Liz Contreras, Spring Kenneth J. Drexler, Fall Fellows Donney Leffall, Spring Kenneth Louard, Fall Summer Awards Elizabeth Losos, Spring Elizabeth King, Fall Internships Visiting Fellows Dale Curtis, Fall Edward Jew, Fall Ann Heilman, Spring Jean Schiro, Spring

SAC Members were: Theresa Amato Ed Gibson David Michael Trena Bristol John Glazer John Moore, Jr. Christine Chambers Steven Grand Nadine Parker Joseph Cislowski Ann Heilman David Schanzer Elizabeth Contreras Mary Hennessey Jean Schiro Dale Curtis Edward Jew Michael Schwartz Charic Daniels Donney Leffall Juan Sepulveda James Deutsch Elizabeth Loses Sean Smith Leah Dickerman Kenneth Louard Nicole Walthour Kenneth J. Drexler Amy Mall Janice Sue Wang Joseph Freeman Thomas Marler Arabella Wattles Brian Gallogly Gregory McCurdy Derek West Celeste Garcia Thomas McGuire Robert Yarbrough

87 The Student Program

Student Study Groups Fall 1983 "Campaign '84" Chris Black, political reporter, The Boston Globe Gwesf S.­ Mark Shields, columnist. The Washington Post Gary Hart, U.S. Senator (D-CO) John Rendon, political consultant, Washington, D.C. Richard Stearns, Assistant United States Attorney, Boston Joseph Grandmaison, political consultant William Feltus, pollster, Market Opinion Research, Detroit, MI Martin Kaplan, Deputy Director, Mondale for President Frank Conway, Co-Chair, Massachusetts Reagan-Bush campaign Jack Walsh, political consultant Philip Grandmaison, New Hampshire State Coordinator, Cranston for President Charles Campion, Massachusetts State Coordinator, Mondale for President

"Women's Advocacy Groups: Influencing Public Policy on Women's Issues" Arkie Byrd, Fellow, Institute of Politics; Attorney, Women's Legal Defense Fund, Washington, D.C; consultant. National Conference on Women and the Law; member. Executive Committee, National Council of Black Lawyers Guests: Elizabeth Bartholet, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School Bernice Sandler, Director, Project on the Status and Education of Women, Associa­ tion of American Colleges, Washington, D.C. Nan Hunter, Staff Counsel, Women's Rights Project, American Civil Liberties Union, New York Joan Bertin, Staff Counsel, Women's Rights Project, American Civil Liberties Union, New York Mary Gray, President, Women's Equity Action League, Washington, D.C. Sharon Parker, Chair, National Institute for Women of Color, Washington, D.C. Karen Morton, Staff Attorney, Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination Diane Dodson, Assistant Director, National Legal Resource Center for Child Advocacy and Protection, Washington, D. C. Judith Lichtman, Director, Women's Legal Defense Fund, Washington, D.C. Mercedes Evans, Legal Counsel, Massachusetts State Office on Affirmative Action

88 The Student Program

"Congressional Staff: America's Unelected Representatives?" Judith Davison, Fellow, Institute of Politics; Legislation/Policy Coordinator for Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD); former Legislative Assistant to Senator Walter Mondale; former Foreign Policy Specialist, League of Women Voters Education Fund Guests: Charles Marinaccio, Minority Counsel, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate Nick Schloeder, state and local liaison for U.S. Senator Paul Sarbanes William Miller, Associate Dean and Adjunct Professor, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University Randy Cooper, political director for U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) William Hathaway, U.S. Senator (D-ME) Colby King, Senior Vice President, The Riggs Bank, Washington, D.C. Richard Conlon, Director, Democratic Study Group, U.S. House of Representatives

"What's Left? The Relevance of Radicalism to Mainstream American Politics" Peter Drier, former Professor of Sociology, Tufts University; founder, Massachusetts Tenants Organization; frequent contributor to progressive publications Joseph Schwartz, Teaching Fellow, Committee on Degrees in Social Studies, Harvard; member, National Interim Committee, Democratic Socialists of America Guests: Bernard Sanders, Mayor of Burlington, Vermont Frances Fox Piven, Professor of Political Science, CUNY Graduate Center, New York; social activist Ruth Messinger, member. New York City Council Nancy Snyder, Staff Director, 9 to 5, the Boston Working Women's Organization Ann Froines, Director of Women's Studies, University of Massachusetts/Boston Michael Ansara, political consultant; former staff director, Massachusetts Fair Share Robert Kuttner, contributing editor. The New Republic; fonner editor Working Papers Magazine Manning Marable, Director, African and Hispanic Studies Program, Colgate University, New York; syndicated columnist Barry Commoner, Professor, Center for the Biology of Natural Systems, Queens College, New York; environmental activist; 1980 Citizens Party presidential candidate Stanley Aronowilz, Professor, Ph.D. Program in Sociology, CUNY Graduate Center, New York; labor and political activist

89 The Student Program

"Courts as Government: Whither Accountability?" Paul G. Garrity, Associate Justice, Massachusetts Superior Court Guests: Michael Sloman, Chief, Government Bureau, Office of Massachusetts Attorney General Michael Flaherty, Chair, Judiciary Committee, Massachusetts House of Representatives Stephen Horowitz, Attorney, Hill &• Barlow, Boston; former Court-Appointed Monitor James Dolan, Regional Administrative Justice, Dorchester District Court Sam MuUin, community activist Robert Whittlesey, Greater Boston Community Development Edith Fine, Justice, Superior Court, Boston Marie Jackson, Justice, Cambridge District Court Al Kramer, Presiding Justice, Quincy District Court Rudolph Kass, Justice, Appeals Court, Boston John W. Reynolds, Chief Justice, U.S. District Court, Milwaukee, VJJ Larry Johnson, Staff Attorney, Center for Law and Education, Harvard

"Development and the World Debt Crisis" Judith L. Katz, Country Risk Analysis Manager, Bank of New England; former development consultant in the Middle East Guests: Paul Streeten, Director, World Development Institute, Boston David Cole, Harvard Institute for International Development Bruce Juba, International Economist, U.S. Department of the Treasury Lorene Yap, Brazil Programs Economist, The World Bank, Washington, D.C. Harry Garnett, Senior Consultant, Temple, Barker and Sloan, Lexington, MA Arthur Meehan, Executive Vice President, International Division, Bank of New England James Landberg, Executive Assistant to the Special Negotiator for Economic Matters, U.S. Department of State Harry Brautigam, International Economist, Bank of Boston Paul Krugman, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Hugo Souza, Fellow, Inter-American Development Bank

"The SkUls of Political Speech Making" John Kellogg, partner, Markarian and Kellogg; advisor to Massachusetts Democratic State Party Chair Chester Atkins and former U.S. Congressman Robert Drinan

90 The Student Program

Joseph Markarian, partner, Markarian and Kellogg; Counsel to Republican Leadership Office, Massachusetts House of Representatives; advisor to former Middlesex County Sheriff John Buckley Guests: Jack Flannery, President, The November Company, Boston Jack Cole, political journalist Debra Saunders, Associate Director, Todd Domke and Associates, Weston, MA Kirby Perkins, reporter, WCVB-TV, Needham, MA Chris Black, reporter. The Boston Globe Chuck Crouse, reporter, Y/EEI Radio, Boston James M. Stone, President, Plymouth Rock Assurance, Boston Patrick J. Lucey, former Governor of Wisconsin Lois Pines, former Massachusetts State Representative

"The State of the States" Patrick J. Lucey, Fellow, Institute of Politics; 1980 Candidate for Vice President with John Anderson; Ambassador to Mexico (1977-80); Governor of Wisconsin (1971-77) Guests: Robert H. Milboume, Vice President and economist, Kohler Company Charles Cicchetti, consultant, Madison Consulting Group Manuel Carballo, Secretary of Human Services, Massachusetts Anthony S. Earl, Governor of Wisconsin James Thompson, Governor of Illinois David Adamany, President, Wayne State University Stephen B. Farber, Senior Fellow, Roosevelt Center for American Policy Studies; former Executive Director, National Governors' Conference

"American Politics and the New Rural Vote" Richard J. Margolis, Fellow, Institute of Politics; political writer; founding Chair, Rural America, Inc.; Director, National Rural Voter Project Guests: Howard Phillips, Chair, the Conservative Caucus, Vienna, VA Andrew Brown, General Counsel, National Telephone Cooperative Association, Washington, D.C. David Raphael, Executive Director, Rural America, Inc., Washington, D.C. Joseph Rothstein, President, Rothstein Associates, Washington, D.C. Barbara Pitnoff, community organizer, Bolton, MA Charles Brown, First Selectman, Bolton, MA

91 The Student Program

Abigail Thernstrom, author of forthcoming book on Black and Hispanic voting rights David Hunter, Attorney, Voting Rights Division, U. S. Department of Justice Roger Blobaum, candidate for Congress, 5th District, Iowa Jody Severson, partner, Fleming, Severson & Company (political consultants), Rapid City, SD Terry Marshall, author, "Rural Chicanos and Community Decision-Making," Chicano Education Project, Denver, CO William Rosser, President, Chicano Education Project, Denver, CO

"United States Foreign Policy and National Security Since 1945: Their Impact on the Constitutional Process" William G. Miller, Associate Dean and Adjunct Professor of International Politics, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University; former staff director. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Guests: Peter Winn, Associate Professor of History, Tufts University Gerhard Casper, University of Chicago law School Peter Lakeland, Attorney, Bethesda, MD John Marks, Director, Search for Common Ground, Washington, D.C. Morton Halperin, Director, Center for National Security Studies, Washington, D.C. Anthony Lapham, Attorney, Shea and Gardner, Washington, D.C; former legal counsel, CIA John T. EUiff, staff member. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Abram Joseph Chayes, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Harvard Law School

"Politics, Policy and the Power of the Press" Peter Teeley, Fellow, Institute of Politics; Assistant and Press Secretary to Vice President George Bush Guests: Rich Bond, political consultant, Bond and Laxalt, Washington, D.C. David Broder, national political reporter. The Washington Post John Mashek, national political reporter, U.S. News & World Report Jack Nelson, Washington Bureau Chief, Los Angeles Times Carl Leubsdorf, Washington Bureau Chief Dallas Morning News Susan Page, White House Correspondent, Newsday Robert Northshield, Senior Executive Producer, CBS News Robert Novak, syndicated columnist Walter Mears, Washington Bureau Chief, The Associated Press

92 The Student Program

"The Nuts and Bolts of Running a Political Campaign" Gerald T. Vento, political consultant; former Special Assistant to President Jimmy Carter; has served in various capacities in local, state and national campaigns Guests: John Ashford, Executive Vice President, Matt Reese & Associates, Roslyn, VA Samuel A. Vitali, Attorney, GilUgan & Vitali, Lynn, MA Alan N. Hoffman, Professor of Business Administration, University of Connecticut Lynn Ponnian, President, Targeting Systems, Inc., Roslyn, VA David Nyhan, reporter. The Boston Globe Lawrence Walsh, Vice President, Hill and Knowlton, Inc. Terry Curley, Director of Public Affairs, New York Power Authority Dino Seder, President, Dino Seder, Inc. Edmund Reggie, Transition Chair for Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards James B. King, Senior Vice President for Public Affairs, Northeastern University Jack Walsh, President, Jack Walsh and Associates (political consultants), Boston Terry McAuliff, Director, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee "Political Extremism in America" Leonard Zakim, Executive Director and Civil Rights Counsel, Anti-Defamation League of New England; co-chair. Greater Boston Civil Rights Coalition Guests: Jerry Thomson, reporter, Nashville Tennessean Irwin Suall, Director, Factfinding, Anti-Defamation League, New York Jeff Rosser, News Director, WNEV-TV, Boston Martin Walsh, Director, Community Relations Service, U.S. Department of Justice Frank Jones, President, Boston Committee Rev. Thomas Michael, Secretary, Moral Majority of Massachusetts Robert Moss, journalist; co-author of The Spike

Spring 1984 "Popular Movements and the Prospects for Change" Michael Ansara, organizer and political activist; former Director, Massachusetts Fair Share Guests: David Cortright, Executive Director, National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE) Michael S. Miller, Professor of Sociology, Boston University Richard Parker, economist Mark Dyen, staff director, Massachusetts Fair Share

93 The Student Program

Arthur Osbom, President, Massachusetts AFL-CIO Harry Fagan, Associate Director, National Pastoral Life Center, New York Diane Balser, Director, Statewide Women's Legislative Network David Zwick, Executive Director, Clean Water Action Project, Washington, D.C. Heather Booth, Co-Director, Citizen Action, Chicago

"The State Legislature: Laboratory or Labyrinth?" Mary McCauley Burrows, Fellow, Institute of Politics; Oregon State Representative; member, Oregon Women's Political Caucus; former Vice-Chair, Revenue and School Finance and Intergovernmental Affairs Committees Guests: Larry Collins, political writer. The Boston Globe Bill O'Neill, President, Rhode Island Senate David S. Barrows, Executive Director, Oregon Savings League Association Mary Jane Gibson, Massachusetts State Representative Dolores Mitchell, Director, Katherine Gibbs School, Boston Norma Paulus, Secretary of State, Oregon Thomas R. Kiley, partner, Marttila and Kiley, Boston Andrew S. Natsios, Massachusetts State Representative; Chair, Republican State Party

"South Africa—Evolution or Revolution?" Robert Conway, Fellow, Center for International Affairs, Harvard; Associate, Harvard Negotiation Project, Harvard Law School; former teacher, businessman, and Opposition leader from South Africa Guests: Agrey Mbere, Lecturer, Roxbury Community College, Boston Abe S. Hoppenstein, Consul General, South African Consulate, New York Seth Singleton, Associate, Russian Research Center, Harvard Lawrence Susskind, Executive Director, Program on Negotiations, Harvard Law School David Passage, Deputy Director, Office of Southern African Affairs, Bureau of African Affairs, Department of State E*reston Williams, Houghton Professor of Theology and Contemporary Change, Harvard Divinity School

"The Environment and the Future" Alexandra D. Dawson, Attorney; Director, Resource Marmgement and Administration Program, Antioch/New England Graduate School, Keene, NH; Executive Director, Water Supply Citizens Advisory Committee, Hadley, MA

94 The Student Program

Guests: Gordon Thompson, Staff Scientist, Union of Concerned Scientists Douglas Foy, Executive Director, Conservation Law Foundation of New England, Inc. Nancy W. Anderson, Director of Environmental Affairs, Lincoln Filene Center, Tufts University Waldo Holcombe, Executive Director. Neponset Conservation Association, Milton, MA Gregor McGregor, Attorney, Boston Harry Fatkin, Director, Health, Safety and Environmental Affairs, Polaroid Corporation, Cambridge Wallace Stickney, Special Assistant on Environmental Matters for Governor Sununu, New Hampshire Priscilla Chapman, Executive Director, New England Chapter, Sierra Club James Slavas, Selectman, Wendell, MA Saul Slapikoff, Associate Professor of Biology, Tufts University Jeffrey Carlson, Director, Massachusetts Pesticide Bureau

"New Trends in Black Political Participation" Francesta E. Farmer, Attorney; Fellow, Institute of Politics; former Executive Director, Congressional Black Caucus Foundation; Staff Director, Congressional Black Caucus Guests: Milton Morris, Director of Research, Joint Center for Political Studies, Washington, DC Geraldine Thompson, Executive Director, Voter Education Project, Atlanta Ronald H. Brown, Vice Chair, Democratic National Committee Gracia Hillman, Executive Director, National Coalition for Black Voter Participation Joseph Madison, Director, NAACP Voter Education Department Carl Holman, President, National Urban Coalition Roger Wilkins, Senior Fellow, Institute for Policy Studies, Washington, DC Walter E. Fauntroy, U.S. Representative (D-DC) Judith Goldsmith, President, National Organization for Women Arnold Torres, Executive Director, League of United Latin American Citizens Harold Washington, Mayor, Chicago

"The Presidency in the Modern Media Age" David R. Gergen, Fellow, Institute of Politics; Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C.; former Communications Director to President Reagan and aide to Presidents Nixon and Ford

95 The Student Program

Guests: Steven Weisman, White House Correspondent, The New York Times Elizabeth Bumiller, staff writer, The Washington Post Lou Cannon, staff writer. The Washington Post Sidney Blumenthal, national political correspondent. The New Republic John Shirley, Diplomat in Residence, Wesleyan University Andrea Mitchell, network correspondent, NBC News Jonathan Moore, Director, Institute of Politics David Burke, Vice President, ABC News

"The Politics of Nuclear War and Peace" Thomas W. Graham, Ph.D. candidate, Department of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; former officer, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Carter and Reagan Administrations Guests: Antonia Chayes, Attorney, Csaplar and Bok, Boston; Adjunct Research Fellow, Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government Abram Chayes, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Harvard lnw School Eran Friedberg, Graduate Research Associate, Center for International Affairs, Harvard Christopher Paine, Executive Director, Washington Legislative Office, Physicians for Social Responsibility Robert Savitt, legislative aide, Office of Senator William Cohen (R-ME) Ashton Carter, Research Fellow, Center for Intertmtiotml Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology David Schwartz, Foreign Affairs Officer, Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs, U.S. Department of State Peter Almquist, Graduate Research Associate, Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Larry Smith, Executive Director, Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government

"U.S.-China Relations: Trends and Prospects" Richard D. Nethercut, consultant on Chinese affairs; Research Associate, John K. Fairbank Center for East Asian Research, Harvard; former Foreign Service Officer Guests: James Thomson, Curator, Nieman Foundation, Harvard; co-author, Sentimental Imperialists Robert L. Nichols, former Foreign Service Information Officer, Deputy Assistant

96 The Student Program

Director, Asian and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Information Agency Zhao Jinglun, journalist and editor. New York Foreign Languages Bureau, Beijing; recipient. Ford Foundation grant; former Fellow, Nieman Foundation John J. Taylor, Director, Office of East Asian Research, U.S. Department of State; former political counselor, American Embassy, Beijing Frederick C. Tiewes, Visiting Scholar, John K. Fairbank Center for East Asian Research, Harvard; reader in Government, University of Sydney, Australia Bruce Nelan, Deputy Chief, Washington Bureau, Time Leonard Unger, Professor, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University; former U.S. Ambassador, Republic of China Roger W. Sullivan, Vice President, National Council for U.S.-China Trade; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific John K, Fairbank, Frances Lee Higginson Professor of History, Emeritus, Harvard

"Campaign '84: Issues and the Presidential Campaign" Steven Stark, political writer; Lecturer, Harvard Law School; former issues director, primary campaign for Jimmy Carter Guests: Milton Gwirtzman, Attorney; former issues aide and speechwriter to President John F. Kennedy and Senators Robert and Edward Kennedy Robert Shrum, press secretary to Senator Edward Kennedy William Shannon, columnist, Boston Globe; Professor of History and Journalism, Boston University Christopher Lydon, anchor, "The Ten O'clock News," WGBH-TV, Boston Joel McCleary, media consultant, D.H. Sawyer & Associates, New York; former treasurer. Democratic Party Michael Steed, National Director, Democratic National Committee David Gergen, Fellow, Institute of Politics; Director of Communications, The White House 1981-1984

"The Role of Lawyers/Lobbyists in Washington Decision Making" Cathleen Douglas Stone, Attorney; Fellow, Institute of Politics; Democratic Party activist; member, Washington Caucus, Board of the Center for National Policy and the Center for National Public Radio Guests: Robert Bruce, partner, Debevaise & Plympton, Washington, D.C. Kenneth Duberstein, former Assistant for Legislative Affairs to President Reagan Ambassador Clovis Maksud, Representative of the Arab League to the United States and the United Nations Michael Barnes, L7.S. Representative (D-MD), Chair, Subcommittee on Central America, Foreign Affairs Committee

97 The Student Program

Richard L. Ottinger, U.S. Representative (D-NY) Michael Fertschuk, Attorney; Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission William Cable, Attorney, Williams & Jensen, Washington, D.C. Anne Wexler, former Special Assistant to President Carter

"Urban America in the 1980's" Robert F. Wagner, Jr., Fellow, Institute of Politics; former Deputy Mayor for Policy, New York; Chair, New York City Planning Commission Guests: Richard C, Wade, Distinguished Professor of History, City College of New York Donna Shalala, President, Hunter College, New York Alexander Cooper, partner. Cooper and Echstut, New York (architectural firm) Edward I. Koch, Mayor, New York Stanley Brezenoff, Deputy Mayor for Operations, New York Louis Harris, President, Louis Harris and Associates, New York

Summer Research Awards Each year the Institute offers a limited number of Summer Research Awards to Harvard undergraduates for field work contributing to senior honors theses or comparable projects. These research grants provide finan­ cial aid during the summer months to encourage direct observation of po­ litical and governmental processes within the United States. The 1983 recipients and their topics were: Jeffrey Abbas, (Government) Iowa Caucus Susan Bitensky, (Government) Politics of Welfare Reform: A Comparison of Welfare Reform Under Nixon, Ford and Carter Nancy Castenholz, (Sociology) The Role of Grassroots Movements in Eliminating Hunger in the United States Patrick Flaherty, (Social Studies) The Decline of the Democratic Organization in Connecticut, 1954 to the Present Rani Kronick, (Social Studies) The Berkeley Center for Independent Living: the Relationship between the Medical Profession, Rehabilitation and the Disabled People's Movement Craig McCrohon, (History) Federal Power and the Development of the Interstate Highway System, 1948-1957 Elizabeth Marek, (Social Studies) School Desegregation and the Courts: Case Study, Delaware

98 The Student Program

Jimmy Morales^ (Government) The OECD and American Economic Interdependence Nicholas Fappas, (Government/Economics) The Process and Real Resource Costs of Changing Corporate Organizational Competency Due to Changes in the Regulatory Environment: Lessons for Policy Makers Anthony Perl, (Government) Passengers and Public Policy; An Analysis of Group Participation and its Influence on Public Decisio n-Making Jorge Ruiz de Velasco, (Government) Equal Educational Opportunity, Federal Concern vs. Federal Responsibility: A Case Study, Limited English-Speaking Children

Public Affairs Internships In support of student participation in public sector internships, the Insti­ tute offers several services to Harvard undergraduates: • In conjunction with the Office of Career Services and Off-Campus Learning, the Institute provides a jobs clearinghouse, where students can learn about internship and employment opportunities in all aspects of politics and public affairs. • Each year the Institute awards a number of summer internship stipends to students with financial need who might otherwise be unable to accept public sector internships. • The Institute sponsors the annual Summer-in-Washington Program. During the spring, the program helps students find summer housing in the capital. During the summer, it brings together Harvard students working in Washington for a variety of intellectual, social, and athletic activities. • During the summer of 1983, the Institute also began developing a Summer-in-Boston Program, arranging events similar to those of the Summer-in-Washington Program, for Harvard students living and working in the Boston area. • Each semester, the Institute sponsors job counseling seminars for undergraduates interested in public sector internships. Each seminar features several participants familiar with internships—availability, requirements, hiring practices—as well as an undergraduate with previous internship experience. • Congressional Internship Workshops sponsored by the Institute draw

99 The Student Program

on the expertise of congressional staffers with experience supervising interns. Fall workshops focus on job-seeking; spring workshops focus on skills needed by the intern. Topics include congressional research methods, committee and floor procedures, legislative wrriting skills, and resources available to interns in the Washington, D.C. area. • The Institute's Externship Program provides opportunities for students to accompany public-sector professionals through an average work day during the week of spring semester break. Undergraduates are paired with people in government, media and independent public sector agencies to witness first-hand the daily mechanics and intricacies of the work life of such professionals.

Summer Internship Program In 1983, the following students received Institute stipends enabling them to intern during the summer with a wide range of organizations, as listed: Kristina Eva Andersson, Agency for International Development, Washington, DC Freeta Bansal, Northeast-Midwest Institute, Washington, DC Richard A. Bennett, Republican National Committee, Washington, DC Cindy A. Berman, New York State Democratic Committee, New York, NY Pamela St. John Bertoli, Congress Watch, Washington, DC Anne Coyle, East Haven Town Attorney's Office, East Haven, CT Reginald Donal Davis, Office of Congressman Ike Skelton (D-MO), Washington, DC Leah Anne Dickerman, Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, Albany, NY Barry Fisher, Public Defender's Office of District of Columbia, Washington, DC David R. Giles, Mexican American Legal Defense and the Educational Fund, Political Access Project, Los Angeles, CA Robert A. Henderson, U.S. Conference of Mayors, Washington, DC Tal A. Johnson, Office of City Manager, Tacoma, WA Doreen Marie Kelly, New England Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Boston, MA Marc Kushner, Religion Action Center, Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism, Washington, DC Vivian Wai-fun Lee, Asian American Resource Workshop, Boston, MA Brita Ellen Lundberg, National Public Radio, Washington, DC Dean R. Madden, Office of Congressman Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Washington, DC

100 The Student Program

Melanie Jean McDermott, Sierra Club International Earthcare Center, New York, NY Paul D. Palmer, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, San Antonio, TX Edward J. Reznik, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, Office of East-West Trade, State Department, Washington, DC Harry Mitchell Stahl, National Gay Task Force, Violence Project, New York, NY

The Summer-in-Washington Program The 1983 Summer-in-Washington Program was coordinated by Martha Wood, In addition to developing and compiling substantial housing op­ portunities for Harvard students spending the summer in DC, the program sponsored a wide-ranging series of activities all summer, which included: • Discussions with: James L. Tyson and Bernard Yoh, Accuraq/ in Media Jeffrey F. Scott, Executive Office of the President, Office of Marmgement and Budget Judd Gregg, New Hampshire State Representative Ralph Nader, consumer advocate, political entrepreneur Barber Conable, U.S. Representative (R-NY); member. Committee on Ways and Means, House Ethics Committee, Joint Committee on Taxation Chhang Song, former Minister of Information, Cambodia (Lon No! Government) Ben Bradlee, Executive Editor, The Washington Post Bonnie Newman, Deputy Director of Personnel, The White House Lehmann Li, Domestic Policy Office, The White House Christopher J, Dodd, U.S. Senator (D-CT); member. Foreign Relations Committee; Senate's Children's Caucus Anthony Lanyi, Developing Country Studies Division, Research Department, International Monetary Fund Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin State Representative Gus Schumacher, Senior Rural Development Economist, International Finance, World Bank David Broder, national political correspondent. The Washington Post John Anderson, Independent Presidential candidate Margaret Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services; former Congresswoman (R-MA) • Debate between Michael Posner, Executive Director,

101 The Student Program

Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights, and Elliot Abrams, Central American Affairs, U.S. Department of State • Other activities included: "A Short Course on the Legislative Process" with Mark Talisman, Director, Washington Action Office, Council of Jewish Federations; advisor, Summer-in-Washington program; former Fellow, Institute of Politics An informal Ivy League group party for college students summering in Washington Softball games against teams from Congressman Thomas P. O'Neill's office, Northeast-Midwest Institute, Princeton University, University of Pennsylvania, Senator Carl Levin's office. Senator Alan Dixon's office, Stanford University, Yale University, Congressman James Jefford's office A wine and cheese reception with University of Pennsylvania students on the Hill, attended by Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank and Pennsylvania Congressman Thomas Foglietta A barbecue with Former Fellows of the Institute of Politics A boat cruise on the Potomac with students from Princeton, Stanford, University of Pennsylvania, Duke and Harvard A garden party at Dumbarton Oaks for Summer-in-Washington Program guest speakers and students Ride for Life—35 Harvard students riding bicycles across country to raise money for OXFAM were welcomed at a rally attended by many Summer-in-Washington Program participants

The Summer-in-Boston Program This successful new program was coordinated by Dale Curtis during the 1983 Harvard Summer School session. Program events included: • Discussions with: Chris Black, political correspondent. The Boston Globe Mark Roosevelt, candidate for Boston City Council from Back Bay! Beacon Hill, and Larry DiCara, candidate for Mayor of Boston David Powell, Research Associate, Russian Research Center, Harvard Andrew Natsios, Massachusetts State Representative; Chair, Massachusetts Republican Party, and James Roosevelt, legal counsel to the Massachusetts State Democratic Committee James King, Associate Vice President for State and Community Relations,

102 The Student Program

Harvard; former White House aide. Carter administration; consultant, several political campaigns Michael S, Dukakis, Governor of Massachusetts • Other activities included: A visit to the Museum at the John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library A wine and cheese reception at the Institute of PoHtics

Job Seminar A seminar on strategies for job hunting in the public sector, sponsored by the Internship Committee, was held on November 8, 1983. Panel members were: Alkie Byrd, Fellow, Institute of Politics; Staff Attorney, Women's Legal Defense Fund Richard J. Margolis, Fellow, Institute of Politics; Director, National Rural Voter Project; Senior Editor, Working Papers Peter Teeley, Fellow, Institute of Politics; Assistant and Press Secretary to Vice President George Bush Rick Howard, Government and Public Affairs Advisor, Office of Career Services and Off-Campus Learning, Harvard Paul D. Palmer, '84, former intern

Internship Workshops Two Congressional Internship Workshops, sponsored by the Internship Committee, were conducted by Judith K. Davison, Fall '83 Fellow, Institute of Politics and Legislation/Policy Coordinator for U.S. Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD), on December 6, 1983 and on April 18, 1984. In December, Ms. Davison addressed issues such as the definition of an internship, the application process, and provided inside tips for undergraduates interested in being an intern. In April, Ms. Davison and Thomas Marler '84, former intern, addressed issues such as duties and responsibilities of the congressional intern, necessary skills, expectations, and tips for interns on life in Washington, D.C.

Extemships During spring break 1984 twenty-one extemships were arranged pairing undergraduates and public sector professionals for at least one day, giving each student the opportunity to observe and participate in the daily rounds of their sponsor.

103 The Student Program

Sponsors included: Julia Chang Bloch, Assistant Administrator, Agency for International Development, Washington, DC Sam Donaldson, White House Correspondent, ABC News Michael S. Dukakis, Governor of Massachusetts Marilyn J. Flood, New York City Commission on the Status of Women Barry Lipman, Deputy Commissioner, New York Police Department Martin Nolan, Editor, Editorial Pages, The Boston Globe Roger Porter, Deputy Assistant to the President for Policy Development James Slattery, U.S. Representative (D-KS)

Harvard Political Review The Harvard Political Review is a quarterly journal of political analysis published by the Student Advisory Committee. Officers during the year were: Theresa Amato, Associate Editor David Barkan, Circulation Manager Susanto Basu, Reviews Editor Andrew Buckser, Associate Editor; Staff Artist Mark DePasquale, Circulation Manager Greg Fried, Reviews Editor Michael Hunter, Circulation Manager Richard Kahlenberg, Assistant Managing Editor; Managing Editor John O'Brien, Staff Artist Sean Reilly, Associate Editor Patrick RivelU, Business Manager Ronald Roach, Associate Editor; Assistant Managing Editor Ben Sparks, Business Manager; General Manager Vilna Waldron, General Manager Janice Sue Wang, Managing Editor; President Robert G. Yarbrough, President; Senior Editor The four issues of HPR published during academic year 1983-84 contained the following articles: Volume XI/Number 1; Fall 1983 Cover Story: "Across the Spectrum" "Quo Vadis?", Ronald Roach and Robert Watts "The Rise of la Raza," Luis Ubinas "The Inner City," an interview with Mayor Federico Pena

104 The Student Program

"A Long, Hot Summer," Robert Yarbrough "Jesse's Back in Town," Andrew Buckser "Labor's Special Interest," Kenneth J. Drexler "Minihydro, Major Problem/' Ben Sparks "A NEP In The Bud?", Patrick Rivelli

Books of the Review: Lowenstein: Acts of Courage and Belief, Ed. Gregory Stone and Douglas Lowenstein; reviewed by Richard Kahlenberg

Volume XI/Number 2; Winter 1983 Cover Story: "The Political Game" "The Runner Stumbles," Robert Yarbrough "Changing the Rules," Kenneth J. Drexler "Lights, Camera, Election," Ronald Roach "Diplomatic Language," Janice Sue Wang "Reagan's Gender Gap," Theresa Amato "Grenada Explosion," an interview with Bernard Coard "Levelling the Taxes Low?", Richard Kahlenberg "Wilderness Lands/' Ben Sparks "Over Protectionism," Patrick Rivelli "A Thing With Feathers," Robert Yarbrough

Books of the Review: Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellion by Gloria Steinem; reviewed by Mike Ricciuti The Little Drummer Girl by John le Carre; reviewed by Janice Sue Wang Dangerous Currents: The State of the Economy by Lester C. Thurow; reviewed by Susantu Basu On Democracy by Joshua Cohen and Joel Rogers; reviewed by Robert A. Watts Reagan by Lou Cannon, Gambling With History: Reagan in the White House by Laurence I. Barrett, There He Goes Again: Ronald Reagan's Reign of Error by Mark Green and Gail MacCoIl; reviewed by Robert Yarbrough

Volume XI/Number 3; Spring 1984 Cover Story; "Unelected Power" "Pacs Americana," Janice Sue Wang "The Unknown Fourth Branch?", Susanto Basu "All the President's Men and Women," Theresa Amato

105 The Student Program

"Courting the Public," Judge Paul Garrity "An American in Paris?", Janice Sue Wang "Centrist America," Ben Sparks "EC Go Home," Patrick Rivelli "E Pluribus Duo?", Richard Kahlenberg "Kirkland Crunch," Robert Watts "Liability Retort," Laura Leedy "Cable Manners," Ronald Roach "Fair Pay Disarray," Andrew S. Buckser

Books of the Review: Real Peace by Richard Nixon; reviewed by David Barkan The Japanese Mind by Robert Christopher; reviewed by Christoper Landau Mayor by Edward Koch; reviewed by Robert Yarbrough

Volume XI/Number 4; Summer 1984 Cover Story: "Non-Nuclear Weapons: The New Warfare" "Providing for the Common Defense?", Christopher Landau and Theresa Amato "A Hard Look at Hardware," an interview with James Fallows "The Empire Strikes Out?", Andrew Buckser "Teller Talks," an interview with Dr. Edward Teller "On Fields of Fire," an interview with General John Forrest "The Crucible of Chemical Warfare," an interview with Dr. Theodore Gold "Mondale: USDA Choice," Richard Kahlenberg "The Wearing on the Green," Robert Yarbrough "Praying for Time," Mark DePasquale "Pushing for Voter Registration," Ronald Roach "Inflexible Response," David Barkan

Books of the Review: The Report of the President's National Bipartisan Commission on Central America; reviewed by Susantu Basu The American Economy We Need—and Won't Get from the Republicans or the Democrats by John Anderson; reviewed by Janice Sue Wang

Student Projects During academic year 1983-84, the Projects Committee organized and

106 The Student Program

sponsored a large Voter Registration Fair, a student debate on presidential candidates, several panel discussions on public policy issues, and a debate on nuclear weapons in space. The committee's outreach efforts to other politically-active students were successful, resulting in co-sponsorship of events with several Harvard student organizations. The campaign '84 coordinator worked closely with the committee in planning, developing and implementing the many "Campaign '84" activities sponsored by the Institute. The Visiting Fellows coordinator and the committee worked together in sponsoring three Visiting Fellows. Visiting Fellows, selected on the basis of distinguished experience in active political life, are invited to spend brief periods at Harvard during which they meet with interested undergraduates, faculty members, and Fellows of the Institute of Politics. Committee members also helped host the Seminar for Newly-Elected Mayors, the Seminar for Massachusetts Mayors, the Media & The Congress Conference and the Conference on Religion and the Campaign for Public Office. The following events, most held in the ARCO Public Affairs Forum of the John F. Kennedy School of Government, were sponsored by the Projects Committee: "Weapons in Space," November 9, 1983, a debate with: Edward Teller, nuclear physicist; Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institute, Stanford; former Assistant Director, Los Alamos Science Laboratory Hans Bethe, Professor Emeritus, Cornell University; former Director, Theoretical Physics Division, Los Alamos Science Laboratory; Nobel Laureate Joseph Nye, Jr., Acting Director, Center for International Affairs, Harvard; co-author. Living with Nuclear Weapons (moderator)

"College Athletics: Sport or Profession?", November 14, 1983, a pane! discussion with: Derek Bok, President, Harvard University Harry Edwards, Professor of Sociology, University of California at Berkeley John L. Toner, President, National Collegiate Athletic Association Michael Jarvis, Coach, Cambridge Rindge and Latin High School Kevin Ross, former athlete, Creighton University, Nebraska Robert Klitgaard, Professor of Government and Special Assistant to the President, Harvard (moderator)

107 The Student Program

"Central America: The United States and El Salvador," November 28, 1983, a panel discussion with: Michael D. Barnes, U.S. Representative (D-MD); Chair, House Subcommittee on Latin America Roberto Jimenez Ortiz, Deputy Chief of Mission, Salvadoran Embassy Craig Johnstone, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter- American Affairs Michael Posner, Attorney, Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights, New York Patrick J. Lucey, Fellow, Institute of Politics; former U.S. Ambassador to Mexico (moderator)

A Voter Registration Fair, February 7, 1984, which registered 700 Harvard students. Participants in the Fair included representatives of the City of Cambridge Board of Elections who registered an additional 100 students to vote in Cambridge. Information on registration and absentee ballot procedures in all 50 states was available, organized in binders which were placed on reserve in undergraduate libraries and which will be updated in fall '84 prior to the general election in November.

"The Gender Gap and the 1984 Campaign," February 13, 1984, a panel discussion with: Adam Clymer, political reporter, The New York Times David Gergen, Fellow, Institute of Politics; former Director of Communications, The White House (Reagan Administration) Ellen Goodman, syndicated columnist Kathy Wilson, Chair, National Women's Political Caucus Ethel Klein, Professor of Government, Harvard (moderator)

"Environmental Responsibility: U.S. Policy and Third World Development," February 23, 1984, a panel discussion co-sponsored by the Environmental Action Committee of Phillips Brooks House, with: Noel Brown, Director, Environment Programme, United Nations Lee Talbot, former Director General, International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources John Vanderryn, Agency Director, Energy and Natural Resources, Bureau of Science and Technology, Agency for International Development Jorge Uguillas Rodas, Consultant to the Institute of Amazon Colonization and Development, Ministry of Agriculture, Ecuador Daniel Yergin, Research Associate, Energy and Environmental Policy

108 The Student Program

Center, John F. Kennedy School of Government (moderator)

"Non-Violent Dissidence: Does it Work?", March 1, 1984, a panel discussion co-sponsored by the Harvard-Radcliffe Amnesty International, with: Robert Cox, former Editor, The Buenos Aires Herald Kenneth Carstens, Executive Director, International Defense and Aid Fund for Southern Africa Pawel Bakowski, member. Solidarity Labor Union Kim Dae Jung, exiled South Korean Opposition leader Joshua Rubenstein, Northeastern Regional Director, Amnesty International (moderator)

"Student Debate," March 13, 1984, an analysis of the presidential candidates. Participants and the candidates they represented were: John Chuang, '85 (John Glenn) Gary Haugen, '85 (Gary Hart) Todd Lee, '85 (Jesse Jackson) Carolyn Kornfeld, '87 (George McGovem) Gerald Gamm, '86 (Walter Mondale) John Loza, '84 (Ronald Reagan)

"Censors, Secrets, and Security: Is Big Brother Really Watching?", April 10, 1984, a panel with: James Bamford, author, The Puzzle Palace: A Report on America's Most Secret Agency Sissela Bok, Lecturer on the Core Program, Harvard; author. Secrets; Lying Morton Halperin, Director, Center for National Security Studies Kathleen Troia, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Charles Nesson, Professor of law. Harvard Law School (moderator)

"The Harvard Strike," April 23, 1984, a documentary film, followed by "Student Activism: Then and Now," a panel discussion with: Steven Kelman, Associate Professor of Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government; Harvard '70 Daniel Crane, Harvard '72 Francesta Fanner, Fellow, Institute of Politics; Radcliffe '71 Susan Jihard, Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Jay McLeod, Harvard-Radcliffe '83-84; former President, Phillips Brooks House

109 The Student Program

Christine Spaulding, Harvard-Radcliffe '84; member, Harvard Democratic Club, Radcliffe Union of Students Alan Brinkley, Professor of History, Harvard (moderator)

"The Government and the Classroom: The Issues at Stake in the 1984 Campaign/' April 26, 1984, a panel discussion with: Gary Jones, U.S. Under Secretary of Education Paul Simon, U.S. Representative (D-IL); member, House Committee on Education and Labor John Wilson, member, Executive Committee, National Education Association Terry Hartle, Research Scientist, Educational Testing Service Sidney Marland, former U.S. Commissioner of Education (moderator)

Visiting Fellows The three Visiting Fellows and the topics of their addresses were: Edward Asner, actor and political activist, "Television is Public Policy," October 17-18, 1983. Mr. Asner attended a faculty luncheon arranged in his honor with leading experts on U.S. policy in Central America, met with members of student organizations in an informal question and answer session, with Institute Study Group leaders and their guests at supper, and with undergraduates at breakfast at Adams House and at lunch at South House. Eleanor Holmes Norton, former Chair, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Equity in the 1980's," March 19-20, 1984. Ms. Norton met with representatives of the student-run Peer Contraceptive Counseling group and Seventh Sister, a Radcliffe College publication, attended a class session of "The Economics of Discrimination," met with undergraduates at breakfast at the Freshman Union, at lunch at Currier House, and at a reception in her honor with several student organizations. Harold Washington, Mayor, Chicago, Illinois, "New Directions for the Democratic Party," April 29-30,1984. Mayor Washington attended a Study Group session on "New Trends in Black Voter Participation," met with faculty and invited guests at a dinner arranged in his honor, met informally with students from Chicago and members of student organizations at Quincy House, had lunch with undergraduates at Adams House, and attended a press conference with student and local media representatives.

110 The Fellows Program

The Panel on Fellowships Manuel Carballo, Fall Dale Curtis, Fail Lawrence S. DiCara Archie Epps Dan Fenn Joe Freeman Steven Grand, Fall Ethel Klein Donney Lefall, Fall Lance M. Liebman Richard J. Light Michael Lipsky Liz Losos, Spring A. Douglas Matthews Ernest R. May Nicholas T. Mitropoulos John Moore, Spring Jonathan Moore Richard E. Neustadt Don K. Price Ann Ramsay Robin Schmidt Stanley S. Surrey, Chair William E. Tnieheart Arabella Wattles, Fall

Fellows' Alumni Advisory Committee Robert Bradford Alvin J. Bronstein, Chair Bernard R. Gifford Stephen H. Hess David Keene Evelyn Murphy Martin F. Nolan Philip J. Rutledge Mark E. Talisman

111 The Fellows Program

Institute Fellows Fall Arkie Byrd, Staff Attorney, Women's Legal Defense Fund. While a Fel­ low, Ms. Byrd worked on a handbook on pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. Her study group was entitled "Women's Advocacy Groups: Influencing Public Policy on Women's Issues." Judith K. Davison, Legislation Policy Coordinator, Office of Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD). For her project Ms. Davison pursued study and research on the Soviet Union. She led a study group entitled "Congres­ sional Staff: America's 'Unelected Representatives?'" Kenneth O. Hartnett, journalist, former Managing Editor, The Boston Her­ ald. Mr. Hartnett returned to the Institute as a second semester Fellow and continued work on his political novel, A Saving Grace. Patrick J. Lucey, candidate for Vice President, National Unity Ticket, 1980. While a Fellow, Mr. Lucey did extensive study and research on the problems of Central America. He led a study group entitled "The State of the States." Richard J. Margolis, Director, National Rural Voter Project. For his project, Mr. Margolis wrote a paper entitled "Notes on a Rural Electoral Strate­ gy for 1984." The study group he led was entitled "American Politics and the New Rural Vote." Peter Teeley, Assistant and Press Secretary to Vice President George Bush. As a Fellow Mr. Teeley did research and writing for a forthcoming book on drug trafficking. He led a study group entitled "Politics, Policy, and the Power of the Press."

Spring Mary McCauley Burrows, Oregon State Representative (R-Eugene). Mrs. Burrows worked on an analysis and evaluation of the legislative process. She led a study group entitled "The State Legislature: Laboratory or Labyrinth?" Francesta E. Farmer, Executive Director, Congressional Black Caucus Foun­ dation (term ended 1983). While a Fellow Ms. Farmer wrote "The Peo­ ple's Platform" (FOCUS, May 1984). She led a study group entitled "New Trends in Black Political Participation." David R. Gergen, Director of Conununications, The White House 1981-1984. While a Fellow Mr. Gergen did considerable writing on the relationship between the White House and the media. His study group was entitled "The Presidency in the Modern Media Age."

112 The Fellows Program

Richard J. Margolis, journalist specializing in rural issues. As a second semester Fellow of the Institute Mr. Margolis continued to write and pub­ lish articles on rural America as well as working on a project on poetry and the rural experience. Cathleen Douglas Stone, Attorney. As a Fellow Ms. Stone did research and writing in the area of regulation. She led a study group entitled "The Role of Lawyers/Lobbyists in Washington Decision-Making." Robert F. Wagner, Jr., Deputy Mayor for Policy, City of New York (1979-1983). For his project of independent research he studied and wrote on the effects of poverty on urban areas. Mr. Wagner led a study group entided "Urban America in the 1980's/' Fellows Luncheon Speakers Weekly luncheons with members of the Harvard community and other distinguished guests have become a tradition of the Fellows Program. Guest speakers this year included: Fall Robert Conway, Fellow, Center for Foreign and International Affairs, Harvard Robert Reich, lecturer in Public Policy, fohn F. Kennedy School of Government David Nyhan, political reporter, The Boston Globe Jorge Dominguez, Professor of Government, Harvard Francis Bator, Professor of Political Economy, John F. Kennedy School of Government Ronald Heifetz, Lecturer in Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government Peter Marudas, Administrative Assistant to Senator Paul S. Sarbanes (D-MD) Duncan Kennedy, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School Alan Dershowitz, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School Breakfast with Grant Tinker, President of NBC Brandon Tartikoff, President of NBC Entertainment and Programming Alan Horn, President and CEO-Embassy Communications Gary Goldberg, Executive Producer, Paramount Pictures Dinner with John Kenneth Galbraith, Paul M. Walburg Professor of Eco­ nomics, Emeritus, Harvard

Spring Kirk Scharfenberg, Deputy Editor, Editorial Page, The Boston Globe Richard M. Pipes, Frank B. Baird Professor of History, Harvard

113 The fellows Program

Anthony Lewis, columnist, The New York Times Francis Bator, Professor of Political Economyj John F. Kennedy School of Government Ross Terrill, China scholar, author Evelyn Murphy, Secretary of Economic Affairs, Commonwealth of Mas­ sachusetts Joseph Nye, Jr., Professor of Government, Harvard Ezra Vogel, Professor of Sociology, Harvard Edwin Diamond, journalist; Director, News Study Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology John Womack, Professor of History, Harvard Matthew Meselson, Thomas Dudley Cabot Professor of the Natural Sciences, Harvard Lunch with Nieman Fellows with Institute Fellow David Gergen as guest speaker Lunch at The Boston Globe hosted by Martin Nolan, Editorial Page Editor Dinner with Henry Rosovsky, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Harvard

114 The Faculty Studies Program

The faculty studies program attempts to combine the broad concerns of the Institute of Politics, the intellectual capabilities of faculty from Harvard and other universities, and the experience and expertise of practitioners in areas of inquiry. The goal of most faculty study groups is not to perform basic research, but rather to focus on applied problems in government and politics and to make their analysis and recommendations available to in­ terested public officials and organizations. The program of faculty studies concentrates on two areas often ignored in policy-related research but among the Institute's primary concerns; policies affecting the shape of politics, and the politics of choosing or implementing existing policy proposals. Three to five short-term faculty study groups ordinarily are under way each aca­ demic year. Some groups conduct their inquiries over longer periods of time. Topics covered have included national intelligence activities, Vice Presiden­ tial selection, ethics in public life and constitutional change. In addition to the Faculty Study Groups listed below, two other groups can be found in the Programs section under The Press-Politics Center. They are on How the Press Affects Federal Policy Making, funded by the Charles H. Revson Foundation, and on New Communications Technologies and Democratic Values, funded by the John and Mary R. Markle Foundation.

Campaign Finance The Campaign Finance Study Group, under a grant from the U.S. Senate Rules Committee, earlier investigated the impact of the federal election cam­ paign laws upon the conduct of presidential campaigns. While in many respects the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) has fulfilled its stated objectives, major problem areas have developed as a result of the outright failure of the Act, circumstances that could not be foreseen when the Act was drafted, or changes in the law due to the actions of institutions be­ yond the scope of congressional authority. The most troublesome problems, the study group found, are related to the attempt to restrict the spending of money by those seeking to influence the outcomes of presidential cam­ paigns, and the study group proposed a multipoint package for legislative change. The study group is now focusing its efforts in three areas: • examining the kind of regulatory agency necessary to implement cam­ paign laws on the federal level, examining its structures and authorities, and in evaluating the political and institutional mechanisms of presiden­ tial selection; • reconsidering the problem posed by Political Action Committees (PAC's);

115 The Faculty Studies Program

• reviewing campaign finance practices and policy in light of the experience of the 1984 campaign, including analysis of the strengths and weakness­ es of policy proposals circulating in the Congress.

Members of the Study Group are: F. Christopher Arterton, Associate Professor of Political Science and Management, Yale University; Chair Joel Fleishman, Vice Chancellor of the University; Chair, Department of Public Studies; and Professor of Law and Policy Sciences, Duke University Gary Jacobson, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of California at San Diego Xandra Kayden, political consultant and author; former consultant, Impact IVi Project, Massachusetts Institute of Technology David Kcene, President, Keene, Monk & Associates, Alexandria, VA Susan B. King, Vice President and Director of Corporate Communications, Coming Glass Yiorks, Coming, NY; former Chair, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Nicholas T. Mitropoulos, Executive Director of Personnel, Massachusetts Jonathan Moore, Director, Institute of Politics; Lecturer in Public Policy, John f. Kennedy School of Government Richard E. Neustadt, Lucius N. Littauer Professor of Public Administration, John F. Kennedy School of Government Gary Orren, Associate Professor of Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government Presidential Transition In the ten to twelve weeks after their election and in the first six months or so after their inauguration, newly-elected presidents make a series of critical choices about personnel, organization, and policy. During this time, they choose the highest officials of the executive branch, set internal lines of communication and authority, determine a policy agenda, and begin working with Congress, the press, foreign governments, and career offi­ cials. This is a time to set a tone for what they hope to achieve and how they hope to achieve it. Never again will the slate be so clean. What new presidents decide—or fail to decide—during this time fundamentally shapes their ability to govern during the next four years. The Institute has long been interested in presidential transitions and has prepared advisory reports for the last several incoming presidents. In 1982 the Institute engaged an historian, Carl M. Brauer, as a research fellow to

116 The FacuHxf Studies Program

write an analytical history of presidential transitions since 1952. No such reference work exists, and it is hoped that this book, to be completed in 1984, will become a useful tool for new presidents and their appointees and an informative guide for the press and the public. Dr. Brauer has been assisted by the Faculty Study Group on Presidential Transition chaired by Ernest R. May, Charles Warren Professor of Ameri­ can History, Harvard. The project has been funded by grants from the Ford Foundation and the Sloan Foundation. Andrew W. Robertson is Research Assistant for the project.

Members of the Study Group include: Graham T. Allison, Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government Phillip E. Areeda, Larjgdell Professor of Law, Harvard Law School Jonathan Moore, Director, Institute of Politics; Lecturer in Public Policy, John F. Kenned}/ School of Government Richard E. Neustadt, Lucius N. Littauer Professor of Public Administration, John F. Kennedy School of Government Don K. Price, Weatherhead Professor of Public Management and Dean, Emeritus, John F. Kennedy School of Government The State and the Poor The findings of the Faculty Study Group on the State and the Poor are delineated in the book. The State and the Poor in the 1980s, edited by Manuel Carballo and Mary Jo Bane (Auburn House Publishing Co., 1984). The study group, initially formed in 1970 to examine the capabilities and responsibili­ ties of a state government to mitigate the impact of poverty, previously pub­ lished The State and the Poor (Winthrop, 1970). Against a background of growing needs and harsh restraints, the new study group acted upon the initiative of the Massachusetts Legislature to take a new look at the old problem of poverty. On the assumption that the depressed economy and the new federalism combined to enlarge the state's responsibility for the poor, the study group asked the question of who are today's poor, then examined in detail areas of health care, education, hous­ ing, transportation, and crime from the perspective of the poor. Longstand­ ing misconceptions about the poor were examined and proposals made for preventing and ameliorating poverty and for implementing and financing programs of assistance.

117 The Faculty Studies Program

Study Group members included: Mary Jo Bane, Executive Deputy Commissioner, Department of Social Services, New York;, former Associate Professor of Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government Samuel H. Beer, Eaton Professor of the Science of Government, Emeritus, Harvard David Blumenthal, Executive Director, Center for Health Policy and Management and Lecturer in Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government Walter D. Broadnax, Lecturer in Public Policy and Management, John F. Kennedy School of Government David Calkins, Instructor in Medicine, Harvard Medical School; member. Division of Health Policy Research and Education, Harvard Manuel Carballo, Secretary of Human Services, Massachusetts; former Lecturer in Public Policy and Management, John F. Kennedy School of Government David T. EUwood, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government Susan Estrich^ Assistant Professor of Law, Harvard Law School Jose A. Gomez-Ibanez, Associate Professor of City and Regional Planning, John F. Kennedy School of Government Helen Ladd, Associate Professor of City and Regional Planning, John F. Kennedy School of Government Herman B. Leonard, Associate Professor of Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government Rosemary Salomone, Associate Professor of Education Law and Finance, Harvard Graduate School of Education John M. Yinger, Associate Professor of City and Regional Planning, John F. Kennedy School of Government

118 Professional Study Programs

Seminar on Transition and Leadership for Newly-Elected Mayors November 17-21, 1983 The Institute, with the United States Conference of Mayors, conducted an intensive four-day seminar for newly-elected mayors with support from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and Sears, Roe­ buck and Company. The broad purpose of the seminar was to assist new mayors in making optimal use of the transition period and the crucial early months in office. To this end, the seminar was designed to provide insight into the govern­ mental process, to provide instruction on several substantive policy areas, and to encourage interaction among newly-elected mayors, incumbent mayors, and urban experts. Specific topics addressed included the transi­ tion process, management principles and techniques, labor relations, press relations, finance and budgeting, public safety, economic and community development, and intergovernmental relations. The Institute and the U.S. Conference of Mayors have collaborated on similar programs biannually since 1975.

The participants included: Lynn Briody^ Sunnyvale, California Malcolm Fromberg, Miami Beach, Florida Harvey Gantt, Charlotte, North Carolina Terry Goddard, Phoenix, Arizona Gerald Helmholdt, Grand Rapids, Michigan Roland Luedtke, Lincoln, Nebraska Thomas McDermott, Hammond, Indiana Thomas McEnery, San Jose, California Richard Neal, Springfield, Massachusetts Donna Owens, Toledo, Ohio Federico Pena, Denver, Colorado Carl D. Pitaro, Brockton, Massachusetts Sam Purses, Canton, Ohio Randy Ronk, Stockton, California Anne Rudin, Sacramento, California Thomas Sawyer, Akron, Ohio Peter Sferrazza, Reno, Nevada James A. Sharp, Flint, Michigan Robert Shaw, Manchester, New Hampshire Kyle Testerman, Knoxville, Tennessee

119 Professional Study Programs

Patrick Ungaro, Youngstown, Ohio Avery Upchurch, Raleigh, North Carolina

The faculty included; T, Dustin Alward, President, Professional Firefighters of Massachusetts Carol Bellamy, President, New York City Council J. Kenneth Blackwell, City Councillor, Cincinnati Stephen J. Bollinger, Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Jonathan Brock, Visiting Lecturer, Graduate School of Public Affairs, University of Washington H. James Brown, Director, Joint Center for Urban Studies of MIT and Harvard Herbert Cohen, President, Performance Management, Inc., Northbrook, IL Roger Dahl, Director, Labor-Management Relations Service, U.S. Conference of Mayors Edward G. DeSeve, Managing Director, Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, and Smith, New York Michael S. Dukakis, Governor, Massachusetts Robert C. Embry, Jr., partner, Cordish, Embry, and Associates, Baltimore Donald H. Forst, Editor, Boston Magazine Bernard Frieden, Professor of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Christy George, reporter, WGBH-TV News, Boston Barry Gottehrer, Senior Vice President, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company Arnold M. Howitt, Coordinator of Program Development and Research Associate, Joint Center for Urban Studies of MIT and Harvard John Isaacson, partner, Isaacso7i, Ford, Webb and Miller, Boston Ira A. Jackson, Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Revenue Maynard Holbrook Jackson, partner. Chapman and Cutler, Atlanta Robert Kiley, Chair, New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority Helen F. Ladd, Associate Professor of City and Regional Planning, John F. Kennedy School of Government Martin Linsky, Assistant Director, Institute of Politics Herman B. Leonard, Associate Professor of Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government Daniel Malachuk, Jr., partner, Arthur Young and Company, Washington, DC. Joseph P. McLaughlin, Jr., Deputy Mayor for Policy and Communications, Philadelphia

120 Professional Study Programs

John Parr, Center for Public-Private Sector Cooperation, Denver John Peterson, Director of Research, Municipal Finance Officers' Association, Washington, DC Walter Robinson, reporter. The Boston Globe Everett Rossmith, Director of Labor Relations, Seattle Lynn Sagalyn, Assistant Professor of Planning and Real Estate Development, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Harvey I. Sloane, Mayor, Louisville, KY William B. Stafford, Director, Office of Intergovernmental Relations, Seattle Jacqueline Thomas, reporter, The Chicago Sun-Times Lee Verstandig, Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs, The White House Hubert Williams, Director, Police Department, Newark, NJ

The administrative staff included: Charles Trueheart, Seminar Coordinator Theresa A. Donovan, Administrative Coordinator William G. Mayer, Curriculum Coordinator James A. Reeder, Jr. '84, Binder Coordinator Trena Bristol '87, Transportation and Research Coordinator Pamela Gagnon, Staff Support Nadine Parker '85, was coordinator of student assistance for the conference.

Seminar for Massachusetts Mayors February 9-10, 1984 The second annual Seminar for Massachusetts Mayors was attended by thirty mayors (and one city manager) from cities across the Commonwealth. Designed to be both a training session and a forum for the exchange of ideas, the seminar allowed municipal chief executives to talk candidly, in an in­ formal environment, with their peers, with leaders of state government and with public policy experts about the realities of running a Massachusetts city in the 1980s. The program included sessions on financial management, public safety services, school departments, decision making, and com­ munication skills moderated by Helen F. Ladd, H. James Brown, Mary Jo Bane, Arnold M. Howitt and Walter Broadnax. Sponsors were the Joint Center for Urban Studies of MIT and Harvard, the Institute of Politics, the Massachusetts Municipal Association and the Office of Communities and Development, Massachusetts Department of Revenue with support from

121 Professional Study Programs

Bank of Boston, Wang Laboratories of Lowell and the Office for Govern­ ment and Community Affairs, Harvard.

The participants included: John Barrett, North Adams Eugene C. Brune, Somerville John J. Buckley, Lawrence Bernard F. Chartrand, Fitchburg George V. Colella, Revere Edward G. Connolly, Everett Paul Donato, Medford Thomas Fallon, Maiden Richard J, Girouard, Leominster Robert W. Healy, Jr., Cambridge (City Manager) Richard Johnson, Taunton Richard S. Lak, Chicopee Brian J. Lawler, New Bedford Theodore D. Mann, Newton Francis X. McCauley, Quincy Charles P. McKean, Gardner James D. Mitchell, Jr., Chelsea F. John Monahan, Beverly David B. Musante, Jr., Northampton Richard E. Neal, Springfield Michael E. O'Connell, Westfield Carl D. Pilaro, Brockton Ernest E. Proulx, Holyoke Brenda L. Reed, Attlehoro Leonard J. Russell, Cambridge William H. Ryan, Haverhill Anthony V. Salvo, Salem Richard R. Silva, Gloucester Charles Smith, Pittsfield Peter Torigian, Peabody Carlton M. Viveiros, Fall River

The faculty included: Mary Jo Bane, Associate Professor of Public Policy, fohn F. Kennedy School of Government David Bernstein, Director of Administration and Finance, Massport

\11 Professional Study Programs

Walter Broadnax, Lecturer in Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government H. James Brown, Director, Joint Center for Urban Studies Edward J. Collins, Jr., Deputy Commissioner, Division of Local Services, Massachusetts Department of Revenue Arnold M. Howitt, Coordinator of Program Development and Research Associate, Joint Center for Urban Studies Richard M. Kobayashi, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Massachusetts Executive Office of Communities and Development Helen F. Ladd, Associate Professor of City and Regional Planning, John F. Kennedy School of Government Edward Anthony Lehan, World Bank, municipal finance expert Theodore D. Mann, Mayor, Newton Michael E. O'Connell, Mayor, Westfield Lowell L. Richards, III, Collector-Treasurer, Boston Micho Spring, private consultant Edward J. Tynan, Superintendent of Schools, Barnstable Peter Torigian, Mayor, Peabody Michael J. Widmer, senior manager, Cabot Corporation, Boston

The Seminar Committee consisted of: Joint Center for Urban Studies H. James Brown, Director Arnold M. Howitt, Curriculum Coordinator Charlotte Moore, Seminar Coordinator Institute of Politics Graham T. Allison, Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government William G. Mayer, Special Assistant to the Director Jonathan Moore, Director Charles Trueheart, Associate Director Massachusetts Municipal Association Richard Kelliher, Administrative Services Director James Segel, Executive Director

123 Special Projects

Presidential Candidates '84 During the fall and winter months before the beginning of the 1984 primary season, the Institute sponsored two debates among the candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination. The first debate, on October 13,1983, was on nuclear arms control policy and was co-sponsored by the Massachusetts Citizens Coalition for Arms Control. The second debate, on January 31, 1984, was on foreign policy issues and was co-sponsored by The Boston Globe, Both debates were broadcast live by WCVB-TV, Channel 5 in Boston, as special editions of its "Chronicle" program and were aired nationally on member stations of Metromedia, Inc. In both debates, candi­ dates answered questions put to them by the other candidates, as well as by designated questioners as noted below.

Nuclear arms control policy, October 13, 1983 Candidates: Reubin Askew Alan Cranston John Glenn Gary Hart Ernest Hollings George McGovem Walter Mondale Moderator: Peter Mehegan, co-host of "Chronicle," WCVB-TV Questioners: Graham T. Allison, Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government Members of the Massachusetts Citizens Coalition for Arms Control Members of the general public Remarks by Edward J. Markey, U.S. Representative (D-MA), Chair, Massachusetts Citizens Coalition for Arms Control Administrative staff: for WCVB-TV: Stella Gould, Assistant to the Producers Charles Kravetz, Producer David Lawless, Director Judith Stoia, Producer for Massachusetts Citizens Coalition for Arms Control: Gerry Salemme Douglas Waller

124 Special Projects

for the Institute of Politics: Ruth Ballinger, Media Services Coordinator Miriam Ford, Forum Assistant Karen Hurtado, Forum Staff Assistant Charles Trueheart, Associate Director with assistance from: Theresa Donovan Carolyn Fontaine Martin A. Linsky Wendy O'Donnell Elizabeth Pleasants

Foreign policy, January 31, 1984 Candidates: Alan Cranston John Glenn Gary Hart Ernest Rollings Jesse Jackson George McGovern Walter Mondale Moderator: Peter Mehegan, co-host of "Chronicle," WCVB-TV Questioners: Karen Elliott House, national correspondent. The Wall Street Journal William Beecher, national correspondent, The Boston Globe Gregory Treverton, Lecturer in Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government Ezra Vogel, Director, Program in U.S.-Japan Relations, Center for International Affairs, Harvard Administrative staff: for The Boston Globe H. D. S. Greenway, Foreign Editor David Nyhan, political correspondent for WCVB-TV: Stella Gould, Assistant to the Producers Charles Kravetz, Producer David Lawless, Director Judith Stoia, Producer

125 special Projects

for the Institute of Politics: Ruth Ballinger, Media Services Coordinator Miriam Ford, Forum Assistant Karen Hurtado, Forum Staff Assistant Wendy Hurwitz, Intern Charles Trueheart, Associate Director with assistance from: Theresa Donovan Carolyn Fontaine Martin A. Linsky Mary McTigue Wendy O'Donnell David Whitman

In the early months of 1984, the Institute invited candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination to participate in a program of activi­ ties modeled on a successful series of candidates' visits during the 1980 cam­ paign. Typically, these visits would consist of a major address by the candidate in the Forum; a private meeting with members of the Harvard University faculty selected by the Institute in consultation with the cam­ paign staff; and an interview at the studios of WGBH television, hosted by Christopher Lydon, with selected national political journalists serving as questioners. Harvard undergraduates provided background research and lines of questioning for the journalists. Tlie interviews, which were broad­ cast as extended editions of "The Ten O'clock News" on WGBH, were designed to examine the candidates' personal motivation, values, philosophy, and capacity for public service rather than to discuss issue posi­ tions, strategies, or current developments in the campaign.

Ernest F. Hollings, January 26, 1984 Interviewers: Sydney Blumenthal, The New Republic Robert L. Turner, The Boston Globe Research: Wendy Hurwitz

Jesse Jackson, February 3, 1984 Interviewers: Ken Bode, NBC News Dennis Famey, The Wall Street Journal

126 Special Projects

Research: Robert Yarbrough '84

Walter F. Mondale, March 5, 1984 (Forum address only) Administrative staff: for WGBH-TV: Steve Atlas, News Director for the Institute of Politics: Ruth Ballinger, Media Services Coordinator Miriam Ford, Forum Assistant Karen Hurtado, Forum Staff Assistant Charles Trueheart, Associate Director

Religion and the Campaign for Public Office A conference on "Religion and the Campaign for Public Office" was held on June 10 and 11, 1984, co-sponsored by the Institute of Politics and the Harvard Divinity School. The conference brought together a mix of the­ ologians, political and social scientists, representatives of religious minis­ tries, and politicians and political strategists with the goal of sharing their views on the role of religion in the political process and to encourage a great­ er understanding and appreciation for the constructive uses of religious dis­ course in political campaigns. Sessions included speeches, discussions and roundtables designed to provide a broad historical overview, an examina­ tion of specific past campaigns involving religious issues, an exploration of the impact of religion in the 1984 campaign, and the pressures faced by candidates in dealing with religious issues. Discussions of draft findings and recommendations occupied the agenda of the closing session.

Participants included: Charles V. Bergstrom, Executive Director, Office of Governmental Affairs, Lutheran Council, U.S.A. Harvey Cox, Victor S. Thomas Professor of Divinity, Harvard Divinity School Thomas S. Derr, Jr., Professor of Religion, Smith College Robert Drinan, S.J., President, Americans for Democratic Action; Professor of Law, Georgetown University Nathan Glazer, Co-editor, The Public Interest; Professor of Education and Social Structure, School of Education, Harvard

117 special Projects

Robert Gordon Grant, Chair, Executive Board, Christian Voice Jeffrey Hadden, Chair, Department of Sociology, University of Virginia Stanley Hauerwas, Professor of Theology, Notre Dame University Edward Joseph Holland, Staff Associate, Center of Concern, Washington, DC William H. Hudnut, III, Mayor, Indianapolis Madonna Kolbenschlag, H.M., Senior Fellow, Woodstock Theological Center, Georgetown University Arthur J. Lelyveld, Senior Rabbi, Fairmount Temple, Cleveland Eddie Mahe, Jr., President, Eddie Mahe and Associates, Washington, DC Forest Montgomery, Counsel, Office of Public Affairs, National Association of Evangelicals Jonathan Moore, Director, Institute of Politics Howard Phillips, Chair, Conservative Caucus, Virginia A. James Rudin, Director, Inter-Religious Affairs Department, American Jewish Committee George Rupp, John Lord O'Brian Professor of Divinity and Dean, Harvard Divinity School James A, Sharp, Jr., Mayor, Flint, Michigan Donald Shea, C.P.P.S., Religious Liaison, Republican National Committee Peggy Shriver, Assistant General Secretary, National Council of Churches Charles Stith, Pastor, Union United Methodist Church, Boston V. Lance Tarrance, President, Tarrance and Associates Cal Thomas, Vice President for Communications, Moral Majority, Inc. Steven M. Tipton, Assistant Professor of Religion and Sociology, Emory University Herb Titus, Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean, School of Public Policy, Christian Broadcasting Network University, Virginia Gerald T. Vento, partner, Nickerson, Ingram, Vento and Associates, Washington, DC James Wall, Editor, The Christian Century Vin Weber, U.S. Representative (IR-MN) Preston Noah Williams, Houghton Professor of Theology and Contemporary Change, Harvard Divinity School

The Conference Planning Committee included: Constance Buchanan, Special Assistant to the Dean, Harvard Divinity School Harvey Cox, Victor S. Thomas Professor of Divinity, Harvard Divinity School

128 Special Projects

William G. Mayer, Special Assistant to the Director, Institute of Politics Mary McTigue, Financial Assistant, Institute of Politics Jonathan Moore, Director, Institute of Politics Gary Orren, Associate Professor of Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government Charles Trueheart, Associate Director, Institute of Politics Sharon Welch, Assistant Professor of Theology, Harvard Divinity School

Special Consultants Judith Davison John Dixon Michael Jozef Israels Gary La Forest Marilyn Chapin Massey

Conference Staff Assistants Lesley Adams Ruth Ballinger Theresa Donovan Miriam Ford Irma Gonzalez Karen Hurtado Anne Doyle Kenney Jocelyn Moore Wendy O'Donnell Diane Pliner Sonia Wallenberg

129 The Press-Politics Center

The Institute of Politics is taking the lead on behalf of the School and the University in the design and development of a new Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy with a mission to build and transmit knowledge about three interrelated phenomena; the impact of the press on the elec­ toral process; the impact of the press on government; and the impact of public policy on the press. It will mobilize an array of resources to clarify these complex issues, helping to define future threats, rights and responsi­ bilities of a free press in our political system. The Center's four basic purposes are: more understanding by govern­ ment officials about the role and value of the media; better coverage by media professionals of government and politics; better anticipation of the conse­ quences of public policies that affect the media and the First Amendment; and more knowledge about how the media affect our political processes and governmental institutions. The Center's four basic functions are: curriculum development and teach­ ing; research about interactions among the press and electoral politics and government; intensive educational programs for reporters, editors and ex­ ecutives from the press about complex governmental processes and sub­ stantive policy issues; and outreach programs of seminars, cor\ferences and television productions that bring together journalists, government officials, politicians and scholars for joint consideration of media-government problems. The Press-Politics Center by the end of the 1983-84 academic year had raised almost $3 million of a projected $5 million initial endowment in money received and formal pledges. A partial list of contributors include The Boston Globe, Field Enterprises, Cox Enterprises, the Philip L. Graham Fund, the Jesse B. Cox Charitable Foundation, Dow Jones, CBS, RCA, ABC, General Electric, ITT, Chase Manhattan Bank and IBM. With space available for the Center, adjacent to the Institute, in the new addition to the Kennedy School, its conceptual and institutional design com­ pleted, advance program activity growing, and the raising of additional en­ dowment and the appointment of full-time personnel anticipated in the near future, we are looking forward to the formal establishment of the new Center sometime prior to the beginning of the 1985-86 academic year. The Media & The Congress October 28-30, 1983 The Institute and The Los Angeles Times sponsored a three-day conference to examine news media coverage of Congress, how and how well it is cov­ ered and what consequences there might be. Participants included current and former members of Congress, members of the academic community

130 The Press-Politics Center

and print and television journalists who report on congressional issues. In February 1980 the Institute and The Los Angeles Times sponsored a similar conference on "Nominating a President: The Process and the Press" from which a book of the same title and several television programs were produced. "The Media and the Congress" session leaders were: Joseph L. Bower, Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business School Dennis A. Britten, Deputy Matmging Editor, The Los Angeles Times Douglass Cater, President, Washington College Robert J. Dole, U.S. Senator (R-KS) Christopher F. Edley, Jr., Assistant Professor of Law, Harvard Law School Stephen H. Hess, Senior Fellow in Governmental Studies, Brookings Institution Martin A. Linsky, Assistant Director, Institute of Politics; Director, Revson Project, "How the Press Affects Federal Policy-Making" Jonathan Moore, Director, Institute of Politics Norman J. Omstein, Visiting Scholar, American Enterprise Institute Session topics were: Introductory session: "Covering Congress: The Inherent Difficulties/' Douglass Cater; "The Open Congress and the Mass Media/' Norman J. Ornstein Roundtable I: "Congress Problems vis-a-vis the Media/' Stephen H. Hess Roundtable II: "Media Problems vis-a-vis Congress/' Martin A. Linsky Case Study I: "Lobbying," Joseph L. Bower Case Study II: "Tax Legislation/' Christopher F. Edley, Jr. Concluding Discussion: "Findings and Recommendations/' Dennis A. Britton and Jonathan Moore Senator Robert J. Dole gave the keynote address. A book from the conference transcript will be published in fall 1984.

The participants/observers were: Jacqueline Adams, Capitol Hill Correspondent, CBS News Graham T. Allison, Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government Dale L. Bumpers, U.S. Senator (D-AR)

131 The Press-Politics Center

Jack Burby, Assistant Editor, Editorial Pages, The Los Angeles Times William H. Cable, partner, Williams and Jensen Hale Champion, Executive Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government Adam Clymer, Assistant to the Executive Editor, The New York Times Richard E. Cohen, congressional reporter, National Journal Barber B. Conable, Jr., U.S. Representative (R-NY) Richard T. Cooper, Assistant Bureau Chief, Washington Bureau, The Los Angeles Times John C. Culver, former U.S. Senator (D-Iowa) Anthony Day, Editor, Editorial Pages, The Los Angeles Times Helen Dewar, congressional reporter, The Washington Post Paul Duke, Moderator, "Washington Week in Revieiu," WETA-TV Alan Ehrenhalt, Political Editor, Congressional Quarterly Dan Fenn, Jr., Director, John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library, Boston Richard F. Fenno, Jr., Kenan Professor of Political Science, University of Rochester Charles D. Ferris, Attorney, Mintz, levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo (political consultants) John Foley, Deputy Managing Editor, The Los Angeles Times Thomas S. Foley, U.S. Representative (D-WA) Bill Frenzel, U.S. Representative (R-MN) James P. Gannon, Editor, The Des Moines Register Roy M. Goodman, New York State Senator Joel Havemann, economics writer, Washington Bureau, The Los Angeles Times Paul Houston, congressional correspondent, The Los Angeles Times Clark Hoyt, Managing Editor, The Wichita Eagle-Beacon Albert R. Hunt, Washington Bureau Chief, The Wall Street Journal Gary Hymel, Executive Vice President, Gray and Company Tom Johnson, Publisher, Chief Executive Officer, The Los Angeles Times Charles O. Jones, Robert Kent Gooch Professor of Government, University of Virginia Dave Lawrence, Executive Editor, The Detroit Free Press Robert C. Lobdell, Vice President, General Counsel, The Los Angeles Times Arthur Maass, Professor of Government, Harvard James McCartney, national correspondent, Knight-Ridder Newspapers Charles McDowell, Washington columnist, The Richmond Times- Dispatch

132 The Press-Politics Center

Joan McKinney, Washington correspondent. The Baton Rouge Morning Advocate and State Times Harry McPherson, partner, Vemer, Liipfert, Bemhard and McPherson John K. Meagher, Vice President, Government Relations, The LTV Corporation Walter R. Mears, Vice President, Washington Bureau Chief The Associated Press Norman C. Miller, National Editor, The Los Angeles Times Roger Mudd, Washington correspondent, NBC News Jack Nelson, Bureau Chief, Washington Bureau, The Los Angeles Times David R. Obey, U.S. Representative (D-WI) James B. Pearson, former U.S. Senator (R-KS) Leo Rennerl, Washington Bureau Chief The McClatchy Newspapers of California Michael J. Robinson, Associate Professor of Politics, Catholic University David Rogers, staff reporter, Washington Bureau, The Boston Globe William Schneider, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute Carole Simpson, Washington correspondent, ABC News Frank Stanton, President Emeritus, CBS Inc. Peter E. Teeley, Fellow, Institute of Politics; Press Secretary (on leave). Vice President George Bush William F. Thomas, Editor, Executive Vice President, The Los Angeles Times Charles Trueheart, Associate Director, Institute of Politics Karen Tumulty, correspondent, Washington Bureau, The Los Angeles Times Pete Wilson, U.S. Senator (R~CA) Lewis W. Wolfson, Professor of Communication, American University Jonathan Wolman, Washington News Editor, The Associate Press The conference coordinators were: The Los Angeles Times William F. Thomas Dennis A. Britton John Foley Nancy Tew William Schneider Bart Everett The Institute of Politics Jonathan Moore Martin A. Linsky

133 The Press-Politics Center

Charles Trueheart James Verdier Betsy Pleasants Stephen Bates Carolyn Fontaine Elizabeth Northrup Seminar on The World Debt for National Political Journalists November 13-14, 1983 A two-day seminar on the world debt, attended by twenty-five journalists, was sponsored by the Institute, one in a continuing series of similar semi­ nars on public issues of current interest to political reporters and editors. Session topics included an overview of the size and scope of the problem, an analysis of historical causes leading to the current crisis, the impact of U.S. fiscal and monetary policy, the role of financial intermediaries, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and a final question- and-answer roundtable.

The participants included: Gisela Bolle, Time Mary Cooper, Editorial Research Reports Kenneth Esky, Scripps Howard Newspapers Meryl Gordon, Gannett News Service John Hall, Media General Sally Jacobsen, The Associated Press Sheilah Kast, ABC News Clyde Famsworth, The New York Times James Klurfeld, Newsday Jim Landers, Dallas Morning News Christopher Madison, National Journal Jeff Mapes, Scripps League Newspapers Donald May, United Press International Jeff Nesmith, Cox Newspapers Art Pine, The Wall Street Journal Bob Rosenblatt, The Los Angeles Times Daniel Rosenheim, The Chicago Sun Times Patricia M. Scherschel, U.S. News & World Report William Schmick, Ottawa}/ Newspapers

134 The Press-Politics Center

Nancee Simonson, Bureau of National Affairs William Stall, The Hartford Courant Frank Swoboda, The Washington Post Norman O. Wagy, Storer Communications, Inc. David Warsh, The Boston Globe Paul Wieck, The Albuquerque Journal John Yemma, The Christian Science Monitor

The faculty included: Francis M. Bator, Professor of Political Economy, John F. Kennedy School of Government Richard N. Cooper, Maurits C. Boas Professor of International Economics, Harvard Charles P. Kindleberger, Ford Professor of Economics, Emeritus and Senior Lecturer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Jeffrey D. Sachs, Professor, Department of Economics, Harvard Philip Wellons, Associate Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business School

The program was coordinated by Martin Linsky, with assistance from Elizabeth Pleasants

How The Press Affects Federal Policy Making A tiiree-year research project funded by the Charles H. Revson Foundation began its work in July, 1982 with completion scheduled for June, 1985. The primary goal of the project is to increase understanding about the impact of the press on the people, policies, processes, and institutions of the federal government. The project has virtually completed the research and data collection phase of its work: several case studies, a lengthy questionnaire sent to the 1000 senior federal policymakers from the past twenty years, and interviews with fifteen journalists and twenty-five policymakers nominated by a panel of their respective peers. The third year of the project will be devoted to synthesizing the data and writing a book on the findings and conclusions. Members of the Faculty Study Group directing the project are: F. Christopher Arterton, Associate Professor of Political Science and Management, Yale University Hale Champion, Executive Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government; former Under Secretary, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare

135 The Press-Politics Center

John Chancellor, Correspondent, NBC News Stephen H. Hess, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution Albert R. Hunt, Washington Bureau Chief, The Wall Street Journal Martin A. Linsky, Project Director; Assistant Director, Institute of Politics Jonathan Moore, Director, Institute of Politics; Lecturer in Public Polio/, John f. Kennedy School of Government Mark Moore, Guggenheim Professor of Criminal Justice Policy and Management, John F. Kennedy School of Government Richard E. Neustadt, Lucius N. Littauer Professor of Public Administration, John F. Kennedy School of Government Gary Orren, Associate Professor of Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government Eileen Shanahan, Senior Assistant Managing Editor, Pittsburgh Post- Gazette James C, Thomson, Jr., Curator, Nieman Foundation for Journalism; former Special Assistant, Department of State; East Asian Specialist, National Security Council John William Ward, President, American Council of Learned Societies Lewis W. Wolfson, Professor of Communication, American University; former Washington Bureau Chief, Providence Journal

New Communications Technologies and Democratic Values A two-year interdisciplinary research project, funded by the John and Mary R. Markle Foundation, began its work in September 1983 with com­ pletion scheduled for August 1985. The project's goal is to examine how new communications technologies, e.g., cable and videotex, may affect democratic values and governance in our society. Its method will be to: • identify, assess, and compare the fundamental values of a democratic society; • examine the status quo in politics and government, in communications and news media, and in the interaction between the two; • examine the ways in which the new media may change these institutions and the chemistry between them; • discuss broad regulatory guidelines for the new media, grounded firmly in democratic values. A book, reports and other educational materials are expected to result from the work of the project. A Faculty Study Group chaired by Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Professor of Govern­ ment and Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government and Act­ ing Director, Center for International Affairs, Harvard is directing the project.

136 The Press-Politics Center

Members of the Study Group include: Jeffrey Abramson, Assistant Professor of Politics, Harvard; Assistant District Attorney, Middlesex County, Massachusetts F. Christopher Arterton, Associate Professor of Political Science and Management, Yale University Daniel Bell, Henry Ford II Professor of Social Sciences, Harvard Stephen G. Breyer, Justice, U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit; Lecturer on Administrative Law and Regulatory Policy, Harvard Law School Les Brown, Editor-in-Chief Channels of Communications Archibald Cox, Carl M. Loeb University Professor, Harvard Law School John Deardourff, Chairman of the Board, Bailey, Deardourff and Associates Henry Geller, Director, Center for Public Policy Research, Washington, DC Winthrop Knowlton, Director, Center for Business and Government, John F. Kennedy School of Government Richard Levine, Editorial Director, Data Base Publishing, Dow Jones & Company Jonathan Moore, Director, Institute of Politics; Lecturer in Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government Roger Mudd, Chief Political Correspondent, NBC News W. Russell Neuman, Assistant Professor of Political Science and Co- Director, Research Program on Communications Policy, MIT Richard M. Neustadt, Senior Vice President, Private Satellite Network, New York Ithiel de Sola Pool, Sloan Professor of Political Science, MIT Gary Orren, Associate Professor of Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government Michael Sandel, Associate Professor of Government, Harvard

Research Coordinator for the project is Stephen Bates.

137 The Forum

The ARCO Public Affairs Forum is the multi-tiered central area of the John F. Kennedy School of Government building. It serves, as Edward M. Kennedy remarked in his dedication address, as a "crossroads by day and a meeting place by night, an arena for debate where democracy can come alive, a forum where citizens can meet with presidents and kings, or poets debate with secretaries of defense." The Institute administers all formal programs held in the Forum, includ­ ing the following events planned in cooperation with the Harvard Sum­ mer School.

"Central America: Where Should the U.S. Stand in 1984?", July 7,1983, a panel discussion with: W. Scott Thompson, Associate Director of Programs, U.S. Information Agency John McAward^ Director of Human Rights, Unitarian Universalist Service Committee Seyom Brown, Professor of Politics, American Foreign Policy, and International Relations, Brandeis University; member. Harvard Summer School faculty (moderator) "The Legal Profession Today," July 16, 1983, a panel discussion with: Molly Geraghty, Director of Admissions, Harvard Law School Diane Juliar, Chief Criminal Bureau, Middlesex County District Attorney's Office Daniel Tarullo, Assistant Professor of Law, Harvard Law School EllswoTth Fersch, Lecturer on Psychology, Harvard Medical School; member, Harvard Summer School faculty (moderator) "Chronicle of a Drought," July 21, 1983, a film, with comments by filmmaker Jean Rouch, Professor of Audio-Visual Studies, University of Paris; member. Harvard Summer School Faculty. Summer School administrators responsible for the series were: Marshall R. Pihl, Director, Harvard Summer School E. Fred Yalouris, Assistant Director, Harvard Summer School Events held in the Forum during the academic year included the following: Convocation for students of the John F. Kennedy School of Government, September 13, 1983, with remarks by: Graham T. Allison, Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government Albert Camesale, Professor of Public Policy and Academic Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government Hale Champion, Executive Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government Mary Jo Bane, Associate Professor, John F. Kennedy School of Government; member, Faculty of Education

138 The Forum

"Personal Perspectives on Politics," September 15, 1983, a panel discussion with the Fall 1983 Fellows of the Institute of Politics. Participants were: Arkie Byrd, Attorney, Women's Legal Defense Fund, Washington, DC }udith Davison, Legislation/Polic}/ Coordinator for U.S. Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) Keimeth Hartnett, former Managing Editor, The Boston Herald (moderator) Patrick J. Lucey, former Governor of Wisconsin, U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Richard J. Margolis, Director, National Rural Voter Project Peter Teeley, Press Secretary to Vice President George Bush "Asia and the World Economy: Recovery and Interdependence," September 29, 1983, a public address by Masao Fujioka, President, Asian Development Bank, co-sponsored by the John F. Kennedy School of Government and the Institute of Politics, with respondents: EzraVogel, Director, Program on U.S.-Japan Relations, Center for International Affairs, Harvard; author, Japan as Number One HoUis Chenery, Professor of Economics, Harvard; author. Structural Change and Development Policy Raymond Vernon, Professor of Economics, John F. Kennedy School of Government; Editor, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management Henry Rosovsky, Dean, Faculty or Arts and Sciences; former Associate Director, East Asian Research Center, Harvard (moderator) "Personal Reflections on Public Service and Public Management," October 4, 1983, a public address by Elliot Richardson, former Under Secretary of State, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, and Secretary of Commerce "Practical Politics in a Global Economy," October 5,1983, a public address by Robert D. Muldoon, Prime Minister of New Zealand, co-sponsored by the John F. Kennedy School of Government and the Institute of Politics "Japanese Industrial Policy," October 11, 1983, a public address by Yoshizo Ikeda, Senior Advisor to the Board of Directors, Mitsui and Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan, co-sponsored by the John F. Kennedy School of Government and the Institute of Politics, with respondents: Frank Weil, Attorney, Washington, DC; former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Trade Robert Reich, Lecturer in Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government; author. The Next American Frontier Ezra Vogel, Director, Program on U.S.-Japan Relations, Center for International Affairs, Harvard; author, Japan as Number One (moderator)

139 The Forum

A "Campaign '84" nationally televised debate on nuclear arms, October 13, 1983, with seven Democratic presidential candidates co-sponsored by the Massachusetts Citizens Coalition for Arms Control and the Institute of Politics "Television is Public Policy," October 17,1983, a public address by Edward Asner, Visiting Fellow, Institute of Politics; actor and political activist "An American View of U.S.-Canadian Relations," October 18, 1983, a public address by Lawrence Eagleburger, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Policy (delivered by James Medas, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Canada) "Candidates Night"—I & II—panel discussions with the candidates for the Cambridge School Committee, October 20,1983, and with the candidates for the Cambridge City Council, October 25, 1983, co-sponsored by the Cambridge League of Women Voters and the Institute of Politics "The Media & The Congress," October 28-30,1983, a three-day conference with members of the Washington, DC press corps and members of the U.S. Congress, co-sponsored by The Los Angeles Times and the Institute of Politics "Grenada: Invasion and Aftermath," October 31,1983, a panel discussion with: Philip Hughes, Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs Simon Richards, Permanent Representative of the Dominica Mission to the United Nations Michael Avery, member, National lawyers Guild, Lawyers Committee Against Intervention in Central America Alan Berger, editorial writer, The Boston Globe Gregory Treverton, Lecturer in Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government (moderator) "The Nuclear Winter: The Long Term Global Consequences of Nuclear War," November 3, 1983, a public address by Carl Sagan, David Duncan Professor of Astronomy and Space Sciences, Cornell University; author. The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence "Weapons in Space," November 9, 1983, a debate co-sponsored by the Student Advisory Committee with Edward Teller and Hans Bethe "In the Land of Israel," November 10,1983, a public address by Amos Oz, Israeli novelist and poet, co-sponsored by Boston Peace Now and the Institute of Politics

140 The Forum

"College Athletics: Sport or Profession?", November 14, 1983, a panel discussion co-sponsored by the Student Advisory Committee and the Department of Athletics, Harvard "JFK Remembered: Four Personal Perspectives," November 21, 1983, a panel discussion with: Ben Bradlee, Executive Editor, The Washington Post; author, Conversations with Kennedy Carl Kaysen, Director, Program in Science, Technology and Society, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; former Deputy Assistant to President Kennedy for National Security Affairs David Powers, Curator, John F. Kennedy Library Richard Neustadt, Lucius N. Littauer Professor of Public Administration, John F. Kennedy School of Government (moderator) "Central America: The United States and El Salvador," November 28, 1983, a panel discussion co-sponsored by the Student Advisory Committee "Women Leaders: The Massachusetts Cabinet," November 29, 1983, a panel discussion co-sponsored by the Kennedy School Women's Group and the Institute of Politics, with: Evelyn Murphy, Secretary of Economic Affairs Amy Anthony, Secretary of Communities and Development Sharon Pollard, Secretary of Energy Resources Paula Gold, Secretary of Consumer Affairs Judyjarvis, producer and host, "Point of View, "WLVI-TV, Boston (moderator) "The History of Organized Crime in the United States," November 30, 1983, a public address by William French Smith, Attorney General of the United States "Harvard Square in 1985: What Will It Be Like?", December 8, 1983, a panel discussion co-sponsored by the Harvard Square Business Association and the Institute of Politics, with: Christopher Chadboume, Critic in Urban Design, Graduate School of Design, Harvard Peter Hopkinson, partner, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, Cambridge Paul Dietrich, resident, Neighborhood Nine; member, Cambridge Planning Board Kathy A. Spiegelman, Assistant City Manager for (Community Development, Cambridge David R. Vickery, Project Manager, University Place Project, Mines Industrial, Boston (moderator)

141 The Forum

"U.S. International Economic Competitiveness: Is There a Problem?", December 14, 1983, a panel discussion co-sponsored by the Harvard Industrial Policy Project, the Harvard Business School Political Forum and the Institute of Politics, with: Ezra Vogel, Director, Program on U. S.-Japan Relations, Center for International Affairs; Professor of Sociohg}/, Harvard Richard N. Cooper, Maurits C. Boas Professor of International Economics, Center for International Affairs, Harvard Bruce Scott, Paul Whiten Cherington Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business School Alan M. Kantrow, Associate Editor, Harvard Business Review (moderator) "Easy-Going Nihilism: The Contemporary University," January 9,1984, a public address by Allan Bloom, member. Committee on Social Thought and Professor of Political Philosophy, University of Chicago, co-sponsored by the John M. Olin Foundation and the Institute of Politics, with respondents: Duncan Kennedy, Professor of law, Harvard Law School Nathan Glazer, Professor of Education and Social Structure, Harvard Harvey Mansfield, Professor of Government, Harvard (moderator) A "Campaign '84" address, January 26, 1984, by U.S. Senator Ernest HoUings (D-SC), Democratic presidential candidate A "Campaign '84" nationally televised debate on foreign policy, January 31, 1984, with seven Democratic presidential candidates co-sponsored by The Boston Globe and the Institute of Politics "Personal Perspectives on Politics," February 2, 1984, a panel discussion with the Spring 1984 Fellows of the Institute of Politics. Participants were: Mary McCauley Burrows, Oregon State Representative Francesta Farmer, former Executive Director, U.S. Congressional Black Caucus David R. Gergen, former Director of Communications, The White House Richard J, Margolis, Director, National Rural Voter Project Cathleen Douglas Stone, Attorney, Washington, DC; Democratic activist Robert F. Wagner, Jr., former Deputy Mayor, New York City Jonathan Moore, Director, Institute of Politics (moderator) A "Campaign '84" address, February 3, 1984, by Rev. Jesse Jackson, Democratic presidential candidate A Voter Registration Fair, February 7,1984, co-sponsored by the Student Advisory Committee

142 The Forum

"The Gender Gap and the 1984 Campaign," February 13, 1984, a panel discussion co-sponsored by the Student Advisory Committee "Caribbean Security After Grenada," February 14,1984, a public address by Eugenia Charles, Prime Minister, Dominica, with respondents: Orlando Patterson, Professor of Sociology, Harvard Sally Shelton, Vice President, International Business-Government Counselors, Inc., Washington, DC; former U.S. Ambassador to the Eastern Caribbean Nations "Crisis of Confidence in International Affairs," February 22,1984, a public address by Kurt Waldheim, Secretary General, International Council for Former Heads of Governments, Vienna, Austria; former Secretary General, United Nations, co-sponored by the Harvard International Relations Council and the Institute of Politics "Environmental Responsibility: U.S. Policy and Third World Development," February 23,1984, a panel discussion co-sponsored by the Environmental Action Committee of Phillips Brooks House and the Student Advisory Committee "Arms Control in the Reagan Administration," February 27,1984, a public address by Paul Nitze, U.S. Special Representative for Arms Control and Disarmament Negotiations "Deregulation: The Reagan Philosophy at the Federal Trade Commission,'' February 28,1984, a public address by James Miller, Chair, Federal Trade Commission, with respondents: Richard Zeckhauser, Professor and Chair, Research Committee; Director, Faculty Project on Regulation, John F. Kennedy School of Government Judge Stephen Breycr, Lecturer on Law, Harvard law School and John F. Kennedy School of Government "Non-Violent Dissidence: Does It Work?" March 1, 1984, a panel discussion co-sponsored by the Harvard-Radcliffe Amnesty International and the Student Advisory Committee "Remembering Eleanor Roosevelt: The Politics of Conscience," March 3, 1984, a day-long seminar honoring the centennial of the birth of Mrs. Roosevelt, co-sponsored by the Kennedy School Women's Group and the Institute of Politics. The schedule included: "Remembering Eleanor Roosevelt," a public address by Tamara Hareven, Professor of History, Clark University; author, Eleanor Roosevelt: An American Conscience

143 The Forum

"The Feminization of Poverty," a panel discussion w^ith: Teresa Amott, Visiting Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts/Amherst Janet Diamond, Special Project Director, Employment and Training, Massachusetts Department of Public Welfare Linda Gordon, Fellow, Bunting Institute, Harvard; Professor of History, University of Massachusetts/Boston Curdina Hill, Director, Adult Literacy Resource Institute, Roxbury Community College Ellen Goodman, syndicated columnist (moderator) "First Lady of the World: Eleanor Roosevelt," a short film biography "International Human Rights," a panel discussion with: Rev. Charles Beirne, S.f., Associate in Education, Graduate School of Education, Harvard Stephen Cohen, Professor of Law, Georgetown Law School Estelle Linzer, Vice Chair, United Nations Association of the U.S.A. Henry Sleiner, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School (moderator) A "Campaign '84" address, March 5, 1984, by Walter Mondale, Democratic presidential candidate, co-sponsored by the Center for Business and Government, John F. Kennedy School of Government and the Institute of Politics "Making Government Work," March 6 & 7, 1984, Parts I & II of the Godkin Lecture Series, public addresses by Alice Rivlin, Fellow, Brookings Institution; former Director, U.S. Congressional Budget Office, co-sponsored by the John F. Kennedy School of Government and the Institute of Politics "Science, Religion, and the Nuclear Menace," March 8, 1984, a public address by Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, C.S.C, President, University of Notre Dame "The Politics of Immigration Reform," March 8, 1984, a public address by U.S. Senator Alan K. Simpson (R-WY), co-sponsored by the Migration and Development Program, Center for Population Studies, Harvard and the Institute of Politics "Student Debate," March 13, 1984, an analysis of the presidential candidates, co-sponsored by the Student Advisory Committee "Labor-Management Cooperation: How Far Can it Go?", March 15,1984, a public address by Douglas Fraser, Jerry Wurf Fellow of the Faculty, John F. Kennedy School of Government; former President, United Auto Workers

144 The Forum

Union, co-sponsored by the Sidney Harmon Lecture Series of the Program on Technology, Public Policy and Human Development, John F. Kennedy School of Government and the Institute of Politics "Antigone," by Sophocles, March 16 & 17,1984, a play presented by the Kennedy School Players and the Institute of Politics "Equity in the 1980's" March 19,1984, a public address by Eleanor Holmes Norton, Visiting Fellow, Institute of Politics; former Chair, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, DC "AIDS: Public Health and Public Policy," March 21, 1984, a panel discussion with: Robert Finberg, M.D., Infectious Disease Division, Dana-Farber Institute, Boston Mel Rosen, AIDS Institute, New York State; former Director, Gay Men's Health Crisis Center, New York Mervyn Silverman, M.D., Director, Department of Public Health, San Francisco, California Marc Roberts, Professor of Political Economy; Professor, School of Public Health, Harvard (moderator) "New York, New York," April 2,1984, a public address by Edward Koch, Mayor of New York "Labor Unions and Social Welfare," April 3, 1984, a public address by Olof Palme, Prime Minister of Sweden "Peace in the Middle East," April 4, 1984, a public address by Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States "Affirmative Action and the Civil Rights Commission," April 5, 1984, Part 1 of the Fourth Annual Oliver Cromwell Cox Lecture Series, "Determining the Black Social, Political and Economic Agenda," a panel discussion co-sponsored by the Black Caucus, John F. Kennedy School of Government and the Institute of Politics, with: Linda Chavez, Staff Director, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Peter Sherwood, Assistant Counsel, NAACP legal Defense Fund Nancy Randolph, Special Assistant to the President on Affirmative Action, Harvard (moderator) "Perspectives on Hunger," April 6,1984, a panel discussion sponsored by the Harvard-Radcliffe International Development Foundation "Censors, Secrets, and Security: Is Big Brother Really Watching?", April

145 The Forum

10, 1984, a panel discussion co-sponsored by the Student Advisory Committee "The Power and the Press," April 11, 1984, the third annual Joe Alex Morris, Jr. Memorial Lecture by Eric Sevareid, former CBS News correspon­ dent, co-sponsored by the Nieman Foundation for Journalism, and the In­ stitute of Politics, Harvard "Political Strategies for Black Empowerment," April 12, 1984, Part II of the Cox Lecture Series, a panel discussion with: Francesta Farmer, fellow, Institute of Politics; former Executive Director. U. S. Congressional Black Caucus C. J. McLin, Ohio State Representative Milton Morris, Director of Research, Joint Center for Political Studies, Washington, DC James Sharp, Mayor, Flint, Michigan Clarence Mitchell, Maryland State Senator Meldon Hollis, Administrative Assistant, Office of the Special Assistant to the President, Harvard (moderator) "The Economic Agenda; Policy Impact on Black Americans," April 19, 1984, Part III of the Cox Lecture Series, a panel discussion with: Glenn Loury, Professor of Economics and Afro-American Studies, Harvard Robert Reich, Lecturer in Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government David Swinton, Director, Southern Center for Studies in Public Policy, Clark College, Atlanta Fletcher Wiley, Attorney, Boston Ronald Ferguson, Professor of Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government (moderator) "Remembering Harry Truman: A Centennial Retrospective," April 24, 1984, a Smithsonian Institution film, "Truman: A Self-Portrait," followed by a panel discussion with: Clark Clifford, partner, Clifford & Wamke, Washington, DC; former Secretary of Defense, Legal Counsel to the President David McCuUough, author, Harry S. Truman and The American Character (in progress) Frank Pace, Chair, International Executive Service Corps; former Secretary of the Army, Director, Bureau of the Budget Richard E, Neustadt, Lucius N. Littauer Professor of Public Administration, John F. Kennedy School of Government Graham T. Allison, Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government (moderator)

146 The Forum

"The Harvard Strike," April 23, 1984, a documentary film, followed by, "Student Activism: Then and Now," a panel discussion co-sponsored by the Student Advisory Committee "The Government and the Classroom: The Issues at Stake in the 1984 Campaign," AprU 26, 1984, a panel discussion co-sponsored by the Student Advisory Committee "The Future of North-South Relations," April 27, 1984, the opening address of the Sixth Annual Third World Conference, by Michael Manley, former Prime Minister of Jamaica, co-sponsored by the Kennedy School Students Association, Harvard Institute for International Development, and the Institute of Politics "New Directions for the Democratic Party," April 30, 1984, a public address by Harold Washington, Visiting Fellow, Institute of Politics; Mayor, Chicago "Can We Teach Immunity from Folly?", May 3, 1984, a public address by Barbara Tuchman, historian and author. The March of Folly; The Guns of August "The Question That Baffled Jefferson," May 10, 1984, a public address by Judith Martin, a.k.a. Miss Manners, syndicated columnist and author, co-sponsored by the John M. Olin Foundation and the Institute of Politics "Religion and the Campaign for Public Office," June 10-11,1984, a two- day conference with theologians and religious scholars, political and social scientists, clergy and religious activists, and political strategists, co-sponsored by the Harvard Divinity School and the Institute of Politics "People and Computers," June 28,1984, a panel discussion co-sponsored by the Harvard Summer School and the Institute of Politics, with: Harley Shaiken, Research Associate, Program in Science, Technology, and Society, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sharon Dannan, member, 9 to 5 Automation Committee; former VDT operator David Bernstein, Director, Office Management Systems, Massachusetts Thomas Lodahl, President, Office Strategies Group, Easton, Connecticut (moderator)

147