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.