Institute of Politics John F.Kennedy School of Government Harvard University PROCEEDINGS Institute of Politics 1977-78 1978-79 John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University FOREWORD The Ten-Year Report, issued in the Spring of 1977, was a handy—even heroic—record of the programs and individuals of the Institute of Politics' first decade. Shortly thereafter, plans were made for publication of an annual retrospective, promising a more regular and expressive review of Institute life. Rather than just listing names and events, the new publication would also include selected excerpts from Institute speeches and panels, articles and books, formal reports and personal evaluations—the various stirrings of mind and spirit which a simple inventory of activity inadequately represents. Here is the first edition of Proceedings of the Institute of Politics, which covers the two academic years since its ten-year anniversary (the second of which signalled the Institute's relocation into the new John F. Kennedy School of Government building). Part One, Readings, is a sampling of analytical and personal statement, with zesty accounts of the workings of politics, impassioned or studied plans for political action, hearty exchanges over the role of the press, anxious searches for political direction—conclud­ ing with somewhat more intimate insights into Institute life. All pieces appear in excerpted form. Part Two, Programs, is a detailed listing of the various ac­ tivities, people, and products which comprise the past two years of Institute effort. Taken with the preceding Ten-Year Report and the annual editions to follow. Proceedings presents an ongoing portrait of the Institute of Politics. We hope its readers find it informative and enjoyable. Jonathan Moore, Director of the Institute of Politics Dan Paller, Editor of Proceedings I. Readings Readings CONTENTS THE POLITICAL PROCESS 7 Getting Into Politics by Jack Walsh 9 Introduction to Campaign for President: The Managers Look at '76 by Jonathan Moore 13 Congress Doesn't Live Here Anymore by Linda Bilmes 16 Staying Informed: A Mayor's Right — and Need — to Know by Barry Gottehrer STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE 20 The Chiquita Banana Boycott and California Strike by Cesar Chavez 24 The Crisis of Black Politics in the Bakke-Burger Era: Alternatives for the 1980's by Chuck Stone 29 Findings and Recommendations from "An Analysis of the Impact of the Federal Election Campaign Act, 1972-78" by the Campaign Finance Faculty Study Group THE MEDIA 33 Reporting on State Government: How Can We Improve? A panel discussion 37 Separating the Facts from the News by Raymond Price 41 Should Journalists Have the Right to Protect Their Sources? An Advocates program REFLECTIONS 48 Is Anyone in Washington Thinking? by Bruce Adams 52 The Role of the American Intellectual Community in Redefining Our National Purpose by Patricia Harris THE PERSONAL SIDE OF THE INSTITUTE 56 A dedication address by Edward Kennedy 57 An evaluation of summer research by Jean Koh 58 A resignation speech by Nina Dayton 59 A report to the Senior Advisory Committee by Tamera Stanton 60 A fellowship evaluation by Edward Pattison 62 A fellowship evaluation by Martin Nolan 64 A public address by Dan Rather The Political Process Getting Into Politics by Jack Walsh This article appeared in the Harvard Political Review, Fall 1978. Jack Walsh, currently political director of the 1980 Carter-Mondale campaign, was an Institute Fellow in Spring 1978. It seems that people who have never participated in the political system view it just as they do other institutions they don't understand. There is the same kind of uncertainty in approaching the political system as there is in ap­ proaching a bank for a mortgage, military service for induction, a university for enrollment, a city department to straighten out a water bill, an insurance company to make a claim, or any other institution which is large, confusing and threatening to the lonely individual. And how does the uncertainty manifest itself? Usually, the individual develops a negative attitude towards the institution and starts to pit himself or herself against it. It is not often that a person about to enter a hospital speaks glowingly of hospitals; nor does someone having an insurance claim praise insurance companies. The same kind of uncertainty and trepidation gripping people in their social negotiations with other institutions grips them during their first serious contact with the political system. People usually enter the political system through a political party, a can­ didacy, or an issue movement. What attitudes do they bring with them? Un­ fortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective), they usually bring negative ones: the new candidate talks about changing the system; the candidates for local party office talk about elevating the quality of people in the party; and some people talk about stopping some public policy decision which has been made by the government. In all of the above examples, the in­ dividual has focused on something he or she has found wrong with a political institution and attacks the institution with the ultimate goal of improving it. The Political Process And what are the possibilities? The two most prominent ones are: [al the in­ dividual wins, and the institution is proven a bad one, or (b] the individual loses, and the institution is proven a bad one. Every time I start to think seriously about this problem I am reminded of a meeting I had with a group of young political activists years ago. I had asked them, "How many of you think that our major role in the political system is to throw the 'rascals' out of the government?" and every hand went up. Then I asked, "With whom do you think we should replace them?" There was complete silence. The problem is not that people are negatively motivated. Rather, they don't see our political institutions as potentially positive forces through which they can move the government to be more compatible with their perceptions of its role. That happens because people, at a stage in their Hfe when they are about to enter the political system, have not given that major step enough thought. They don't see it as a rational process, but as an emo­ tional or social one. They enter because it serves their own ambitions or social needs. And consequently, they rationalize their own motivations. They say, "I entered politics to make the government belter." What govern­ ment? Government to do what? For whom? And what does "better" mean? Is "better" more efficient? More compassionate? More protective? More equitable? More positive? Or what? Because these goals are badly defined, they are never achieved. When people fail to achieve their goals they tend not to blame themselves but to blame the political institution. The worst part of this phenomenon is that people leave the political system with negative attitudes toward it. Because of their experience they have credibility. They proselytize against the political system, and they are winning their argument. The American people are becoming more and more anti-political, and it scares me because political in­ stitutions are potentially constructive forces in our society. After all, if we give up on democratic political institutions, what do we replace them with? Upon making the decision to enter the political system, one must know what he or she wants to accomplish and then go to the political institution which best can affect the level of government which can help achieve these goals. If none of the existing institutions fulfill that need, then one should start a new one. If one wants to get involved in developing a strong defense for our nation, or if one thinks it is important to distribute wealth more equitably, then involvement with a national political institution is in order. To get a new high school built one should get involved in local institutions; to amend the Constitution of the United States through the ratification process The Politica} Process one should find the other people who agree with that goal, organize them, and then create a new political institution. To enter public service as a career one should enter at the level at which one can learn the most. I recommend that people who want a career in politics enter at a level at which they meet and interact with voters because this is the most fundamental political relationship. And if it is not understood, the new politician will be doomed to frustration and failure (not necessarily to losing elections). One can win elections and still fail if one doesn't achieve one's other goals. Having gained that understanding, one can more rationally and realistically shift political goals as career developments occur. On entering the political system: think about it; know why you're doing it; then do it. It is very enjoyable, if unrealistic expectations aren't developed. Introduction to Campaign for President: The Managers Look at '76 by Jonathan Moore This piece introduced a volume, published in Fall 1978, which was based on transcripts of a 1977 Institute conference of campaign managers. Jonathan Moore has served as director of the Institute since 1974. The 1976 Presidential campaign was as confusing as it was exciting. Several factors, particularly when taken in combination, made it dramatical­ ly different and complex. There were major changes in party rules for selec­ tion of delegates in states, although mainly on the Democratic side—notably, the requirements for adequate participation of women and minorities and for proportional representation in place of the "winner take all" system. There was a proliferation of state primaries up to thirty, seven more than in 1972 and almost a doubling of the number in 1968.