Harvard Political Review: How did your business background help you as a political strategist?

David Muir: Coming from a background in market research, you learn a lot about people and how they interact. You also learn that what you want to say and how you communicate can actually be different. These elements of communication and engagement are important in the world of politics. The other thing is the role of emotion. Emotion drives people and markets, but too often political discourse is divided by emotion.

HPR: How did British politics change with Gordon Brown?

DM: The first two parliaments of Labour government, led by Tony Blair, were under fairly benign economic circumstances. The government was a clear beneficiary of globalization because, once China entered the market, there was massive downward pressure on inflation, and inflation has somewhat been the British disease. Globalization also created lots of jobs in the U.K., especially in the financial and technology sectors. Conversely, in Gordon’s time as political leader, globalization was no longer a benign force. China’s huge growth created resource constraints…We had been a massive beneficiary from the downward pressure on prices and now we were struggling because pressure was upwards.

HPR: How do you think Mr. Brown’s decision to step back affected British politics and the Labor Party?

DM: I think his decision to stand down was exactly the right decision. If you’ve lost an election, it’s time for somebody new to take over. But he and Tony Blair were absolutely giant figures within the Labour Party, and they dominated the field. I think it’s best for them to stay off the field in order for the new generation to build itself up. Blair and Brown cast a long shadow on British politics in a good sense, but it is imperative that the younger generation gets out from underneath that shadow.

HPR: What are your thoughts on the current economic crisis?

DM: It is clear with hindsight that Greece should never have become part of the Eurozone, but people have to be clear that, if Greece is kicked out of the Eurozone, you’d have not just a bankrupt state but also a bankrupt corporate sector. It wasn’t just the Greeks who wanted to be in the Eurozone, but was also the French and the Germans, thus making it an aggregate responsibility. Ultimately, I think the E.U. as it currently stands is actually incapable of solving this crisis; instead, the IMF must be brought in to solve the problem, but that may be plausibly unpalatable and is likely to be resisted by the European leaders.

HPR: What do you think is the role of the U.K. during the Eurozone crisis?

DM: The U.K. is definitely going to be affected, but at the moment is very much a bystander. I think this bystander status is definitely a big change and would not have happened if Gordon Brown was still prime minister. Instead, the U.K. is confined to being a spectator. It will probably pick up a big tab, since the U.K.’s biggest export market is Europe, likely causing its growth further decline and weaken. Therefore, there’s likely to be political controversy in the U.K. over the next six months about whether having a fiscal austerity at a time when demand is contracting is the right thing to do.

Alpkaan Celik ’15 is a Staff Writer. This interview has been condensed and edited.

How strictly Harvard enforces its smoking bans is up for debate, but it is not surprising to see a group of smokers huddled together in the Yard or outside a House on a given night. Such scenes support the idea that smoking at Harvard is typically a social practice, as appears to have been the case more than 10 years ago.  However, given Harvard’s highly competitive and highly stressful environment, one must wonder if students are driven to smoking for more troubling reasons. As the backlash against smoking gains momentum, the Harvard community must better understand why Harvard students decide to start smoking and why they persistently continue on throughout their college years. In seeking these answers, anti-smoking advocates at Harvard must not fall into the habit of ostracizing or judging smokers. Rather, a push must be made to establish and publicize resources to prevent high-risk students from falling into smoking habits and to proactively helping smokers who want to quit.

Last spring, the Tobacco Control Policy Group, a subgroup of the Institute of Politics, conducted a survey to better understand smoking habits among Harvard College students. Out of the 462 students who responded, 10% admitted to currently being smokers. These results were actually lower than the national average derived from the National College Health Assessment during the spring of 2010. That assessment found that16% of those college students who responded had smoked cigarettes in the last 30 days from the time they were surveyed.

Though it is reassuring that Harvard’s smoking average is less than the national average, the survey’s results hinted at other trends that are perhaps more troubling, if not entirely surprising. About 64% of the respondents indicated that they have friends who currently smoke and about 53% of students have family members who smoke or have smoked. People are more likely to smoke if they are surrounded by friends or acquaintances who smoke.

The Tobacco Control Group’s survey also found that the majority of Harvard smokers began smoking when they were 17 or 18, right around the age when most reached college. The social pressures, combined with Harvard’s stressful environment, are enough to drive many students to smoking, especially if many regard it as a socially acceptable outlet for stress.

To properly address smoking issues on campus, and to support those students who need it, Harvard needs to focus on publicizing already existing smoking cessation resources and look into establishing prevention programs. Harvard University Health Services already has a Smoking Cessation Program and other smoking resources for those who are looking to quit. Though the existence of these resources is commendable, smokers would likely benefit more from such resources if they were more widely advertised. Alcohol and sexual health resources are widely available and advertised throughout campus and there is no reason why tobacco support should not receive the same attention.

Furthermore, incoming freshman receive a lot of information regarding alcohol and sexual health resources during their first week on campus. A similar program about tobacco and smoking related issues could also be instituted. Such a program would not necessarily deal with the dangers of smoking, as most students are likely to be aware of those risks. Rather, freshmen should be aware of healthier ways to deal with stress before they turn to smoking. Likewise, freshmen who already smoke would benefit from knowing of the preexisting smoking cessation resources available to them should they choose to quit.

To be sure, the majority of smokers are likely aware of the risks and dangers associated with smoking. About 66% of surveyed students indicated they have taken a class or program on the dangers of smoking, such as D.A.R.E.. These students are within their rights to continue to smoke at Harvard, where appropriate. The stigma surrounding smoking needs to be reduced so that smokers who want to quit feel more comfortable and less judged when they come forward.

A campus-wide smoking ban, though ideal for some, would also do little to help Harvard smokers. Rather, a first concrete step should be to ensure that current smoking prohibitions are strictly enforced. Other efforts should also focus on creating a strong support structure to help smokers quit if they choose to and to prevent at-risk students from falling into the habit. As the Tobacco Policy Group’s survey indicated, many Harvard students are acquainted with smokers and it is easy to consider smoking a stress-reliever when surrounded by other smokers.

The Tobacco Policy Group’s survey may have revealed that the majority of Harvard students do not smoke, but this does not indicate that smoking is not a serious campus issue. Harvard’s social pressures and stressful environment likely perpetuate smoking habits. Focusing on prevention and proactive solutions to helping smokers kick the habit is sure to be a challenge, but it is a more viable solution than simply outlawing smoking or ostracizing smokers. Smoking education should not take on a didactic tone, but instead focus on better understanding why Harvard students turn to smoking and looking into viable solutions to helping them quit.

Editor’s Note: The Tobacco Policy Group is a subgroup of the Institute of Politics at Harvard. It has been studying tobacco policy throughout the course of this term, and the HPR is pleased to publish its findings.

Photo Credit: Flickr (Chuckumentary)

7:25 pm: He outlines a handful of improvements that could be made in state politics, energy, and a host of other issues, and concludes the event with the words, “but I’m just an unemployed former governor”—much to the amusement of the crowd. -Andrew Seo

7:23 pm: Richardson states how more female candidates are needed in today’s politics. -Andrew Seo

7:15 pm: Question about why President Obama has not passed the ban on assault rifles when 6,000 gun shops line the border between Mexico and the US. Why not nip the problem in the bud and ban all drugs? Law-abiding cartels would never see it coming!  -Sarah Siskind

7:13 pm: Biggest challenge for Richardson: a bill about replacing the death penalty with life incarceration. -Sarah Siskind

7:11 pm: Richardson believes that the people need to act and make it known to their politicians that they want these options explored. -Andrew Seo

7:08 pm: A student from MIT asks a question about the politics of alternative energy. He wants to know if it is sufficient for the executive branch to take the initiative or if the legislative branch will need to play a role. -Andrew Seo

7:08 pm: Richardson is asked a question regarding the United States’ relations with Native Americans. Richardson says there are many issues we ignore concerning our Native American population, such as health care and energy. -Simon Thompson

7:01 pm: Richardson: “To have legalization of drugs you need law enforcement’s cooperation and they’re against it.” Probably because if they were for it, they’d be out of a job. -Sarah Siskind

6:59 pm: Richardson believes that the US should emphasize treatment, education, and rehabilitation. Instead, the focus is on incarceration and law enforcement. I couldn’t agree more. -Andrew Seo

6:57 pm: “There is this saying that Mexico lives next to a giant and every time the giant sneezes it causes a turmoil.” More accurate to say every time the giant snorts. -Sarah Siskind

6:56 pm: Response to question on Mexico: “you guys are so smart.” (re: diplomacy) -Sarah Siskind

6:56 pm: Allison reminds the audience how President Calderon and US ambassador to Mexico Carlos Pascual (who recently submitted his resignation to President Obama) graduated from the Kennedy School. -Andrew Seo

6:54 pm: “I want to set up in Santa Fe, the best city in the world. Well, second best, next to Cambridge.” It’s easy to see how this guy is good at diplomacy. -Sarah Siskind

6:53 pm: Richardson says how he wants to visit every Major League ballpark. That’s a lot of ceremonial first pitches. -Simon Thompson

6:52 pm: A student from the college asks what Richardson’s future plans are. “I would check the Boston Red Sox. They need some pitching.” -Andrew Seo

6:50 pm: The first questioner asks Richardson how he prepared to govern effectively. Richardson talks about the importance of management and says how he enjoyed the governorship because it gave him power: “I like power.” -Simon Thompson

6:50 pm: Graham Allison: “I have a friend in the CIA who never thought he’d be hoping for Kim Jong Il’s health.” You know what they say, the Il that you know is better than the Il that you don’t. –Sarah Siskind

6:48 pm: The floor is now opened up for questions. -Simon Thompson

6:47 pm: “It is not in America’s interest to have a country like North Korea with nuclear weapons.” -Sarah Siskind

6:45 pm: Richardson outlines the past three presidents’ policies on North Korea and believes that engagement works the best. -Andrew Seo

6:44 pm: Richardson comments on North Korea. He believes that any small altercation could trigger a “massive, massive war on the Korean peninsula.” -Andrew Seo

6:42 pm: Richardson asks the best minds, best academics, best scientists to help solve some of today’s challenges. It’s a shame that politics gets in the way of policy making. -Andrew Seo

Richardson as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations

6:40 pm: (On bipartisanship) “Where’s congressman Inglis, the Republican from South Carolina?  Oh, did he walk out?” -Sarah Siskind

(note: the writers acknowledge that Congressman Inglis did not attend the forum and likely envisions a similar energy policy as does Richardson. -Simon Thompson)

6:37 pm: Richardson describes how bipartisanship is necessary. “We have to work with Republicans to get things done.” Sounds like more rhetoric from the politicians. -Andrew Seo

6:36 pm: Graham Allison: “Every successive president has voiced that we will decline our dependence on foreign oil.” Quite true, especially around election time. -Sarah Siskind

6:35 pm: “I think of all our presidents, President Obama has been the most forceful… in shifting from fossil fuels.” That’s something to be proud of. -Simon Thompson

6:34 pm: “This oil spill could have been averted… and could’ve avoided the politics.” I agree with the first part. -Sarah Siskind

6:31 pm: After discussing his successful negotiations with Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, among others, one only hopes Governor Richardson could negotiate with Fukushima. -Sarah Siskind

6:30 pm: “This is an intensive review we have to do (of our energy policy)… Nuclear power has to be part of the mix, but we must do a review.” -Simon Thompson

6:28 pm: Energy policy time. Richardson rattles off a few statistics. Nuclear constitutes 20% of domestic production. We have 104 plants in 31 states. -Andrew Seo

6:27pm: The conversation moves to energy and Governor Richardson brings up the Deepwater Horizon accident, the recent coal mining accidents, and now the recent catastrophe in Japan. -Simon Thompson

6:26 pm: Allison poses a hypothetical situation in which Richardson parachutes into Tripoli. Richardson describes how he would tell Gadaffi to concede, given the worldwide backing and the inevitability of the opposition forces taking over. Can someone set this up? -Andrew Seo

6:24 pm: (Talking about negotiations with Saddam Hussein) “I treat everyone with respect…A human connection was established… ultimately he released the two prisoners.” Bill Richardson is like Machiavelli with charisma. -Sarah Siskind

6:23 pm: Allison states the list of people that Richardson has dealt with over the years: Saddam in Iraq, Kim Jong-il in North Korea, Bashir in Sudan, Castro in Cuba, Milosevic in Yugoslavia. Describing these men as “bad people” is an understatement. -Andrew Seo

Richardson campaigning for president in 2007

6:21 pm: The key to negotiations is “to be honest.” Now that’s a concept in diplomacy. -Andrew Seo

6:20 pm: His secret to successful negotiating? He treats everyone with respect. He tries to “connect with the bad person.” -Andrew Seo

6:19 pm: Richardson describes how “bad people like Bill Richardson.” -Andrew Seo

6:18pm: Bill Richardson suggests possible covert action via secret selling of arms to the Middle East.  Iran Contra déjà vu. –Sarah Siskind

6:14pm: Richardson predicts Gaddafi’s own military will force him from his country, and guesses Zimbabwe as the country of choice to which he’ll exile. -Simon Thompson

6:14 pm: Moderator Allison asks, “Should we arm them [the Libyan opposition forces]?” Richardson believes that covert action, supplying arms are all fair game, as long as there are no boots on the ground and a substantial NATO backing. Will the public perceive this to be the right way to intervene in the Middle East? Maybe. -Andrew Seo

6:12pm: The conversation moves to Libya. “Airstrikes, yes. Boots on the ground, no,” says Richardson. -Simon Thompson

6:12pm: Twelve minutes into the interview Libya is brought up. That’s twelve more than expected. -Sarah Siskind

6:11pm: “Energy is bipartisan.” Wishful thinking? -Sarah Siskind

6:09pm: Today’s event is in the form of an “interview of Bill Richardson,” as moderator Graham Allison describes it. Ironic for an event called the 2011 Corliss Lamont Lecture. -Andrew Seo

6:08pm: Richardson describes his best job as governor and the ability to “run the show.” -Andrew Seo

6:04pm: The forum is under way! Graham Allison, Director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, introduces visiting Institute of Politics fellow and former governor Bill Richardson. -Simon Thompson

5:58 pm: Three writers, Simon Thompson, Sarah Siskind, and Andrew Seo, will be liveblogging today’s IOP forum headlined by Bill Richardson, a current IOP visiting fellow, former governor of New Mexico, and US ambassador to the UN. -Andrew Seo

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons, United Nations Mission to the U.N. and Wikipedia

M.C. Andrews was Special Assistant to the President and Director of the White House Office of Global Communications from 2003 to 2005. Prior to that, Andrews was the Director for Democracy on the National Security Council. She is currently a fellow at Harvard’s Institute of Politics.

HPR: What’s wrong with the way that America communicates with the world, and how should we go about fixing it?

M.C. Andrews: The infrastructure of our communications efforts dates back to the Cold War. From the 1950s up until 1999, there was an agency that dealt with developing our communications called the United States Information Agency. The 1990s congress got rid of USIA. It was a cost-saving measure. Nobody believed we needed it anymore because it was the end of the Cold War and there was no war of ideology.

In getting rid of USIA, the most important functions were given over to the State Department, the budgets were dramatically decreased, foreign service officers lost their USIA identity. There are a lot of legislative constraints that are keeping us from being able to modernize our apparatus. This largely goes back to the 1950s when Congress wanted to make certain that the American government didn’t propagandize their citizens. They put up this firewall called the Smith-Mundt Act. The law remains on the books, and today, technically this means that the State Department can’t legally use the Internet for communicating with foreign audiences. There’s a tacit agreement to circumvent this law from the media. That’s the fundamental problem here: that there are a lot of laws and a lot of traditions in the world of public diplomacy. That’s why we need to whack it all down and start over again.

HPR: As Special Assistant to the President for Global Communications, what changes did you see being implemented? Were there efforts to move towards new media?

MCA: There were incremental changes, some in new media, they were tinkering around the edges with money especially after 9/11. Some went to exchange programs, or to setting up resource centers in other countries. The activities are necessary but completely insufficient to be able to change the way that we communicate with the world. It’s going to take a lot of political will to ultimately change. It is completely impossible to make the kind of legislative changes, funding changes, and people changes that need to be made incrementally. I am convinced of that. I was convinced of that while I was still at the White House. I’ve watched another generation of people go through the Department of State trying to modernize public diplomacy, and another generation of people going through the broadcasting world and trying to modernize that. It will not happen without presidential leadership.

HPR: Could you give us a few more examples of the incremental changes that you mentioned?

MCA: I mentioned the American resource center in some libraries around the world, increased money for exchanges with Muslim countries, there were new websites and even the attempt by the State Department to create a blog. There was the creation of a magazine that lasted for six months called Hi! Magazine, there was the creation of the Arabic language television and radio stations, al Hurra and al Sawa. Every one is necessary, but none are sufficient to change America’s image in the world.

HPR: The responsibilities of the Special Assistant to the President for Global Communications have been taken over by the State Department. How do you think that will work out?

MCA: I believe there are certain things that need to be done at the White House under the auspices of my former position. There was a decision to take a number of the functions, although not all of the functions, over to the State Department. What most people don’t know or understand about the White House is that you don’t have budgets, and you don’t have enough people to make huge changes in policy. The White House coordinates policy in the interest of the President. There’s a lot of paperwork and hours of negotiations to try to get the other agencies to take actions in concert with the President’s agenda. Giving the State Department these responsibilities didn’t work. And I even hear from international journalists that they have no access at the White House. I am somewhat sympathetic to trying to give the State Department the prominence to coordinate public diplomacy, but that isn’t working either. It is time to do something new.

HPR: If say, there was a legislative push to change the Smith-Mundt Act, what do you think the most effective way of doing that would be?

MCA: There won’t be. There are too many interests dedicated to keeping the Smith-Mundt Act in place. Presidential leadership is the only thing that will lead to real, meaningful change.

HPR: How do you think the President could go about changing things?

MCA: There is a great model for what needs to be done. The model that works is the creation of the National Endowment for Democracy. In 1983, President Reagan went to London and gave a major speech saying that it was going to become American policy to actively and openly support democratic regimes around the world. Prior to that, all sorts of money going to pro-democratic groups, going to underground groups in the Soviet Union, were mostly through the CIA. President Reagan said, we’re going to stop doing this in secret. This is an American value that we would openly support.

Today, I believe that President Obama needs to make a similar speech and give a mandate to a commission to study and determine how we should change public diplomacy. Put prominent leaders like [Harvard's] own professor, Joseph Nye, on the commission, and have this group of wise leaders make recommendations on a new organization for American public diplomacy.

Adan Acevedo ’13 is a Contributing Writer. This interview has been edited and condensed.

John Sweeney was president of the AFL-CIO from 1995 to 2009, and is currently a fellow at Harvard’s Institute of Politics.

HPR: When you were president of SEIU Local 32B in New York in the ’70s, you led a strike against the New York Realty Advisory Board and won some major contract improvements. What is it like to lead a strike?

John Sweeney: The most important thing is that you have to have strong support from the workers themselves. Any strike is a tremendous sacrifice on the part of workers and their families, and you’re never sure how long it’s going to last. Whoever is leading the strike has to feel comfortable that they’ve built up the support of the workers and that the workers are firmly committed to achieving some success.

Having that support makes it more comfortable in terms of the charge that you’re leading and the issues that you’re striving to achieve, to get some negotiating success. I never went on strike without having that kind of spirit and that kind of enthusiasm.

HPR: You merged the Service Employees International Union with many other unions during your presidency. Was that effective? Do you find that broad unions are better than industry-specific ones?

JS: It depends. The greatest number of mergers that we had within SEIU were with independent, public unions such as state employees. They have to be convinced that the program the national union is proposing is something these folks understand, that would improve their representation of the workers. It makes their organization a lot stronger and more effective in dealing with employers.

We had a pretty good track record. We were pretty successful in merging those types of associations. For the most part, they stayed affiliated with SEIU for years.

HPR: What do you feel is the biggest threat to unions and unionization today, and how should unions respond?

JS: One of the biggest threats is the impact globalization has on workers and on their organizations. It’s important to recognize that the AFL-CIO isn’t going to stop globalization, but it certainly is going to strengthen its program in making globalization work for workers. Over the past couple of years, we’ve seen the impact globalization has had on the lives of workers.

There are a number of issues that the AFL-CIO has to focus on to represent their affiliates and their members. Rich Trumka, the new AFL-CIO president, has a very ambitious campaign focused on growth in the labor movement and raising member participation in the activities of the labor movement.

HPR: You won the only contested presidential election in the AFL-CIO’s history. What did you learn from the campaign and how did that affect your presidency?

JS: When I say it was the only contested election, you have to be mindful that the AFL and the CIO were two separate federations until they merged in 1955. It was the first contested election after the merger.

One of the things we learned was the importance of solidarity. It was so important for the affiliates to be united. The more united you are, the stronger the federation is. Once we won the election, it was important that we unify all the affiliates—those who had supported us and those who had supported Tom Donahue. That was what we were going to be stressing in all the proposals we were making as the new administration of the AFL-CIO.

HPR: How involved do you think unions should be with politics? Is it more important to focus on organizing members or on electing candidates?

JS: I think they have to do both. There’s no question about it, organizing is important and it has to be strengthened, but I also think it’s important that some of the organizing is focused on politics and mobilizing workers in support of candidates who support them and who are committed to an agenda that improves the lives of working people. You can’t do one without the other. You have to elect supportive people and hold them accountable to approve legislation that’s going to strengthen working folks and their families.

HPR: What do you think is the future of the Employee Free Choice Act? Will it pass? Will it have to be modified?

JS: I’m very hopeful that EFCA is going to pass and hopefully pass soon. I think it’s long overdue in terms of reforming our national labor laws. I believe that workers have been discriminated against in the way the National Labor Relations Act has been interpreted by administrations in the past and by judicial decisions on issues that affect workers. It’s about time we took a hard look at how workers can express themselves as to whether they want to unionize or they don’t want to unionize.

If we look at what different countries around the world do, there’s a number of different ways in which countries have changed their own labor laws, favoring workers, and strengthening collective bargaining and strengthening representation.

Kristin Eberts ’13 is a Contributing Writer. This interview has been edited and condensed.

Will politics influence how these cranes work in Allston?

Bill Purcell, the current director of Harvard’s Institute of Politics and former mayor of Nashville, is set to resign and take on greater responsibilities in advising Harvard University on its Allston development plans and on its role as Co-Chair of the Allston Work Team, The Crimson reported last week. Despite a few vocal Allston community members’ suspicions of about nearly anything Harvard does – some of which is justified, some of which is not – this appointment marks a positive change and hopefully, a recognition that the University’s political strategy requires fundamental changes.

It’s pretty obvious that the University’s development strategy require changes; both Harvard officials and members of the Allston community recognize this. In a Crimson article this morning, Allston residents on the Harvard Allston Task Force and University officials both agreed that Harvard’s financial challenges have placed significant strains on the existing Allston community development plans. While each side may disagree on what commitments Harvard is still bound by, each recognize that it’s unlikely that Harvard will be able to pursue the same ambitious agenda it proposed just years ago.

But if it has been painfully obvious to everyone that the development plans require changes, there hasn’t been as much concentration on the political and communication strategies. This may be in part because Harvard effectively has no choseive political and communication strategy for its Allston project. This isn’t just hyperbolic writing, but an observation based on the University’s repeated failures to communicate with residents and inability to identify the needs of the Allston community and find a way to work to find a mutually amenable solution.

In the most recent Crimson article, Allston resident Harry Mattison of the Harvard Allston Task force complained about Harvard backing out of a number of commitments to the community. However, The Crimson also quoted him complaining about Harvard’s lack of communication. In a separate, recent article by Bloomberg BusinessWeek, Mattison said about the current situation in Alston, “I don’t think anyone in Allston has any idea what Harvard is doing. Hopefully they’ll find a way to be more open and inclusive about what they intend to do in our neighborhood.” Residents have every incentive to complain and fight to make development plans fit their personal vision, and it is almost inevitable that this vision may conflict with that of the University. But these complains on communication show that with a little more information, uncertainty and distrust can easily crop up. And these complains certainly aren’t new (Crimson articles citing communication failures include a 2010 article, a 2009 one, and even a 2007 report).

Further, beyond communication, the political strategy – figuring out how to best align University and community interests to reach a mutually beneficial result – has also failed. Over the past few years, due to a lack of a cohesive and long-term political strategy, the University has decided – or at least appear to decide to many people outside of Massachusetts Hall – that they could obtain support from the community by simply throwing money at the problem. Instead of communication as a means to figure out what the community needed and genuinely responding to these concerns by adapting and molding development plans, Harvard, whether consciously or not, has appeared to think it can use its immense wealth to make opposition go away. In April 2009, Harvard launched the Harvard Allston Partnership Fund, a $500,000 fund to provide grants to “community improvement proposals submitted by neighborhood non-profit groups,” according to The Crimson. It’s hard to deny that this projects likely had a positive impact on the community. Other community benefit projects, such as an education portal for Allston residents launched by Harvard June 2008, even garnered significant praise by the community, according to The Crimson.

But while many people may find community benefit projects useful because they often are indeed, the detractors have a point. Around the launch of the Harvard Allston Partnership Fund, The Crimson quoted Allston community activist Jake Carman saying he “opposed to community benefits as an appeasement and a replacement of having direct neighborhood participation [in the planning process].” It’s certainly up for debate what degree of involvement Harvard should provide community members in the planning process, but money will only provide band-aids to the larger problems facing tense town-gown relations. Communication is the best political strategy for Harvard to pursue.

Given the University’s lack of communication and engagement with the Allston community, it’s almost predictable that the lede for an article on the reaction to Purcell’s move was, “Though Allston residents say they have been displeased with the level of communication they are receiving from the University about its intentions to expand into their neighborhood, the revelation that Director of the Institute of Politics Bill Purcell–who announced his resignation this week–will take on a role in the Allston planning process was cause for more frustration among community members.”

This does not need to be – and probably should not be – their reaction. As a former two-term mayor, Purcell understands the challenges in development and political communication. He brings experience in bridging the gaps that a mission-driven institution like Harvard can have with a community feeling under assault by a $26 billion behemoth. And he has worked closely with neighborhood organizations – even campaigning on the idea of “Nashville’s neighborhood mayor” – to realize their goals in improving quality of life according to one article about his legacy after he left office.

If Harvard is indeed committed to make Allston’s development work for both the University and the community – and I have no reason to think they do not – then having Purcell on board, and hopefully applying him to help guide and manage the present communication problems into a cohesive strategy, can only be a positive change because so much work needs to be done on communication before any real work can be done on development.

Photo credit: Flickr user bradsearles via Creative Commons licensing.

Serfs Up! – Unpaid Interns and the Culture of Dependence

The Obama administration has resolved to crack down on for-profit employers who take advantage of their interns, neither paying them nor offering relevant training and experience. Arguments in favor of this decision abound. Of course employers should pay for work from which they gain—otherwise we’ll enable their inefficiency. And everyone will benefit when employers try to get their money’s worth by training interns to contribute in substantive ways. Finally, the prevalence of unpaid internships hurts students who can’t afford to take

Well-dressed serfs

them, and who therefore have a narrower range of possible experiences than their wealthier friends.

But my preferred argument against unpaid internships is this: when you’re getting up to 20, 22, even 25-years-old, like one unpaid colleague of mine last summer, it’s time to cut the cord already. At some point, rich kids need to stop relying on their parents to bail them out—to stop capitalizing on the fact that, in Mommy and Daddy’s minds, they’re too big to fail.

Ironically, this culture of dependence can be traced to the same sources as the better-known culture of greed. Among a certain segment of the economic and educational elite, a generation of high-achievers has been raised on inflated conceptions of their own brilliance and importance—lavished with SAT tutors, private college counselors, personal trainers, and prescription-happy psychologists. Even those who have been deprived of such luxuries know what I’m talking about: the overwhelming expectations of families, friends, and teachers; the drive for “success” without taking care to define the term; the sense that we’re going to do something great—down the line, eventually, not soon enough.

It’s obvious how all these things conspire to lead us into temptation, attracting us to careers in which “success,” if defined economically at least, can be most immediate. Less obvious, perhaps, is how these same cultural factors—the self-importance, the dreams of a golden future—can serve to justify not making any money at all. From the student’s perspective, present-day dependence can be excused by the anticipation of future fortunes—after I go to law school, after my talent is recognized, after my work is published, after my big break. From the parent’s perspective, paying for rent in Williamsburg seems a rather modest cost compared to four years (or perhaps 20?) of private-school tuition. Why stop the gravy train now, when Junior is so close to breaking through?

The idea that Junior ought to live within his means, earn his keep, and learn how to manage a budget is a foreign one. To force a decline in the comfort and style to which he has grown accustomed is thought unconscionable. Last month, The Crimson’s James McAuley lent his support to profligacy among Harvard’s economic elite, praising it in the name of “honesty.” “Our wealthier peers,” he wrote, “should have no qualms about exercising the spending habits with which they were raised and that many of them will resume practicing immediately upon kissing Fair Harvard goodbye.” McAuley wants to liberate those who, out of respect and decency, have refrained from flaunting their wealth in the face of their classmates. As one letter-writer alleged, McAuley assumes that all rich people secretly want to “rent stretch-Hummers and spray Dom and Henny on us poor plebs.” And he wants them to feel good about doing it.

But if you’ve got it, does it really follow that you should flaunt it? College students of an earlier generation didn’t seem to think so. Roughing it used to be a source of pride. It was once kind of cool to live in unglamorous neighborhoods, gather in cramped flats, search for deals on microwavable mac-and-cheese, and frequent dollar draft nights at local dive bars. For spring break, our parents went on road trips in old junkers. Their kids jet off to Mexico or the Caribbean.

McAuley praises honesty, yet it’s anything but honest to spend someone else’s money as if you earned it. College graduates should make their own way in life, relying on their talents and energies to attain the living standards they desire. And college students should prepare for this struggle by earning money in the summertime. To do otherwise is to perpetuate class privilege, and a lazy sort of privilege at that. We all stand on the shoulders of those who came before us, but we shouldn’t just get a piggyback ride.

Photo credit: Institute of Politics

If Saakashvili sounds like an extremist, he has good reason to. His public address, which took place at the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum (co-hosted by the Institute of Politics and the Harvard Black Sea Security Program), contained clear anti-Russian overtones, and several references to the 2008 Russian invasion of South Ossetia. Nevertheless, his talk appeared – at least to me – eminently reasonable, and it re-affirmed his role as the beacon for the democratization of the post-Soviet bloc.

For those who are not entirely familiar with Saakashvili (even David Ellwood, the Dean of the Kennedy School of Government, had some trouble pronouncing his name during the introduction), a bit of context is important. As the democratically elected leader of Georgia since 2004, he has presided over the fastest-growing Eastern European economy, and implemented a series of reforms aimed at strengthening the rule of law, expanding economic freedom, and institutionalizing democracy.

While he spent most of his time expounding on Georgia’s advances during his tenure, some of the statistics he mentioned are worth repeating. Investment has accelerated – despite the downturn, Georgia’s growing about 5-7% of GDP, and was the first Eastern European country to regain its credit ranking from the World Bank after the crisis. Rule of law has vastly increased, with the public’s trust in the police force increasing from five percent in 2004 to over eighty percent today (higher than Denmark or Sweden). Public perception of corruption has fallen from around eighty percent to less than one.

These hard numbers reveal the core of Saakashvili’s contention: look at us and see what we’ve done. The most important reason why Georgia ought to serve as a model for the rest of the Eastern bloc, he claimed, was because it is still standing after Russia’s military occupation. Russia deliberately left the border crossing open with Azerbaijan so that Georgian citizens could flee the country, but virtually no one did. Likewise, his claims about economic growth were tempered with a caveat: what matters is not what he says, but what investors think – and “almost 100%” of Georgia’s unprecedented growth is investment-driven.

Saakashvili sounds like he knows what he’s doing. His talk emphasized the lynchpin of his project as social transformation and civic engagement, what many political scientists consider essential to state-building. His free-market dogma stood side-by-side with his commitment to reduce the poverty rate, which he identified as a “national security” issue (and which he claims to have cut in half).

Of course, Saakashvili only presented his side of the story. There are many who have criticized his ultra-neoliberal, pro-U.S. agenda (hopefully some of whom will engage this post in the comments section). The broader lesson from his talk is that this debate must happen and it must happen soon. For Saakashvili – and many others – there is no way back to the “chaos” of the Soviet era. There is only one way forward: modernization. The question is how it can happen. Saakashvili’s rhetoric and policies might sound extremist to our sensitive liberal ears – he advised the audience to “never surrender” – but his passion was infectious. Georgia is a radical experiment in democracy. It would be incredibly irresponsible not to hear what it has to say.

Photo credit: Radio Free Europe

Slaves?

No — that would be a tasteless joke. But they do perform a lot of work for free! As The New York Times explains in a piece that should have been, in retrospect, pretty obvious: Growth of Unpaid Internships May Be Illegal, Officials Say

“If you’re a for-profit employer or you want to pursue an internship with a for-profit employer, there aren’t going to be many circumstances where you can have an internship and not be paid and still be in compliance with the law,” said Nancy J. Leppink, the acting director of the department’s wage and hour division.

Kathyrn Edwards, a researcher at the Economic Policy Institute and co-author of anew study on internships, told of a female intern who brought a sexual harassment complaint that was dismissed because the intern was not an employee.

“A serious problem surrounding unpaid interns is they are often not considered employees and therefore are not protected by employment discrimination laws,” she said.

I’m divided on this. On the one hand, the unpaid internship is pretty unseemly. You’ve got a system that (a) inflates the premium on pre-job work experience, increasing the opportunity costs for students pursuing other (potentially much more useful) things during their free time; that (b) regressively benefits rich students, or students with access to rich grant programs; and (c) tends to reduce available work for paid workers. The evasion of payment creates an effective subsidy for the inefficient, plantation-like company.

But on the other hand, creative, non-monetary economies are important. Consider, um,practically all of the internet: Wikipedia/Flickr/Blogspot/Twitter/Facebook. These are sites that tap into some mysterious mix of human urges — the need to express oneself, to gain status, to be less lonely — creating free culture and making our world a better place. Not all free labor is slavery; indeed, it’s opposite: it’s liberating.

So the original question begs another one: if interns are slaves, then what about HPR bloggers? If so, is our world better for that?

Photo credit: The Institute of Politics

Can you blog Tweets? I don’t know, but let’s give this a try. For those of you who couldn’t spend an hour and a half at the Halperin/Heilemann forum last night, here’s a minute-and-a-half tweet rundown….

Waiting for Halperin/Heilemann forum to start. Definitely not packed. Maybe people are over the 2008 gossip? What about midterm gossip?

Bill Purcell just said “Game Change” is a spicy smorgasbord. No one else seemed to think this was funny.

Halperin says if the 7th most interesting candidate in a race is Rudy Giuliani, you know it’s a good race.

flashback: remember “lipstick on a pig”?

moderator cuts to the chase quickly: should we trust your no-name sources? asks if they left anything out because it wasn’t well sourced

Heilemann says they paraphrased quotes to avoid nitpickers. But isn’t paraphrasing just as unfair sometimes?

Moderator Susan Gilligan: I’m not fazed by affairs. I mean, I lived in Europe. Big laughs. But John Edwards shocked her.

Heilemann: “John Edwards brought the crazy”

Heilemann: John Edwards got overtaken by his “ego monster.” Nice John Edwards went away.

“People are not any less interested in John Edwards than they are in Barack Obama at this point.” Uhh… no.

Moderator really really wants H and H to talk about Obama’s “self-doubt”

Obama aides were concerned in 07 that his heart wasn’t in it. They took him out and he asked if it was an intervention.

“McCain is at core a loner, a fighter pilot… It’s not until he’s at rock bottom that he’s suddenly happy again.”

“Sarah Palin.” Laughter… Halperin: “You know, there are some parts of the country where her name doesn’t elicit laughter.” More laughter.

Lieberman would have been both an unorthodox and an orthodox VP candidate. Hilarity.

Palin vetter just did some Lexis searches. “almost no background check.”

Halperin semi-justifies McCain’s choice by pointing to his “fighter pilot” mentality. Why can’t they just say “he’s a crazy man”?

McCain vetter to Palin: “Is your daughter going to get married?” Pause… “Is she going to get married tomorrow?”

Halperin: Obama too professorial. Me: Halperin too superficial.

Halperin: Obama doesn’t change course readily enough. In other words, he won’t stop pushing health care. Yeah, what’s wrong with that guy?

“To thine own self be true” is lesson from 2008. How poetic.

Also, “don’t look like Tina Fey.”

Uh oh… A Cambridgeite asking a question. Incomprehensible and disturbed.

Halperin: “I lost you when you mentioned Scott Brown. He’s so dreamy.”

Halperin: Obama should stop supporting TBTL orgs, and start worrying about the middle class. Right, the middle class loves depressions.

Reality check: Obama poll numbers have been at 50% for basically half a year.

Halperin shoots back to questioner: point out something gossipy from our book!

MH: People who say there’s gossip in the book should look up the definition. We just asked what happened.

JH: People are interested in “the human spectacle,” not the employer mandate.

Shorter Gilligan: Presidential contests are popularity contests. And we are the student newspaper editors.

Question: When do agreements with sources have to go out the window?

Halperin basically reiterates that you can’t get juicy stuff if you don’t promise anonymity.

Question from high school freshman: Why didn’t McCain give up when he wasn’t into it in 07?

JH: McCain never doubted he’d be a good president. Me: That makes one of us.

Furthermore, McCain just hated Obama. Thought he was green, all talk no walk, etc. “Personal animus drove him [McCain].”

Halperin jumps in to add McCain’s no quitter. Calls that admirable. What does he think of the personal animus? Not so admirable?

And that’s a wrap.

Photo credit: Harvard Institute of Politics