Summer 2013

HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW

BREAKING OUT OF THE PRISON CYCLE

THE LEGACY OF HUGO CHÁVEZ

INTERVIEW: JON HUNTSMAN ON CHINA

VOLUME XL NO. 2, SUMMER 2013 HARVARDPOLITICS.COM

IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER RELIGION AND POLITICS AT HOME, IN COURT, AND AROUND THE WORLD

New in Paperback

Inadvertent Escalation Conventional War and Nuclear Risks BARRY R. POSEN “As long as nuclear weapons exist, they may be used, and Barry Posen’s book is a valuable contribution to thinking about ways in which nuclear use might come about.”

—INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS $29.95 paper | CORNELL STUDIES IN SECURITY AFFAIRS

New in Paperback

THIRD E DITION

Embryo Politics Ethics and Policy in Atlantic Democracies THOMAS BANCHOFF

Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice JACK DONNELLY

“Thomas Banchoff has produced the defi nitive work, not only on embryo politics but also on the politics of bioethics generally. We are all in his debt.”

—RICHARD ASHCROFT, EDITOR OF PRINCIPLES OF HEALTH CARE ETHICS $27.95 paper

“Every once in a while a book appears that treats the leading issues of a subject in such a clear and challenging manner that it becomes central to understanding that subject.

Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice is just such a book. Donnelly’s interpretations are clear and argued with zest.”

—AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW $23.95 paper

New in Paperback

Empire of Humanity A History of Humanitarianism MICHAEL BARNETT “One of the most striking features of world politics in the last 200 years was the rise of humanitarianism.

Barnett paints an expansive portrait of that ascent [contending] that humanitarianism is a ‘creature of the world it aspires to civilize,’ rather than some sort of abstract ideal.”

—FOREIGN AFFAIRS $19.95 paper

Fault Lines Views across Haiti’s Divide BEVERLY BELL

FOREWORD BY EDWIDGE DANTICAT “In this magnificent book, Beverly Bell has captured the soul and spirit of the Haitian people. She castigates the government and private interests whose post-earthquake investments in Haiti are in their own interests and not in the interests of the Haitians.”

—RUTH MESSINGER, PRESIDENT, A MERICAN JEWISH WORLD SERVICE $18.95 paper

Poor Numbers How We Are Misled by African Development Statistics and What to Do about It MORTEN JERVEN “I found Poor Numbers illuminating and disturbing at the same time—I think that is exactly what Morten Jerven intended. Jerven’s recommendation that more funding be put into statistical services to do baseline surveys and field-based data collection makes a lot of sense.”

—CAROL L ANCASTER, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY $22.95 paper | CORNELL STUDIES IN POLITICAL ECONOMY

New in Paperback

War on Sacred Grounds RON E. HASSNER

Politics in the New Hard Times

“We can only hope that political lead- The Great Recession in ers in control of sacred spaces will Comparative Perspective read Hassner’s book and that more religious leaders will then be included EDITED BY MILES K AHLER AND in peace negotiations so that they can DAVID A. L AKE creatively shape and reshape ‘the “Politics in the New Hard Times demmeaning, value, and parameters of onstrates that the Great Recession sacred space.” of the last few years cannot be understood without appreciating the —MIDDLE EAST JOURNAL political power that generated these $19.95 paper malign results. To understand the politics of the Great Recession, read this book.”

What Rebels Want —R OBERT O. KEOHANE, Resources and Supply Networks in PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

Wartime JENNIFER M. HAZEN

$45.00 cloth

“In Hazen’s view, the intensity and character of resource flows have considerable bearing on rebel capacities to continue to fight, and thus on their political strategies.”

—WILLIAM RENO, NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY $45.00 cloth

Interview Research in Political Science EDITED BY L AYNA MOSLEY “Interview Research in Political Science is a timely and immensely valuable resource. Political scientists use interviews more than any other field research technique, yet interviews are a method that is rarely taught, and there’s great demand for ideas and advice.”

—BENJAMIN READ, UC SANTA CRUZ

3.11 Disaster and Change in Japan RICHARD J. SAMUELS “3.11 is a much needed and careful analysis of the political and administrative historical background of the disaster, its dramatic unfolding, and its uncertain legacy for the nation.”

—CHARLES PERROW, YALE UNIVERSITY $29.95 cloth

New in Paperback

Ideas and Institutions Developmentalism in Brazil and Argentina K ATHRYN SIKKINK “This is an outstanding study of a topic central to Latin America’s development after 1945. It will give both experts and students a clear understanding of the state-directed developmentalism in Latin America that attained hegemonic status among progressive regimes by the end of the 1950s and that still garners powerful support in political circles.”

—ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE $29.95 paper | CORNELL STUDIES IN POLITICAL ECONOMY

Logics of War Explanations for Limited and Unlimited Conflicts ALEX WEISIGER “Logics of War is an important extension of the bargaining model of war, a wonderful exemplar of multimethod research, and essential reading for all serious students of interstate war.”

—JACK S. LEVY, COAUTHOR OF THE ARC OF WAR $45.00 cloth | CORNELL STUDIES IN SECURITY AFFAIRS

$27.95 paper

CORNELL UNIVERSITY PRESS 1-800-666-2211 • www.cornellpress.cornell.edu

IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER

6 The Vatican’s Veto: Communion Battles in American Politics Taonga Leslie 8 The Muslim Brotherhood and Political Power Matthew Disler

Limits of Religious Freedom Zak Lutz

12 No Al Smith: Mitt Romney’s Non-Transformational Mormon Candidacy Colin Diersing

OPENING SHOT

WORLD

3 Surviving in Oz Zak Lutz

27 Free Transatlantic Trade Friederike Reuter

CAMPUS

29 Peña Nieto and the Unions Denisse Garcia

4 18 Breaking Out of the Prison Cycle Tom Silver

10

Can We Do Better? Reforming Mental Health in Higher Education Jenny Choi

UNITED STATES 15 Beyond the Sensationalism Matthew Weinstein

24 The Legacy of Hugo Chávez Valentina Perez

31 The 2013 Italian Elections: Beyond the Headlines Francesca Annicchiarico

BOOKS & ARTS 36 A Tale of Two Identities David Freed

20 The Future of Science in America 38 Wonders of Walsh Matt Walker Anastasiya Borys 22 The Anatomy of a Crisis

Joy Wang

ENDPAPER 44 The Cynic Kids Don’t Stand a Chance Jonathan Yip

INTERVIEWS 41 Jon Favreau Matt Shuham 42 Jon Huntsman Harleen Gambhir

33 Sandberg’s Social Movement Formula Ginny Fahs Email: editor@harvardpolitics.com. ISSN 0090-1030. Copyright 2013 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved. Image Credits: Image Credits: U.S. Government: Cover- Pete Souza, 41- Pete Souza, 42- U.S. Department of State. Wikimedia: 27- Robert Laymont.

SUMMER 2013 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 1

FROM THE EDITOR

HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW A Nonpartisan Journal of Politics Established 1969—Vol. XL, No. 2

EDITORIAL BOARD EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Andrew Seo PUBLISHER: Olivia Zhu MANAGING EDITOR: Beatrice Walton ASSISTANT MANAGING EDITOR: Arjun Mody ONLINE EDITOR: Frank Mace COVERS EDITOR: Matt Shuham CAMPUS EDITOR: Zeenia Framroze CAMPUS ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Sam Finegold INTERVIEWS EDITOR: Colin Diersing U.S. SENIOR EDITOR: Ross Svenson U.S. ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Daniel Backman U.S. ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Daniel Lynch WORLD SENIOR EDITOR: Gram Slattery WORLD ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Krister Koskelo WORLD ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Priyanka Menon B&A SENIOR EDITOR: Holly Flynn B&A ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Jordan Feri B&A ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Rachel Wong HUMOR EDITOR: Ben Shryock STAFF DIRECTOR: Tom Gaudett BUSINESS MANAGER: Naji Filali ASSISTANT BUSINESS MANAGER: Jake Matthews CIRCULATION MANAGER: Matthew Disler DESIGN EDITOR: Ashley Chen GRAPHICS EDITOR: Paul Lisker MULTIMEDIA EDITOR: Jenny Choi WEBMASTER: Peter Cha WEBMASTER: Tom Silver

SENIOR WRITERS Lena Bae, Alpkaan Celik, Alexander Chen, Caroline Cox, Medha Gargeya, Christine Ann Hurd, Eli Kozminsky, Kathy Lee, Joshua Lipson, Neil Patel, Raul Quintana, Paul Schied, Henry Shull, Sarah Siskind, Simon Thompson, Jimmy Wu, Jonathan Yip

STAFF Jay Alver, Oreoluwa Babarinsa, Humza Syed Bokhari, Alex Boota, Florence Chen, Samuel Coffin, Cansu Colakoglu, Corinne Curcie, Tyler Cusick, Neha Dalal, Jacob Drucker, Mikhaila Fogel, David Freed, Caleb Galoozis, Harleen Gambhir, Nicholas Gavin, Aditi Ghai, Nicky Guerreiro, Barbara Halla, Raphael Haro, Eric Hendey, Harry Hild, Kaiyang Huang, Nur Ibrahim, Elsa Kania, Brooke Kantor, Arjun Kapur, Adam Kern, Gina Kim, John Kocsis, Sandra Korn, Ha Le, Tom Lemberg, Ethan Loewi, Zak Lutz, Ken Mai, Jimmy Meixiong, Jacob Morello, Chris Oppermann, Andrea Ortiz, Caitlin Pendleton, Sylvia Percovich, Valentina Perez, Heather Pickerell, Cory Pletan, John Prince, Ivel Posada, Gabriel Rosen, Alexander Smith, Martin Steinbauer, Alastair Su, Danielle Suh, Lucas Swisher, Rajiv Tarigopula, Selina Wang, Danny Wilson, Teresa Yan, Jenny Ye, Benjamin Zhou

ADVISORY BOARD Jonathan Alter Richard L. Berke Carl Cannon E.J. Dionne, Jr.

Walter Isaacson Whitney Patton Maralee Schwartz

2 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2013

Let’s Change the World Dear Readers, When Jon Huntsman spent a week on campus in early April as an Institute of Politics visiting fellow, he met with faculty and administration, toured facilities, and tried to take in as much of the Harvard experience as possible.

But Huntsman also took a keen interest in the students, taking the time out of his schedule to talk to them and gain a perspective on their world. At a luncheon with student leaders of political organizations and public service-oriented groups, he pointedly asked each person to explain, “How will you change the world?”

Many students initially chuckled. It was a daunting question—one of those lofty inquiries that you did not expect to be asked over a weekday lunch. But we soon realized that the former Utah governor and ambassador to China genuinely wanted to know. As we went around the room, I realized just how little time I—and some of my peers at the table—had committed to understanding this forward-thinking question.

We live on a campus where we think no further ahead than a semester or even less (see: pre-term planning). There are no preprofessional majors. The liberal arts ethos is strongly emphasized; we learn for the sake of learning, and the way in which we can apply this knowledge in a professional capacity will take care of itself later.

Stressing this sometimes myopic outlook has real-life implications. In his Bloomberg View column last year, Ezra Klein explained how “Harvard’s LiberalArts Failure is Wall Street’s Gain.” Students go to Wall Street or accept positions in consulting and Teach for America because they feel so inadequately trained to enter any other field.

The problem isn’t that we lack marketable skills. The issue also isn’t oncampus recruiting or the allure of getting a Wall Street paycheck. Risk aversion and an inadequate level of forward thinking are what plague Harvard students. We are high-achieving, bright individuals, but we rarely forge our own path. Since

an early age, we have been conditioned to excel in certain areas, complete a set of pre-requisites, and the rest would fall into place. Checking off all the boxes on the checklist was the objective.

Now, we find ourselves in uncharted waters. As we brace ourselves for what lies ahead after college, we realize that there’s no prescribed next step. Changing the world doesn’t require test scores or a wellpolished résumé. Instead, it requires us to identify our true passions and summon a certain level of courage.

In the HPR’s interview with former speechwriter to President Obama Jon Favreau, he explained how college students can embark on a career in political speechwriting. He recommended that students take a chance on not necessarily the most prestigious position, but one that offers experience, mentorship, and the opportunity to thrive.

So, let’s take a second to step back from the problem sets and essays, internships and extracurricular activities, and really think about what we want to do with our lives. It’s a difficult question to answer, but it only gets easier the more you think about it.

As students explained to our lunch guest what they wanted to do, change education policy or run for political office, I ruminated for a moment. When it came time to speak, I told the former governor and ambassador that I wanted to confront the ever-changing media landscape and devise a way to elevate our level of political discourse.

Who knows if this is actually what I will do immediately after college or years down the line, but I was thankful for at least beginning to think about this question of how I will change the world.

Andrew Seo Editor-in-Chief

OPENING SHOT Surviving in Oz Zak Lutz “Toto, I’ve a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore.”

Harvard is a lot like Oz. Since getting here I’ve been dazzled by bricked roads, bourgie shoes, and bad weather.

Everyone gets lesser version of Dorothy’s culture shock: thousands of the country’s highest achieving high school students won’t form a typical campus community. And beyond the more tangible differences—less school spirit, miserable parties, great funding—there’s perhaps the more amorphous idea of “culture.”

Let me come right out and say that Harvard’s culture is a bad one. Our intentions are often admirable, but there’s an atmosphere where students shirk a lot of personal responsibility. Instead, too often we appeal to Harvard’s administration and other groups for institutional changes.

This top-down path of problem solving isn’t a bad one, but we can’t forgo occasionally solving issues ourselves.

As much as we like to put ourselves on a moral high ground, as a student body our own actions are often reprehensible. We rally to complain about University Health Services, but ignore our depressed friends; we push ourselves to do our very best in every class, but disregard struggling students; we put every ounce of effort we have into extracurriculars, but rarely attend others’ games and events. Not every student succumbs to this self-focused attitude, but our community has a lot to hang its head over.

It took me a while to figure this out. Harvard students are the first to critique injustice, but intellectual concern is rarely followed by personal action. It’s a stark difference from my conservative, midwestern hometown; no one cared much about problems on a theoretical level, but when someone needed help it came quickly. Plenty of students from comparable parts of the country have offered similar complaints about Harvard’s community.

Why this difference?

It’s a cultural issue, and one that envelops many goodhearted students. When the HPR decided to take on “The Future of Conservatism,” most writers looked at it

through the lens of political ideology and nothing more.

But having moved from a small, blue-collar town to this uppity urban utopia, I’ve come to realize conservatism is just as much a mindset. Individual responsibility, family values, personal humility—these aren’t merely political catchwords. Your parents beat them into you throughout childhood and you hold onto them. Not many people here have these values; as a community, we lack the personal empathy to create a culture that inspires much pride.

At Harvard, we’re liberals in our heads but not in our hearts. Our ideals of collective action fall to the wayside when they involve individual effort. We hide our real selfishness through proud talk of wanting to change the world but follow with little that will make it happen.

Conservative areas might not have the same benevolence when it comes to helping people via government action, but their individual responsibility shines through when called upon.

As a Democrat, I see the imperative that “The Future of Conservatism” not leave behind these old-fashioned values that many liberals roll their eyes at. Not only are these ideas compatible with more progressive ideologies, they’re essential to creating the left’s vision of America.

This is the sort of thing Bobby Kennedy meant when he talked of how we can’t measure America’s worth merely by Gross National Product; our American spirit is what makes us great. Sociologists call it “social capital,” and since Tocqueville’s Democracy in America it’s been credited as one of America’s most important qualities.

New trends in American politics and thought may alter the right-of-center political thought, but hopefully the culturally conservative mindset remains; Harvard and much of the county can stand to learn a thing or two.

Charity can’t entirely replace government, friends can’t replace therapists, nor can Kansas replace Oz. But there’s certainly room for both.

SUMMER 2013 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 3

CAMPUS

CAN WE DO BETTER? Reforming mental health in higher education Jenny Choi

T

oday, prevalent cases on the desks of college counselors involve serious concerns including depression, anxiety, and eating disorders, a relatively recent phenomenon in the long history of higher education. For the last several years, Harvard has seen a corresponding increase in the frequency and intensity of conversations regarding mental health. Punctuated by viral articles in The Crimson such as “I Am Fine” and the more recent “In Sight, Out of Mind,” this period of intensified attention towards mental health issues is reflective of a nationwide trend over the past few decades.

The Harvard Political Review is seeking to examine this trend by speaking with adolescent psychologists and counseling service administrators at institutions around the country. Universities should be acutely conscious that creating a mentally healthier campus is not an effort that should stem solely from the counseling center or the administrative offices; only the concerted awareness of an entire campus community—including faculty and staff—can translate into action and resources.

SEEKING HELP In their conversations with the HPR, the seven directors unanimously expressed that there has been a gradual yet conspicuous increase in the severity and the number of mental health cases that are being brought to counseling offices at colleges across the country. This does not necessarily indicate that a higher percentage of students carry mental disorders today than several decades past. Rather, as Monica Osburn, the president of the American College Counselors Association and the director of counseling at North Carolina State University, told the HPR, “There is now better medication for folks with more extreme forms of mental illnesses.

Increases in terms of access to medication have increased the number of these students on campuses.”

Some counseling directors attributed the rise in the number of cases to the prevalence of technology. Ronald Albucher of Stanford emphasized how “Facebook and Twitter” are allowing students to “reveal things about themselves online that they may not have

4 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2013

CAMPUS

otherwise” in face-to-face conversations. On the other hand, Gregory Eells of Cornell pointed to the possibility of technology acting as a stressor. In an interview with the HPR, he explained that “massive technology use can have a negative effect on sleep … since it allows you to play games and internet poker, watch porn, and check Facebook constantly.”

THE RESOURCE STRAIN Interestingly, one of the positive side effects of the increased number of students coming in with mental disorders has been a decline in the stigma associated with seeking help. Despite this positive trend, problems have surfaced in the area of resource allocation. Michael Young, a vice chancellor at the University of California at Santa Barbara who has observed and researched the collegiate mental health scene for over a decade, told the HPR that he saw “the perfect storm: an increase in the number and severity of the mental illness while there was a decrease in the resources and budgets to respond to these issues.” According to Young, the scarcity was only exacerbated by budget cuts that were put in place at most universities in response to the 2008 financial crisis.

In many colleges, counseling centers have also not been able to adapt their skill set to the changing severity of the problems being brought before them. Darcy Gruttadaro, Director of the Child and Adolescent Action Center at the National Alliance on Mental Illness, shared the results of her recent survey of college students with the HPR: “A number of the respondents indicated that they felt like the disability resource center on their campus didn’t understand mental health issues nearly as well as they understood developmental issues.” According to Osburn, schools might face problems especially with more chronic disorders that require treatment beyond a couple of appointments.

Yet the main problem with a strained resource bucket is undoubtedly that college counseling centers can never accommodate everyone who needs their help, leaving less time for non-counseling activities that are critical to shaping the campus’ mood on mental health issues. Kathy Miles of Centre College explained, “We’re less able to do educational programs since we don’t have separate education people on campus.” That most of these shortages are the result of inadequate funding raises important questions about the ways in which activists can engage the campus to influence the politics of resource allocation in favor of mental health support.

FALLING THROUGH THE CRACKS Despite a decrease in stigma, some students still fall through the cracks, as counseling centers only have the time and staffing to treat those who actively seek them out. Eisenberg told the HPR that he views help-seeking behavior in parallel to diet and exercise. “Most Americans are not healthy, but there isn’t a stigma issue or knowledge issue that’s holding people back from diet and exercise. There’s going to have to be some new approaches that make [mental] health a concrete priority alongside classes.”

Meanwhile, many directors saw another crack created by financial concerns, an issue that recently became a controversy on Harvard’s own campus through the op-ed, “In Sight, Out of Mind.” Sherry Benton of the University of Florida told the HPR,

“We have all kinds of things to get people to the level of treatment they require. But if you don’t have insurance, we’re out of options.” While most other directors and former directors, like Thomas Kramer of the University of Chicago, agreed with this sentiment, Gruttadaro saw hope in legislation like the Affordable Care Act to bring more health opportunities to students who need it. Despite this cause for optimism, some students cannot afford insurance co-payments or have conditions that require a longer-lasting series of therapy visits.

A SHORTAGE OF STAFF Adequate staffing has also long been a concern at institutions across the country. In response to difficulties with staffing, many counseling centers have turned to more creative solutions. Benton told the HPR about the University of Florida’s new online initiative. “Therapist-assisted online treatment,” a solution used in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and Germany, consists of “online modules, a corresponding progress monitor, and a video conference with a counselor every week.” This decreases the time each counselor spends with each student, while essentially providing face-to-face treatment. For the University of Florida, “it is a way to increase capacity without having to increase the budget,” Benton remarked.

Building support for increased funding and staff is still crucial, however. The directors of counseling services that spoke to the HPR actively advocated for better and more frequent training of professors and staff. On a campus where mental health campaigns have mostly stemmed from the students with the support of just a few especially vocal professors, this discussion is largely absent within the Harvard community.

MAINTAINING PERSPECTIVE Despite the many complaints about the shortcomings of mental health resources on campuses nationwide, it is important to put things back in perspective. Eells told the HPR, “Colleges and universities are some of the few places in the United States where there is a comprehensive health care system.” Although the ratio is still astoundingly small given the weight of the mental health concerns, Harvard has kept itself in a comparatively solid place in terms of mental health resources. Compared to the 1:937 ratio of private universities of its size, Harvard’s University Health Services provides a staff of one per 750 students, not including the resources at the Bureau of Study Counsel.

But the larger community outside university hospitals and counseling centers also has an obligation to protect and build upon this unique privilege. Nothing will come to fruition without a genuine, campus-wide shift in the attitude towards mental health. As an institution dedicated to learning and the “life of the mind,” mental health is really a responsibility of the whole institution, according to Eells. Indeed, mental health encompasses something much larger than simply a medical concern for the select portion of the student body that seeks out counseling; it is about creating a healthy and supportive environment in which to be we can be seekers of knowledge, intrigue and of course, ‘veritas.’ Whether student, faculty, or staff, it is our duty to illuminate and facilitate the path to knowledge for each other as best we can.

SUMMER 2013 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 5

RELIGION

THE VATICAN’S VETO Communion Battles in American Politics Taonga Leslie

W

hen Henry IV, King of the Germans was excommunicated from the Catholic Church in 1076, he traded his royal robes for a hairshirt and walked barefoot to the Pope’s fortress in Canossa to lift his excommunication. Henry’s act of penitence lasted three days and the phrase “going to Canossa” thereafter came to denote an act of utmost submission to a higher authority. At that time, the Church was at the apex of its coercive power, and for centuries the episode served as a reminder to temporal authorities of the spiritual limits to their political capacities.

Centuries later in 1989, Lucy Killea, a little-known candidate for the California State Senate would have her own confrontation with the Catholic Church. Killea was already serving in the California State Assembly and had adopted a pro-choice stance that she felt was consistent with her Catholic faith. The Bishop of San Diego disagreed and invoked Church law against her, prohibiting her from receiving communion in his diocese unless she stopped persisting in her “manifest grave sin.” Killea was catapulted onto the national stage and analysts attribute her narrow victory to increased energy among voters sympathetic to her cause.

Similarly, over the past decade, Catholic officials like former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, John Kerry, and Joe Biden have benefitted from their conflicts with the Church. Ironically, that is, the more the Church attempts to rein in the politics of its

6 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2013

flock through communion, the more support it creates for the very policies it opposes.

Apart from this, American excommunication is fairly unique for two reasons. First, although official Catholic Church ideology is defined by global consistency, communion battles are almost never used outside of the United States. Second, although Catholic theology takes strong stances on a number of social issues including contraception, euthanasia, and homosexuality, politicians have only been denied communion over abortion.

These conditions have less to do with the Church itself than with the power of the American pro-life lobby.

THE TRENCH WAR BEGINS The United States has had an especially energetic and persistent abortion debate in large part due to the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade. In many other countries, legislative branches have settled their own abortion debates. Pro-life activists in those countries were able to accept that their voices had been heard and they saw their defeats and successes as democratic and more or less legitimate outcomes. In the U.S., by contrast, there is lingering bitterness over the Supreme Court’s power to elevate the conflict from the political realm and establish abortion as a right that women are entitled to.

The Court’s decision resulted in the immediate reversal of a

RELIGION

majority of state laws and in turn stimulated strong and immediate opposition. In the early days after the decision, opponents attempted to organize a constitutional amendment blocking abortion but when it became clear that such an amendment did not have broad support, they turned to other avenues.

Though the Catholic Church was highly organized in its efforts to oppose abortion prior to Roe v. Wade, the decision ultimately created a significant spike in volunteers and donations to organizations opposing abortion. For the last 40 years, abortion has remained the signature issue dividing liberals and conservatives: it pits the right to personal bodily integrity against the sanctity of human life in the most essential terms.

Most importantly, unlike gay marriage and contraception, opinion on abortion has largely stagnated. According to Gallup, about a third of Americans favor overturning Roe v. Wade, a percentage that has been more or less stable since 1989. About fifty percent of Americans favor legal abortion with some restrictions, around a quarter favor legal abortion under any circumstance, and about a fifth favor criminalizing abortion in all cases. All of these ratios have seen no real change since 1975. As a result of this political trench war, activists have attempted to open new fronts on the issue by taking their battle to the pews.

LINES OF BATTLE: CANON LAW AND CATHOLIC OPINION One of the most vocal advocates for the politicization of communion is the American Life League (ALL), a Catholic antiabortion group. ALL is one of many grassroots organizations that was founded in the first days after Roe v. Wade. According to Judie Brown, the League’s founder, ALL was born from a conversation she had with several friends about the need for an “unapologetically Catholic” response to the decision. Thus, her organization has pressured Catholic bishops to enforce Canon Law 915, which forbids anyone who chooses to “persist in manifest grave sin” from receiving the Eucharist. In ALL’s interpretation, the law requires bishops to deny communion to all Catholic public figures who are pro-choice.

Brown insists that the pressure the League places on bishops is intended to accomplish purely religious goals. They are less concerned with influencing elections than with protecting the Blessed Sacrament from desecration at the hands of those who support the “murder of innocents.”

It’s easy to hear Brown’s frustration with all bishops who have not “done their jobs” by denying communion and her approval of the 15 or so “heroes” who have upheld the law. ALL is in the process of compiling a list of pro-choice public figures in every diocese in the United States and establishing whether each bishop is “in compliance” with Canon Law 915 or not. Yet Brown admits that, despite ALL’s pressure campaigns and what Brown sees as a clear canon law requirement, most bishops remain silent on the issue to avoid upsetting their congregations.

Michele Dillon, a professor of sociology and religion at the University of New Hampshire, believes that this silence can be explained by the widening gap between the conservative views espoused by Church leadership and the views of most American Catholics. Despite the Church’s opposition to artifi-

cial contraception, Catholic women are just as likely to use it as non-Catholics. The same holds true for procuring abortions and supporting gay marriage, according to Gallup. Catholics are distributed fairly evenly along the liberal-conservative spectrum and actually tend to vote more often with the Democratic Party.

Although abortion is considered a signature issue of the Catholic Church, Protestants are more likely than Catholics to identify as “pro-life.”

In fact, many Catholics insist that pro-choice advocacy does not necessarily conflict with Catholic teachings. Jon O’Brien, the president of Catholics for Choice (CFC) argues that Judie Brown and ALL have falsely interpreted Church doctrine. In an interview with the HPR, O’Brien noted that in 1974, when the Vatican released its “Declaration on Procured Abortion,” it “expressly [left] aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused.” In addition, CFC points out that in the guide to “Catholics and Abortion,” canon law allows for many circumstances that mitigate liability including “grave fear, necessity or serious inconvenience.” Most important to O’Brien is the idea of individual conscience in making decisions, and he sees Church leadership as a source of guidance that is by no means final. Moreover, he believes that Church officials who fail to respect the independence of Catholics risk alienating their followers entirely.

NO SILVER BULLET According to a study by Dr. Richard Hofstetter, professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego, liberal Catholics respond negatively to what they consider political manipulation by Catholic bishops. In 2004, when several Catholic bishops condemned John Kerry’s support of pro-choice policies, Catholics who had heard of the bishops’ opposition were actually significantly more likely to vote for Kerry. In Hofstetter’s sample of Catholic voters, 70 percent responded that the Catholic Church should not try to influence the Catholic vote.

Liberals who had heard of the bishops’ warnings against Kerry were 25 percent more likely to vote for him than liberals who had not. Among liberals who were familiar with a doctrinal note from the Vatican warning against liberal politicians, support for Kerry rose by 18 percent and support among moderates rose by 31 percent. In the overall population, exposure to the bishops’ warnings increased Kerry’s support by one percent and exposure to the doctrinal note increased Kerry’s support by ten percent.

Ultimately, even though Kerry lost the 2004 election, the bishops likely did have a positive effect on Catholic Kerry voters.

The backlash of Catholic liberals against the Church parallels the conservative backlash against Roe v. Wade. Both cases reveal the dangers of winner-take-all political strategies. Liberals and conservatives have spent the last 40 years attempting to move the abortion issue outside of the sphere of policy by either elevating it to constitutional status or framing it as a religious imperative. Instead of searching for the silver bullet that will end the debate on abortion once and for all, both camps would do better to let the issue work itself out democratically and defer to the judgment of the electorate. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like either side will be going to Canossa any time soon.

SUMMER 2013 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 7

RELIGION

THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AND POLITICAL POWER Matthew Disler

D

uring last year’s debate over Egypt’s new constitution and the various power-grabbing moves by President Muhammad Morsi that followed, the Muslim Brotherhood’s offices suffered a series of attacks and thefts. Anti-Brotherhood protesters clashed with supporters, leading to ten fatalities. This March, demonstrations erupted outside the Brotherhood’s Cairo headquarters once again. As before, many protesters focused on the claim that the organization is controlling President Morsi and called for the resignation of the attorney general and the interior minister, both Morsi appointees.

Though Morsi has officially renounced his membership in the Brotherhood, he continues to act as though he were very much a part of the organization. Members of the press critical of the Brotherhood, such as Hani Shukrallah, the editor-in-chief of the English version state-owned Ahram news service, have been forced out of their jobs. And minority opposition groups, feeling underrepresented, have resisted the new Islamist-backed constitution that provides weak protections for many of the rights fought for during the Arab Spring.

The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood (and its political offshoot, the Freedom and Justice Party) has accompanied the ascensions of other Islamist and Brotherhood-affiliated parties in the region, such as the ruling Ennahda Party in Tunisia, Hamas in the Gaza Strip, the Justice and Development Party in Morocco, and the Islamic Action Front in Jordan. After the Arab Spring, many of these groups gained increased prominence in their respective political spheres, where initially they had gained popularity as opposition movements. The Brotherhood has since changed its focus to accommodate its new role in the political landscape as it has been forced to deal with the realities of political party life. Simply put, the Muslim Brotherhood

8 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2013

faces a unique identity crisis as it struggles to navigate between Islamism and political pragmatism.

BAND OF BROTHERS The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hasan al-Banna, an Egyptian schoolteacher, with the goal of spreading Islamic law and morality through the region. In some ways, it was a reaction to Western influence. “They came into existence in the 1920s as a response to Western colonialism … and heightened Christian missionary zeal,” Yvonne Haddad, professor of Islamic history and Christian-Muslim relations at Georgetown, explained in an interview with the HPR. “The missionaries at the turn of the 20th century were preaching that ‘Christianity is a total way of life,’ a phrase that has been translated into ‘Islam is a total way of life’ … the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

In most Arab nations, and especially in Egypt, the Brotherhood was long known as an opposition movement critical of established strongmen leaders such as Hosni Mubarak. After the anti-Mubarak protests of the Arab Spring ended with the overthrow of the old administration, the Brotherhood organized the Freedom and Justice Party and won almost half of the lower house of parliament in January 2012.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s rise to prominence was propelled by its excellent organizational skills. Every Brotherhood member is required to be completely loyal to the Murshid (Supreme Guide), who is currently Muhammad Badie, a prominent member of the group’s conservative faction. The group also gained support through its various social service operations that run and fund a series of charities that are active in everything from education to public health.

RELIGION

Such social services allow the Brotherhood to display its “ideological commitment to alleviating poverty, reducing inequality and increasing social responsibility,” Nadine Farag, who has researched public health in Cairo’s slums, described in a PBS report. Furthermore, such activities allow the group to garner support across a wide swath of the population. “It built up a strong social presence during the period of authoritarianism that it could use to construct an impressive vote mobilization effort,” according to Nathan Brown, professor of political science at George Washington University, in an interview with the HPR. In other words, many of those who voted for the Freedom and Justice Party may not necessarily have been ideologically in sync with the party; however, due to the aid provided by the Muslim Brotherhood, they were willing to support it politically.

And with the superior organizational infrastructure of the group, these people were more likely to turn out to vote.

O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? Until 2011, the Muslim Brotherhood was clearly defined as an oppositional movement, acting quietly against then-President Hosni Mubarak. According to Haddad, the fact that the Brotherhood had to operate for many years as a persecuted organization played a big role in establishing the perceived righteousness of the Brotherhood’s operations in recent years. But that cohesiveness—and very identity—was tied up with the Brotherhood’s role as a righteously persecuted group. Now, in post-Mubarak Egypt, this identity is increasingly in flux.

However, the Muslim Brotherhood has remained remarkably resilient to ideological change. It is “organizationally more rigid but ideologically more flexible than other [Islamist] groups,” Brown explains. “First, it is hierarchical and disciplined; second, it is gradualist and inclined toward compromise.” Despite the strong internal infrastructure of the organization, the Muslim Brotherhood allows enough room for a wide variety of viewpoints, from conservatives to reformers, political pragmatists, and religious fundamentalists.

This diversity in opinion has prompted various conflicts within the group. Usually, the younger Brothers are more amenable to reform, while the elders are reluctant to abandon their strong Islamist underpinnings. Right before the protests that ended the Mubarak government, conservative Brothers kicked out many of the reformers. Many of these former members now criticize the movement and are beginning to ally themselves with the Brotherhood’s secular opponents.

Yet despite this intra-party conflict, the Brotherhood has become increasingly pragmatic and moderate. According to Brown, the priorities of the Morsi government are “governance and reform of the state apparatus”—not the establishment of sharia law, as some Egyptians feared. In an interview with the HPR, Steven Cook, a member of the Council of Foreign Relations, added that Morsi and the Brotherhood share the same priorities: “it is clear that the Egyptian president does not make decisions without input [of ] the Muslim Brotherhood’s guidance office,” as has been the organization’s longstanding practice of consultation among its leadership.

Thus, in some sense, as the Muslim Brotherhood has attained political power, it has become a political entity. No longer can its leaders focus exclusively on promulgating a religious agenda, because that strategy simply will not win votes. As Khalil Al-Anani

at Durham University argued in an October 2012 article for Mediterranean Politics, “the language of politics is overshadowing [the Brotherhood’s] religious rhetoric.” Many Islamist groups are replacing outdated fundamentalism with pragmatism, attempting to co-opt major secular issues while maintaining their old structure and hierarchy.

Though the reality of competing for votes with liberal democratic parties has pushed the Muslim Brotherhood in a moderate direction, at the same time, the organization is still pressured towards conservatism. “Religion and speaking in a religious vernacular is a way for the Brotherhood and Salafist groups to advance their political agendas,” Cook notes. “In some ways, the most interesting and dynamic aspect of Egyptian politics is the competition among the Brotherhood, Salafis [adherents of a strict Sunni movement], and Al Azhar [an important university dedicated to Islamic learning] over who speaks for Islam.” The Salafist Al Nour Party finished second to the Muslim Brotherhood in the 2012 elections, demonstrating its significant growth.

It is clear, then, that religion still garners votes in Egypt, and that the Brotherhood and the FJP feel pressure to use such rhetoric and policies in their political battles.

STEP BROTHERS The Muslim Brotherhood is presenting a mixed message: it appears to simultaneously communicate conservatism and inflexibility even while attempting to come across as moderate and willing to cooperate with the West. The Brotherhood’s response to a proposed UN declaration demonstrates these competing trends. On March 13, the organization objected to various aspects of a proposed UN declaration that condemned violence against women, joining the governments of religiously conservative states such as Iran, Libya, Sudan, the Vatican, and Honduras who disagreed with the declaration’s references to gay rights, abortion, and marital rape. The Brotherhood included suggestions that wives should be unable to file legal complaints against their husbands for rape, and that daughters should not receive the same inheritance as sons. However, the Egyptian envoy at the proceedings, Mervat Tallawy (a member of the liberal Egyptian Social Democratic Party) nonetheless voted for the declaration.

And while battles over the Brotherhood’s identity as a political force continue, the Egyptian government has failed to deliver on many of its proposed solutions to pressing problems. Police brutality remains rampant as security forces continue to kidnap and beat activists. Unemployment, the budget deficit, and inflation continue to rise, and the government is hoping for $4.8 billion in loans from the International Monetary Fund. Morsi was amenable to the deal, but “the FJP was concerned about having to run in elections after the government signed a deal with an unpopular international financial institution,” according to Cook.

The Muslim Brotherhood has been forced to confront new issues that it never would have considered prior to the Arab Spring. Now that it holds much of Egypt’s political power, the organization is forced to adopt new, more pragmatic policies. In a way, prioritizing governance has shifted the Brotherhood’s focus away from religion—an action that may fracture its old identity.

Nevertheless, such a recalibration may prove politically beneficial for the Brotherhood in the long run.

SUMMER 2013 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 9

RELIGION

LIMITS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM Zak Lutz “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

C

onstitutional arguments over the First Amendment have always been legally treacherous and fraught with political strife. While the first half remains clear (“establishment of religion”), the latter half (“free exercise thereof”) has been the subject of much legal and political debate.

Legality surrounding religious law in America is best understood as a wide spectrum of interpretation. While there is extensive historical precedent on matters of religious liberty in the United States, several hot button issues currently standing before the Supreme Court and Congress could shift conceptions of just how far religious liberty extends.

HISTORY The First Amendment was originally intended to keep the federal government out of religion and did not apply to the states. However, the Fourteenth Amendment extended some constitutionally guaranteed rights to the states, including a wider range of religious freedoms.

While there have not been many legal tests of the “free-exercise” clause, existing precedence has generally held federal law superior to religious practice. In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Mormon Church sued over the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act in an attempt to continue their polygamist practices. The majority opinion declared that the law was constitutional since it neither interfered with religious belief nor selectively outlawed religious practice. “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land,” wrote Chief Justice Morrison Waite, “and, in effect, permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”

Almost a century later, Reynolds was reaffirmed in Employment Division v. Smith (1990). Oregon’s Employment Division fired Alfred Smith, a public employee, after he used peyote in a Native American Church ceremony. Justice Antonin Scalia, in the majority opinion, explained that the ban applied to everyone equally and that it would be unfair to give a private excuse. He held that religious exceptions would have undermined the law.

THE SHERBERT TEST While Reynolds and Smith can be used to argue that the freeexercise clause has a rather narrow application, a concurring opinion in Smith by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor applied the test of “compelling government interest.” She argued that the government can only infringe on religious liberty when a compelling interest exists to do so. This test, established by Justice William Brennan, has been used in defense of religious liberty.

In Sherbert v. Verner (1963), Adell Sherbert sued her employer

10 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2013

when he extended her hours to include Saturdays—a day on which Sherbert, a Seventh-day Adventist, was religiously obliged not to work. The court ruled that the employer had placed a “substantial burden” on her and that the government lacked a compelling interest to deny benefits.

The hence-named “Sherbert Test” requires that an individual must prove sincere religious beliefs and substantial burden through government action. If these are established, the law is unconstitutional unless the government proves a “compelling state interest” and that the interest was pursued in the least intrusive way possible. The Sherbert Test had lasted fewer than 30 years when Smith changed the precedent; since then, the legal community has grown to scorn such tests. Nonetheless, Congress became concerned that religious exercise was at risk and passed the bipartisan Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) to legislatively establish the Sherbert Test. Though President Clinton strengthened the laws through executive orders, Boerne v. Flores (1997) established that Congress can only strengthen federal religious freedoms. Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal (2006) thus became the first use of RFRA and the Sherbert Test. Coincidentally, the Court ruled in Gonzales that the government had not established a compelling interest to limit the use of peyote tea in a New Mexico Native American ceremony.

FREE EXERCISE TODAY The Sherbert Test and free-exercise clause play into arguments over two current exercise events: gay rights and contraceptive coverage. Though these two issues are different and apply separate constitutional arguments, each rests principally on the role of religious liberty within American society.

Sixteen states have approved laws allowing citizens to “ignore state regulations or laws that contradict his or her sincerely held religious beliefs,” and Kentucky seems likely to approve a similar bill soon. Though applied broadly, these laws are a thinly veiled attempt to allow employment, housing, and other forms of discrimination against homosexuals. In essence, the laws apply a version of the Sherbert Test to states—groups establish sincerely held beliefs and then demonstrate a burden originating from following the law. Because the Sherbert Test applies only at the federal level, it could be seen as either changing state law or as unconstitutional based on Smith’s precedent. Considering many religious objections to gay marriage, any verdict on the issue could have future implications for the debate over who is required to acknowledge marriage between homosexual couples.

This requires something of a tricky legal balance. Even many liberals do not think religious institutions should be forced to perform same-sex marriage, but Smith might not allow for that if same-sex marriage were granted on constitutional grounds.

But, the free-exercise clause could allow for private groups to discriminate against homosexual couples (for example, by not

RELIGION

catering certain weddings). While states that legalize same-sex marriage can easily outline precisely what discrimination is acceptable, courts are much less able to navigate a middle ground.

CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE More publicized has been the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishop’s lawsuit against the Obama administration. Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York has led 43 Catholic institutions, ranging from schools to hospitals, in arguing that it is unconstitutional that they must provide birth control to their employees.

Most legal scholars argue that the free-exercise clause does not apply here—especially given recent changes exempting religious groups from directly supplying to their employees. The only attempted argument is that not all businesses are subject to the Affordable Care Act’s requirements; therefore, at least in theory, an argument could be made that certain businesses were targeted.

However, the best case for the Catholic group involves using RFRA and the Sherbert Test. Ira Lupu of George Washington Law School laid out to the HPR what could happen. First, groups would need to establish a sincere belief. This has so far required the institution to be a non-profit owned by an explicitly religious group, such as a church. Catholic hospitals and similar institutions that have beliefs but are not active worship places generally have not qualified for the sincere belief requirements.

Next, groups would need to establish that paying for contraceptives constitutes a substantial burden. Lower courts have been divided, but experts expect that the recent exemptions offered by the Obama administration will lessen the burden sufficiently. The exemptions say that religious institutions do not have to pay for contraceptives, but instead insurance companies do (such companies think that in the long run they save the money from preventing unwanted pregnancies). However, when the employers do not pay for the contraceptives, everyone else who buys the company’s insurance bears some of the cost.

there is minimal fear that a new religious practice could be created to undermine the law. Though at times religious institutions have abused the balance of church and state in the past, Carter and many others believe that politicians are the ones overreaching right now, particularly on issues such as contraceptives.

At the moment, Carter’s position is considered conservative.

But as recently as the 1990s, his sentiments might have been considered liberal. Justice Scalia, an extreme conservative, wrote the last opinion narrowly reviewing the free-exercise clause, but it is possible that he will join the Court’s conservatives this time around. It is even possible that a liberal judge will select the “old-school” liberal opinion. Justice Sotomayor, a Catholic, may have some sympathy for the USCCB plaintiffs.

THE FREE-EXERCISE CLAUSE

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

Most constitutional law professors that the HPR spoke with believe that the free-exercise clause should not apply to justify gay discrimination or Obamacare exemptions. Eugene Volokh, professor at UCLA Law School, largely reiterated Justice Scalia’s decision and argued that the question was absurd. Federal and state law, he believes, will end up deciding current issues of church and state, and RFRA, in particular, will play a major role.

But there is a decent chance that the Supreme Court will rule otherwise.

Stephen L. Carter, professor at Yale Law School, described for the HPR what he calls the “accommodationist” position of the free-exercise clause. “The law must generally accommodate itself to the needs of religious organizations rather than the other way around,” he argues, because “religionists are entitled to exemptions as long as their positions are sincerely held and long-standing—that is, except when the regulation in question is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.” This common sense approach rejects Smith, and argues instead that the religious should not be required to do anything against their religion. While Justice Scalia argued that this could undermine the law, Carter’s approach essentially requires judgment as to whether the religion’s practices are sincerely held beliefs; thus,

Current legal precedent has stripped the free-exercise clause of any scope, beyond reiterating the illegality of ad hoc laws. A conservative court ruling could change that, but for now religious practices in the United States are subject to federal, state, and local laws. Depending on whom you talk to, this is either good legal practice or an infringement on religious freedom.

Upcoming rulings from the Supreme Court and various legislative compromises will have long-term ramifications on exactly where the line is drawn between the two. It is certainly possible that the Court will argue that religious practice is free only within the limits of the law.

If that happens, America, it seems, will have certainly shed its “Christian” ideals and taken up secular replacements. If, on the other hand, religious freedoms are held as superior to the law, America will affirm its commitment to individualism and aggressive protections of the Bill of Rights. Both paths represent potentially far-reaching ramifications for Obamacare and, perhaps more importantly, protections from discrimination for homosexuals. While elected officials have the power to decide these issues, courts can defer to the Constitution as a sort of trump card. Indeed religious freedom, as much as anything else, is a balancing act between the different branches of government.

SUMMER 2013 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 11

RELIGION

NO AL SMITH MITT ROMNEY’S NON-TRANSFORMATIONAL MORMON CANDIDACY

Colin Diersing

12 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2013

RELIGION

I

n the past 150 years, Mormons in America have undergone a remarkable transformation, from outcasts to central players in American politics. Nevertheless, Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign brought to the fore a series of uncomfortable truths about America’s relationship with Mormonism. Despite hopes that his campaign would break down barriers for Mormons in America, Romney’s reluctance to speak openly about his faith seems to have limited the impact that the 2012 election may have had on how Americans view his religion.

MORMONISM BEFORE ROMNEY Mitt Romney’s nomination for president of the United States represented the triumph of much more than an individual candidate. The heir to a long history of Mormons in American politics, Mitt Romney represented the culmination of American Mormonism’s ascendancy to acceptance in American culture.

Mormons were persecuted and mistreated throughout most of U.S. history. During much of the 19th century, the Mormon community was functionally at war with the United States.

After a mob killed Mormon leader Joseph Smith in 1844, many Mormons moved westward to escape the American borders of the time. Mormons, one might say, simply left what was then understood as the United States.

Mormon reintegration into American society was long and difficult. The first Mormon elected to Congress was held up for four years before being seated, and charges of polygamy continued to plague the church well into the 20th century (even though the Church outlawed it in 1890). Through a long campaign for acceptance, however, the Mormon community has moved from America’s margins to its center. Mormons now account for 15 sitting members of Congress, the Senate majority leader, and the most recent Republican nominee for President.

Despite enormous progress, American Mormonism continues to face hostility and skepticism. Public polling places Mormons as the third least trusted group in American society, trailing only Muslims and Atheists. In 2007, one-sixth of Americans polled indicated that they would not vote for an otherwise well-qualified Mormon candidate for public office. In a conversation with the Harvard Political Review, Luke Perry, author of Mormons in American Politics: From Persecution to Power called Mormons “the most disliked Christian group in America.” Many Mormons hoped that Mitt Romney’s emergence as a national figure would help to put an end to the prejudices and distrust that continue to plague members of the faith.

THE EVOLUTION OF MITT ROMNEY As he was preparing to run for President in 2008, Mitt Romney and his advisors made the conscious choice to foreground his commitment to cultural conservatism. Opposition to gay marriage and abortion, they hoped, would help Romney connect with Iowa primary voters. As an almost inevitable corollary, his faith, in broad and general terms, formed an important part of his stump speech. The appeal, however, was far from direct in its use of Romney’s Mormon faith.

Conscious of the need to appeal to white evangelicals, a

segment of the electorate that polls identify as being among the most skeptical of Mormonism, Romney was careful to focus on cultural conservative credentials rather than specific theological issues. In fact, much of his rhetoric fit more with Evangelicalism than with his own Mormonism. Ben Crosby, a professor at Iowa State University who writes about the intersection of rhetoric and religion, told the HPR that “rather than trying to connect with voters through [Mormonism], Romney tried to paint himself as someone with a more traditional faith.” He hoped his faith was not be disqualifying, but shied away from using it as a lens through which to view his life and values.

The Romney campaign entered the 2012 election with a very different strategy for dealing with the presidential perennial’s faith. Painfully aware of the failed attempts to endear himself to Evangelicals, Romney decided to avoid talking about his religion altogether. He avoided the topic on the trail and requests for comment on his faith went unanswered. “He made a conscious effort not to go that route,” Crosby argues. Gifted with the implosion of a battery of potential opponents, Romney largely managed to skate through the primary process while dodging the topic.

Religion remained a secondary concern throughout most of the general election, as well. Although Romney included some witnesses to his church service at the convention, he kept them out of the valuable primetime slot. Perry and others have concluded that white evangelicals’ overwhelming dislike for the incumbent pushed them into Romney’s corner with minimal need for outreach. Quin Monson, director of the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy at Brigham Young University, offered the HPR a simple reason why Romney no longer needed to attempt to appeal to skeptical social conservatives: “because the alternative was Barack Obama.”

A MORMON AL SMITH? In the aftermath of the 2012 election, McCay Coppins, the only Mormon reporter to travel with the Romney campaign, published a long-form article on BuzzFeed in which he argued that the campaign had been transformational for how journalists and the country as a whole, viewed the Mormon faith. Referring to Mitt Romney as a “Mormon Al Smith” (Smith was the Catholic 1928 presidential candidate widely credited with demystifying Catholicism for large parts of the country and paving the way for future Catholic candidates), Coppins argues that Romney’s mere presence in the national spotlight forced conversations about Mormonism that have increased America’s comfort with Mormons in politics.

Others take Romney’s approach to religion in 2012 as a sign of increased comfort with Mormonism in general. “He was able to break some ground in 2008,” Perry argues, “so 2012 was easier.”

Monson sees a similar effect on the media, noting that by 2012 many journalists had become tired of covering Romney’s religion. Romney was finally free to ignore his faith, like any other Christian candidate, and talk about his real focus, economic issues.

Still, some empirical evidence suggests that talking about his faith wouldn’t have hurt Romney as much as he feared. Matt

SUMMER 2013 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 13

RELIGION

Romney’s reluctance to speak openly about his faith limited how Americans viewed Mormonism in the 2012 election.

Chingos, a Brookings Institution fellow, told the HPR that some polls suggest that “among white evangelicals, mentioning any information [about Romney’s Mormonism] seemed to make no difference ... among Conservatives, some mention of his faith seemed to increase their support for him quite a bit.” Notably, however, Chingos acknowledged that other studies suggest a Mormon candidate might make voters more likely to support a different candidate, even though his or her faith is not considered disqualifying.

Perhaps most promising for those who hoped the Romney campaign would increase acceptance of Mormonism was the mere symbolism of the election. Romney’s mere existence as a Republican nominee and Mormon might, they hoped, normalize and validate the faith to skeptical audiences. Maybe, Monson mused, the fact that Romney had “run a national campaign where religion wasn’t a big deal makes it easier for the next Mormon with national appeal.” Robert O’Brien, a Romney advisor quoted by Coppins, put the hope succinctly: “it’s going to be a non-event the next time a Mormon runs.” The Mormon transformation from national outcasts to political force seemed complete.

ENDURING CHALLENGES And yet, despite Mormonism’s clear reversal from exodus, Romney’s unwillingness to talk about his faith in open and honest terms might have prevented the sort of progress Coppins and others desired. A Gallup poll asking whether people would support an otherwise qualified Mormon indicates no movement since 1999. Seventeen percent of the country still reports an unwillingness to do so, the same as reported in 1999 and 2007.

Despite their willingness to support Romney’s candidacy, white evangelicals remain heavily suspicious of his faith. Half say

14 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2013

Mormons are not Christians and two-thirds report feeling that Mormons are “very” to “somewhat different" from the faith.

Romney’s inability to make serious inroads with the evangelical community leaves Mormons facing the same tactical problem that Monson refers to as a “two front war for Mormons.” On the right, any Mormon candidate must contend with significant skepticism from evangelical Christians who aligned with Romney more out of a desire to beat Obama than reconciliation with his beliefs. The left offers a similarly mistrustful secularist constituency, as a group distrustful of Mormonism's cultural conservatism and religious commitments. Romney’s campaign, which endeared the community neither to the secular left nor the evangelical right, does little to help a future national Mormon candidate navigate this significant disadvantage.

Some blame Romney’s unwillingness to talk about his faith for the lack of movement in Americans’ perception of Mormonism. Americans may have become more comfortable with Mormons as individuals, but they were offered no new narrative to understand the unfamiliar faith in friendlier terms. Terryl Givens, a professor at the University of Richmond who has written extensively on anti-Mormon rhetoric through history, argues that “we’re still left with a horse and buggy problem.” Just as the Amish are reduced to the symbolic horse and buggy, Mormons are “identified with polygamy and magic underwear.” The election, Givens concludes, “was a missed opportunity for the Mormon people as a whole.”

While the fact that Romney was able to choose to run while avoiding the topic of his faith might represent a positive step for Mormonism, future retrospectives on the campaign will most likely agree that the 2012 election was a lost opportunity for Mormonism and America.

UNITED STATES

BEYOND THE SENSATIONALISM Narrowing the voter discrimination issues at stake in Shelby County v. Holder

Matthew Weinstein

S

oon after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Shelby County v. Holder last February, NBC Nightly News declared the Court was “considering whether or not to strike down the Voting Rights Act.” Other media outlets have portrayed similar gravity about the fate of the VRA. Yet, the real issues at stake in Shelby are more narrow and less consequential.

Enacted in 1965 and reauthorized four times since, the VRA is credited with significantly reducing voter discrimination with respect to race. Rather than making a binary decision to uphold or strike down the law, the Court will answer two key questions in Shelby: whether discrimination today is pervasive enough to warrant continued federal intrusion into states’ rights, and what measures Congress should use to identify likely sources of voter discrimination.

INDIVIDUAL ENFORCEMENT WILL REMAIN The most important part of the VRA is Section 2, which prohibits states, counties, and cities from enacting voting procedures that racially discriminate. The federal government, and specifically the Department of Justice, has power to enforce Section 2 through litigation. The DOJ may ask courts for preliminary injunctions to prevent enactment of discriminatory voting procedures, and private individuals can also bring Section 2 law-

suits. Between 2000 and 2009, the DOJ brought only 26 lawsuits under Section 2, yet the threat of litigation is often enough to pressure jurisdictions into election reform. However, Section 2 is not at issue in Shelby, and the DOJ and individuals will retain their power regardless of the Court’s decision.

Section 2, combined with the Constitution’s 14th (equal protection) and 15th (universal male voting rights) Amendments provides a basic level of federal protection of minority voting rights. Further, political pressures constrain elected state and local officials from enacting discriminatory legislation. Abigail Thernstrom, vice chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the author of two books on the VRA, noted this political constraint to the HPR, explaining, “it is politically impossible in America today to come off as racially uncaring.” Voter backlash against the Republicans’ recent immigration reform proposals is an example of this practical check, something Democrats are quick to highlight.

IS VOTER DISCRIMINATION STILL A PROBLEM? The Court in Shelby will instead analyze the merits of Sections 4 and 5 of the VRA. Section 5 requires that select jurisdictions receive prior DOJ approval, or “preclearance,” before

SUMMER 2013 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 15

UNITED STATES

enacting any changes to their election procedures. Preclearance provides an early check for the DOJ to ensure that certain jurisdictions do not enact racially discriminatory voting procedures.

Voting changes requiring preclearance include redistricting, moving of polling stations, redrawing precinct lines, purging voters, changing bilingual voting methods, amending candidate qualifications, and altering voter registration procedures. Section 5 was originally intended to be a temporary, five-year remedy. However, since 1965, Congress has extended it four times, most recently until 2031.

Section 5 is widely considered a vast expansion of federal power, necessary to prevent voter discrimination in the 1960s.

Nevertheless, preclearance significantly intrudes upon traditional state powers to set voting standards. Such an intrusion may no longer be justified in light of reduced levels of discrimination. Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow of constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, described preclearance to the HPR as “a big blunt intrusion” into state powers that was “outside the constitutional norm and originally justified by … the exceptional conditions on the ground.”

In Shelby, the Court will determine whether the discriminatory conditions present in 1965 persist to an extent large enough to warrant continued federal intervention in core state affairs. As Kent Greenfield, professor of constitutional law at Boston College, explained to the HPR, “There must be a close fit between the exercise of [federal] power and … the potential violations of constitutional rights.” If the Court believes that substantial discrimination still exists, then it will likely uphold federal preclearance, but if it determines that modern discrimination tactics are neither prevalent nor effective enough to significantly impact minorities’ constitutional rights, then Section 5 will likely fall.

Supporters of Section 5 argue that, while the most heinous forms of voter discrimination are relics of the past, minority voter suppression still exists. Tactics such as unexpected changes to voting locations, voter ID laws, and the selective

16 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2013

enforcement of criminal background checks by registration officials all constitute what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has called “second generation devices.” While not as overt as poll taxes or literacy tests, these newer devices may be equally effective in suppressing minority voting. Bernard Simelton, chairman of the Alabama NAACP, explained the importance of voter ID laws to the HPR: “True, we aren’t facing the same things we were facing in the ‘60s,” he said. “But nevertheless it still achieves the same result: you don’t vote.” Supporters fear that if the Court strikes down Section 5, there will be no remaining constitutional check on these tactics.

Opponents of Section 5 claim that race relations have sufficiently improved to render preclearance obsolete and there is no longer any justification for the time and resources that the DOJ uses to process the 20,000 preclearance cases it handles each year. Further, opponents say the relics of voter discrimination that may still exist do not warrant the broad federal intrusion into core state powers. They are skeptical that subtler methods of modern discrimination produce the same undesirable effects as those pre-1965. These skeptics often cite the following statistics: among the 11 former Confederate states, eight have smaller disparities between white and black voter turnout than the national average, and among the eight states nationally that have a higher percentage of black than white voter turnout, four are former Confederate states.

HOW SHOULD CONGRESS IDENTIFY VOTER DISCRIMINATION? The Court in Shelby will also determine the validity of measures that identify jurisdictions suspected of voter discrimination. Section 4 of the VRA establishes several tests to identify suspect jurisdictions. These jurisdictions must submit all proposed voting changes for DOJ preclearance. The Shelby case focuses on the Section 4 requirement that preclearance applies to any jurisdiction where fewer than half the voting age resi-

UNITED STATES

Congress would never consider basing environmental or fiscal policy on 40-year-old data. Opponents of Section 4 say that federal policies on voting discrimination are no different.

dents either (a) are registered or (b) turned out to vote. However, instead of using current census data, the VRA uses data from the 1972 presidential election. Section 4 captures nine states, as well as isolated counties and municipalities in seven other states.

Thus, a key question in Shelby is whether 1972 voting data is applicable to measuring racial discrimination today and in the future.

Supporters of Section 4 argue that determining the proper identification method is a legislative decision in which the Court should not intervene. In 2006, Congress reauthorized Section 4, and its reliance on 1972 voting data, for 25 additional years by overwhelming bipartisan votes of 98-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House. According to Greenfield, these votes show that “Congress has given a clear answer” about whether to update the methodology. Similarly, Mr. Simelton said that in 2006, Congress “had significant evidence that this [method] needs to stay like it is.” In effect, supporters argue the Court should respect the separation of powers doctrine and defer to Congress.

However, despite the Congressional vote, Section 4 has become antiquated. Nationwide, voter registration is 59.8 percent.

Applying the Section 4 registration requirement to 2010 census data, only Hawaii would be subject to statewide preclearance.

Meanwhile, voter registration in the nine states currently subject to preclearance ranges from Louisiana, with the third highest state voter registration of 73.2 percent, to Texas, with the fifth lowest state voter registration of 53.2 percent. Overall among these nine states, voter registration is just 0.4 percent lower than the national average.

Pre-cleared states generally have a smaller gap between white and black registration than the rest of the country. Of the five states that have a higher percentage of blacks than whites registered, three are subject to preclearance. Meanwhile, of the 13 states with the smallest disparity between white and black voter registration, seven are subject to preclearance. Finally, while the gap between white and black registration is 8.2 percent nationwide, the gap is only 3.5 percent among the nine

pre-cleared states.

Congress would never consider basing environmental or fiscal policy on 40-year-old data. Opponents of Section 4 say that federal policies on voting discrimination are no different.

POSSIBLE COURT OUTCOMES The Court largely has three options in deciding Shelby. First, it may find that voter discrimination based on race remains pervasive and that Section 4 provides an appropriate method to identify offending jurisdictions. This ruling would simply maintain the status quo. Second, it may find that discrimination is no longer prevalent enough to warrant federal preclearance. Under this ruling, individuals and the DOJ would retain the power to fight voter discrimination through Section 2 litigation, but the DOJ could not pre-clear states’ voting changes. Third, the Court may reason that voter discrimination is still significant enough to justify federal intervention, but that the current identification mechanism is outdated. This ruling would require Congress to utilize more current data to identify jurisdictions that discriminate.

Unfortunately, the public’s understanding of the Shelby case has fallen victim to media sensationalism. Like many cases that reach the Court, Shelby is more nuanced than a sound bite or newspaper headline. Contrary to general perceptions, a decision to strike down Sections 4 and 5, would not be an invitation to reestablish Jim Crow laws. Instead, the Court would recognize the tremendous progress the country has made in reducing voter discrimination and call on Congress to develop a relevant model, with current data, to continue this progress into the future.

America’s ignominious history of racism and its current preoccupation with political correctness make it extremely difficult to debate any deficiencies of the VRA in a rational manner. However, both sides of this debate should view Shelby not a referendum on the VRA, but as an opportunity to determine the most effective ways to continue improving race relations in America.

SUMMER 2013 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 17

UNITED STATES

BREAKING OUT OF THE PRISON CYCLE Current American Prison Policy is Economically Unsustainable

Tom Silver

“C

osts of Incarceration Rising in US.” The headline is familiar and unremarkable. It could be from the last decade or last week, from a local tabloid or a national newspaper. The article will review the usual statistics— the United States has the largest prison population in the world, recidivism rates continue to climb—and concludes that the American prison system needs substantial reforms. Few disagree with this honest assessment, but even fewer are inspired to act. In national conversations about budgets and national debt, incarceration is rarely considered, and comprehensive changes are rarely proposed. Meanwhile, current imprisonment practices are inflicting multigenerational damages on the United States economy. Given the immediate costs of the prison industry, the socioeconomic effects of imprisonment on the individual, and the long-term economic consequences of incarceration, Americans must demand prison reform now.

STATISTICS: THE SILENT ALARM Of all the costs of incarceration, the day-to-day expenses are perhaps the most difficult to ignore. By most estimates, the United States spends over $74 billion annually on its prisons. Ten states now spend more on imprisonment than they do on higher education—six times more, in the case of California. JoAnne Page, CEO of the Fortune Society, a New York-based nonprofit that specializes in prisoner reentry and alternatives to incarceration, told the HPR that these costs are increasing “more than anything

18 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2013

else ... [because] the average length of stay is going up.” Indeed, from 1990 to 2009, the average length of stay for prisoners increased by 2.9 years. As a result of this progression, the prison population is not only growing, but also aging. Due to costs of healthcare, prisoners over the age of 50 are twice as expensive to house on average. As these costly trends continue, experts estimate that prison expenditures will consume nearly a third of the Department of Justice’s budget by 2020.

MARGINALIZED UPON RELEASE When an ex-convict leaves prison, he or she has a 40 percent chance of returning within three years. This alarmingly high rate of recidivism is due in part to

the difficulty that ex-convicts face in reentering the job market. Former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey spoke with the HPR about his work with female ex-convicts through the Integrity House, an organization that provides treatment, community, and employment assistance to drug addicts. He said, of finding jobs for ex-convicts, “it’s difficult, it’s aggravating … as opposed to the Scarlet letter A, we have the letter F for felonies.” Often, the biggest obstacle that former prisoners must confront is the social stigma surrounding ex-convicts. In many jurisdictions, it is legal to ask about a prospective employee’s prior convictions and to deny employment on that basis. Nicole Porter, Director of Advocacy for The Sentencing Project, told that HPR that “in some jurisdictions, they ask … if you’ve ever

UNITED STATES

been arrested.” Ex-convicts are essentially excluded from “full participation in the job force.”

Beyond the confining social stigma, ex-convicts must face other significant hurdles before returning to work. Three key barriers to employment affect prisoners disproportionately: lack of education, drug addiction, and racial discrimination. The average inmate’s lack of education is sometimes addressed in prison college or skilled labor programs. However, over the last few years, these programs have become increasingly scarce due to budget cuts. Page observes that since “most college programs in prisons died … people are coming out with less of an [educational] edge than they used to have.”

The second obstacle, drug addiction, is also sometimes addressed in prison, though inadequately so. While 65 percent of American inmates are clinically addicted to drugs, only 11 percent receive any form of treatment. Even if convicts temporarily break their addictions while in prison, they often relapse upon release. The lack of mandatory treatment perpetuates the pattern of drug addictions leading to drug-related convictions.

Lastly, racial discrimination is amplified at all stages of the incarceration process. Numerous studies show that African-American males are arrested, convicted, and then denied employment opportunities at disproportionately high rates. Nobel Laureate in Economics and Columbia professor Joseph Stiglitz explained to the HPR that “discrimination against incarcerated blacks is much worse over their lifetime” as compared to other groups.

Facing drug addiction and racial discrimination, without education or an impetus to change their behavior, ex-convicts often return to the life of crime that originally landed them in jail.

High recidivism rates reveal that the American prison system is ultimately self-defeating by permanently removing prisoners from the job market.

MOBILITY IN CHAINS The barriers to reentry have consequences not only for individuals but also for families and communities across multiple generations. Studies show that when parents are incarcerated, between 50 and 70 percent of children will start acting up in school and struggling with academics. Increases in physically aggressive behavior and unstable mental health are also observed. In the long-term, these effects can lead to the children committing crimes and ending up in prison themselves. A similar cycle exists at the community level; once a neighborhood develops a crime-ridden reputation, a self-fulfilling prophecy proceeds. Porter blames this cycle in part on police and prosecutors’ “targeting of specific neighborhoods where there are high rates of incarceration,” also often communities of color.

From an even broader perspective, incarceration can be devastating for social mobility. Page notes that, as whole communities cycle in and out of the prison system, “we’re moving closer and closer towards a multigenerational underclass,” or “at least a huge difference in social mobility.” The United States has both the largest prison population in the world, and by most metrics, the least upward mobility of any developed nation. Stiglitz and others believe these two factors are related: When we have an incarceration system that stigmatizes large numbers of particular groups and impedes their ability to

become constructive members of the labor force, then we’re wasting large amounts of human resources and creating large social problems. ... There must be a large intergenerational transmission of poverty.

BREAKING THE CYCLE Piecemeal reform will not alleviate the structural economic burden of the prison system. Advocacy groups, nonprofits, and researchers generally approach prison reform from two angles: rehabilitating the individual and changing policies. At the Integrity House in New Jersey, Governor McGreevey and his colleagues focus on providing female convicts who are also drug addicts with treatment and employment opportunities.

McGreevey describes their approach: “everyone works, we have a self-governing therapeutic community, [and] everyone participates in treatment.” The results of the Integrity House program are impressive: 100 percent of the women in the program find employment, and their recidivism rate is down from 55 to 22 percent. McGreevey insists that the success of their program is due not to the employment opportunities but to the set of values and morals that the program’s environment instills in each exconvict.

In addition to working with ex-convicts on an individual basis, the Fortune Society also advocates for broader policy reform.

Page describes the wide range of functions that the organization serves. “We work with people around issues like getting a job, like maintaining sobriety. … We teach parenting, we work with people to get their children out of foster care, [and] we house people,” she explained. Page supports a range of incarceration alternatives, such as drug addiction treatment options, to be included alongside the current system. These programs would ideally reduce the overflowing populations of prisons and decrease the likelihood that offenders would return to a life of crime.

Other alternatives demand a complete overhaul of the prison system, replacing the emphasis on punishment with an emphasis on prisoner rehabilitation. While the costs may initially appear high, McGreevey and Page argue that these alternatives are smart investments. At the Integrity House, McGreevey reported that “the reduction in recidivism has more than paid for our costs.”

While the Integrity House and the Fortune Society have seen successes at the county and state level, the road to prison reform is long. The immediate costs of housing the world’s largest prison population are staggering and increasing exponentially as incarceration rates and sentence lengths continue to climb. When the immediate costs are considered together with ex-convicts’ barriers to employment and the system’s effects on social mobility, an even bleaker prognosis emerges. The billions of tax dollars currently shoveled into the system could be used to rehabilitate prisoners, reduce crime and return hundreds of thousands to the work force, but instead these tax dollars are burned to perpetuate the cycle of conviction and poverty. This all-too-familiar prognosis must be read with far more urgency than a purely statistical review would demand. The work of dedicated groups on the local level might be enough to break a few communities out of the prison cycle, but lasting reform for the United States will require a policy revolution.

SUMMER 2013 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 19

UNITED STATES

THE FUTURE OF SCIENCE IN AMERICA HOW THE U.S. CAN MAINTAIN ITS GLOBAL SCIENTIFIC LEADERSHIP

Anastasiya Borys

T

he rise of economic competitors, combined with a decline in the education system at home, has threatened the United States’ position as the global leader in science. Although foreign competition advances scientific knowledge more rapidly, a loss of leadership in science could diminish U.S. economic growth and national security. Last year, China graduated more English-speaking engineers than the United States, and America’s share of high-tech exports fell from 21 to 14 percent, while China’s rose from seven to 20 percent. As other countries improve their science, education, and research and development programs, the United States should protect its leadership position by seriously tackling core issues such as stagnating K-12 science, technology, engineering, and math education and the politicized nature of science public policy.

CLOSING THE GAP: A CLOSER LOOK AT DEVELOPING COUNTRIES Many analysts lament the decline of the American scientific infrastructure, but a cursory review of the relevant statistics reveal that America is still a leader by many measures. The United States spends 40 percent of total world R&D outlays, claims 38 percent of OECD nations’ patented new technology inventions, produces 35 percent, 49 percent, and 63 percent, respectively, of total world publications, citations, and highly cited publications, and employs 70 percent of the world’s Nobel Prize winners.

The current STEM anxiety is an outgrowth of larger concerns about American competitiveness. The growing number of STEM workers in countries like China has both policymakers and American citizens on edge. Yet an engineering degree in China is often equivalent to only a vocational certificate or twoyear degree in the United States. More concerning is the rate at which China is expanding its investment in science compared to the United States.

20 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2013

The largest threat to America’s global competitiveness in this area comes from its relatively small population compared with China and India. Even marginal improvements in education in these countries may produce large gains in productivity and scientific output. However, Scott Pace of the Center for International Science and Technology Policy, explained to the HPR that measuring the science gap comes down to quality of performance, not the quantity of workers. While China improves quantitatively, innovation still lags. “The Chinese educational system is not one that fosters a lot of individual initiative and creativity,” said Pace. If a nation’s goal is to graduate technically competent people, then China ranks highly, but if a nation values the ability to innovate, the United States maintains an edge.

On the other hand, investments in training, research, and development by other countries are good news for the United States in some respects. Rice University’s Neal Lane, former director of the National Science Foundation, noted to the HPR: “the U.S. has benefited from those investments for a very long time. Bright young people often select the United States for their graduate work and sometimes stay to start their careers here both in the academic sector and in the private sector.” These high-skilled professionals become productive members of our society, made possible by their technical training in their native countries. Science in the 21st century is no longer constrained by borders. Shawn Lawrence Otto, author and science advocate, explained in an interview with the HPR that the Internet and increased collaboration have globalized many recent scientific achievements.

EDUCATIONAL CHALLENGES In spite of these potential benefits, the declining performance of K-12 institutions in STEM fields is a serious threat to the United States. The current U.S. public education system is not

UNITED STATES

Middle school students show President Obama their award-winning eCYBERMISSION project.

in a position to generate the talent in science and math-related fields to meet the future demands of the global marketplace. In fact, an estimated two thirds of Ph.D. students graduating with STEM degrees in the United States are not American citizens.

Lane believes more students will choose to remain in their home countries to complete their Ph.D. degrees or return home after they graduate as the science facilities in countries like China rapidly improve.

This statistic, that only a third of graduating science Ph.D. students completed their K-12 education in the United States, is a result of both the quality of American K-12 education and the early misalignment of incentives in an American student’s academic career. To Lane, the critical question is “whether there are there enough U.S.-born men and women interested in careers in science who are well-educated. Moreover, he is concerned about “whether there will be enough [students] downstream as more foreign people try to stay home.” Americans must look to encourage more people to enter STEM fields in elementary and secondary education to ensure the answer to Lane’s question in the future is yes.

AN INSUFFICIENT NATIONAL SCIENCE AGENDA In his first inaugural address, President Obama promised to “restore science to its rightful place [as a national priority].”

The prospect seemed favorable as he assembled a strong group of researchers to lead his science-related agencies. Yet Pace observed that this group of well-known and technically competent advisors “has not translated into money or achievements.”

As President Obama became embroiled in the financial crisis and the divisive effort to pass healthcare reform, his top sciencerelated priorities, including climate change legislation, have been neglected.

Due to these stalemates, political gridlock is another reason Americans are skeptical about the future of science. As Otto notes, Americans have grown frustrated “with the policy-making process and how Washington has become paralyzed on major policy issues that focus on and around science and technology research.” Science is imbedded in many political choices, and scientific advances have suffered in the partisan battles of the nation’s capital. Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union for Concerned Scientists, commented to the HPR, “science should not be a partisan question and too often it has come under partisan attack … Politicians are misrepresenting science in public debate.” Politicians use science now as a political football at the expense of crafting good public policy—a reality that ultimately undermines the nation’s competitiveness.

Otto believes this state of affairs may become the new norm.

He is concerned that for the foreseeable future, there will be “a widening gap between our power to control and change the world of science and our ability to make effective public policy around that power using democracy.” If elected officials continue to disagree so widely in science-related areas, the United States will find it difficult to compete with an autocratic government like China’s that can unilaterally set policy.

American scientific leadership is far from weak today, but it will decline given current economic, political, and educational realities. Countries such as China and India are graduating an increasing number of students with technical degrees. A number of problems plague science in America: the decline of STEM performance in K-12 education, a lack of American citizens in Ph.D. programs, and the partisan nature of science in political institutions. To alter our current path and retain our global leadership, structural changes to our scientific communities and political culture must be realized.

SUMMER 2013 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 21

UNITED STATES

THE ANATOMY OF A CRISIS Deadlock and dysfunction in American government Joy Wang

N

arratives of crisis and dysfunction in the American political system increasingly dominate our news cycles. The protracted negotiations over the national budget are simply the latest in a string of governmental failures to garner substantial news coverage. Every year, it seems that the United States spends ever more time on the verge of fiscal collapse. As Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne remarked in a February column, “journeys to the fiscal brink [have become] as commonplace as summertime visits to the beach.” The causes of dysfunction in American government run deeper than the ideological divide between the Democratic and Republican Parties to the institutional arrangements that dictate the structure of American politics.

BLAME THE MESSENGER? At least some of the perceived increase in the frequency and severity of crises has come from the changing nature of the media landscape. Shira Toeplitz, acting politics editor for Roll Call, told the HPR that as online news and the twenty-four hour news cycle have become king, “[t]he demand for content has increased … which has in turn fostered a hypercompetitive marketplace” for journalism. She added, “crises make for news that sells papers and gets advertisers.” Harvard Kennedy School professor Matthew Baum notes that since conflict has always been newsworthy, “the crisis frame is often emphasized in the media,” sensationalizing many current events. Moreover, some such as Rutgers University professor David Greenberg feel that there is an “overconsumption of political news” which only intensifies this perception of crisis.

However, Toeplitz contends that there is more to this phenomenon than simply a glut of media coverage: “the makeup of Congress makes this situation not only probable, but…[something] that happens often.” Jonathan Martin, a senior political reporter at Politico, agrees, noting in an interview with the HPR that “Congress never passes annual appropriations bills any-

22 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2013

more. The Senate hasn’t passed a budget in years, and the House budget is never taken up.” Our political system is not functioning according to the intentions of our framers.

DEADLOCK POLITICS Nevertheless, something is amiss in the state of American politics. Whether because of governmental crisis, partisan gridlock, or systemic dysfunction, the often fractious but usually functional cogs of American government have ground nearly to a standstill. The sequester negotiations mark the fourth major budgetary crisis the United States has faced in the past two years. With impending negotiations in May over the debt ceiling, there is no end in sight. The congressional approval rating, which peaked slightly after the inauguration of the 113th Congress, has recently dropped to 13 percent.

The American political system is no stranger to disagreement. Both the Bush and Clinton administrations operated with split houses of Congress and differing party affiliations between the House majority and the presidency. Nor are failed budget negotiations unique to the Obama presidency; during Clinton’s second term, the failure of budget negotiations led to a 40-day government shutdown. However, in previous administrations, even the most intractable disagreements were typically resolved in months. The current stalemate is entering its third year, with little hope of resolution in sight.

POLARIZATION AND CRISIS Pundits have warned of the increasing polarization of American politics for years. Some have claimed that the 112th Congress was the most polarized since Reconstruction, and a 2012 report from the Pew Research Center found that the American electorate is at its most polarized in a quarter century.

Indeed, Baum argues, “there has been a pretty steady trend in the last couple of decades towards partisan polarization, dispro-

UNITED STATES

portionately coming from the right.” The rise of the Tea Party in the 2010 and 2012 elections has shifted the core of the Republican Party further right, while the Democratic Party has not experienced a similar ideological shift. The protracted economic downturn seems only to have exacerbated the problem. Baum remarked, “when the pie is expanding, politics is less zero-sum than when the pie appears to be shrinking.” Economic volatility is often the impetus for partisan rancor.

REDISTRICTING AND ELECTORAL RISK The widening gap between the left and the right, however, is insufficient to fully explain Washington’s inaction. While genuine polarization of opinion may be on the rise, the effects are amplified by the gerrymandering of Congressional districts.

Many have focused on the historic gains of Tea Party-backed Republicans at the national level in 2010, but Toeplitz explained that “they also made [gains] in the state houses and in the governor’s mansions.” Since state legislatures control the redrawing of Congressional districts in most states, conservatives gained considerable leverage in the latest round of redistricting. But Democrats are guilty of the same strategies. Indeed, according to the spatial analysis firm Azavea, the dubious honor of most-gerrymandered state belongs to Democratic-controlled Maryland.

As politically motivated redistricting practices have put fewer districts “in play” each election cycle, the cost of alienating moderate constituencies has decreased substantially. Instead, electoral gains are made increasingly on the extreme ends of the political spectrum, particularly as moderate Republicans contend with the possibility of primary challenges from Tea Party conservatives. Former Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) fell to a Tea Party challenger in the 2012 election cycle. During the most recent round of budget negotiations, rumors abounded that even such Republican stalwarts as Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) might face primary challenges in 2014, should they prove too willing to compromise with Sen-

ate Democrats. Chambliss has since announced his intention to retire after this term.

The Tea Party’s ascendance, fueled by this nexus of polarization and gerrymandering, has wrought striking changes in American politics. Baum observes that “a world in which the Congress, especially the House, is increasingly gerrymandered and districts are purged of ideological heterogeneity” gave the Tea Party an astonishing degree of influence over the entire Republican Party. Meanwhile, faced with an influx of out-of-state money from ideologically-oriented political action committees, the centrists and moderates on both sides of the aisle, who might once have been counted upon to broker compromises, are now being pushed out in favor of more orthodox candidates.

OUR DISHEARTENED POLITICS Despite the increasingly severe consequences of self-imposed spending cuts, the response to the deadlock has been largely muted. While the debt ceiling debate of 2011 and resulting credit rating downgrade sparked some outrage, the sequester budget cuts that went into effect on March 1 have provoked little response, save for resignation. The dampened reaction can be attributed in part to the fact that the sequester is taking effect gradually. These cuts, consisting of unrenewed defense contracts and partially defunded social services, will draw little public attention until the cuts begin to have a tangible impact.

Beyond a general sense of apathy, ultimately, is a sense that the narrative of crisis that has so dominated public discourse is beginning to become ingrained in our psyche. Toeplitz suggests that the American public is beginning to suffer from “crisis fatigue,” as each new crisis prompts a smaller reaction than its predecessor. Institutional reform, according to Martin and Greenberg, appears increasingly unlikely in this environment, and a resolution to the crisis cycle may unfortunately require a truly cataclysmic political event for Americans to demand political change.

SUMMER 2013 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 23

WORLD

THE LEGACY OF HUGO CHÁVEZ Valentina Perez

24 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2013

WORLD

T

he March 5 announcement of President Hugo Chávez’s death marks a new chapter for Venezuela, as its population reflects on the legacy of the polarizing leader and its own future. As a result of his social programs, his political inclusion of the poor, and his assertions of Latin American independence from “imperialist powers,” Chávez gained the unwavering loyalty of millions of Venezuelans. Yet his bold, unique governing style came at the cost of the rights of his political opponents while fostering crime, corruption, and stifling government inefficiency.

PIVOT TO THE POOR When he assumed the presidency in 1998, Hugo Chávez launched his so-called “Revolución bolivariana,” making sweeping changes to the cultural, social, and political norms of Venezuela. These changes began with his attention to Venezuela’s lower classes. Under Chávez, Venezuela expanded low-income housing, made healthcare and medicine accessible to much of the population, and subsidized food distribution for those in need. These programs, especially in rural areas, made social services and government jobs available to large swaths of the population, resulting in a drop in the poverty rate from 48.6 percent in 2002 to 29.5 percent in 2011. The infant mortality rate also declined while literacy rates and access to free public education increased, according to data aggregated by Index Mundi. As Harvard professor Steve Levitsky explained to the HPR, “Chávez took social policies seriously. Even with cronyism, corruption, and inefficiency, he implemented policies that truly helped the poor.”

Chávez funded these ambitious and far-reaching social programs largely using oil revenues. Venezuela has the world’s largest estimated oil reserves, an apparent blessing that has made oil the nation’s main export. When he took office, Chávez nationalized privately owned oil fields under PDVSA, the stateowned oil and natural gas company. This gave the Venezuelan government direct access to oil profits, which increased dramatically during Chávez’s rule from just under $10 per barrel in 1999 to a peak of $126 per barrel in 2008. Prices now stand at just over $80 per barrel.

Finally, the largest and most long-lasting success of the Chávez regime was his political inclusion of the poor, due

to their new sense of empowerment from his other policies.

Cynthia Arnson, director of The Wilson Center’s Latin American Program, noted that Chávez had a positive legacy of “social inclusion and of empowering people not only in economic terms, but also in terms of political participation at a grassroots level.”

This created a deep sense of loyalty and personal attachment to Chávez for many Venezuelans, seen in his 27-point margin of victory in the 2006 presidential election. These feelings were bolstered by Chávez’s strong assertions of Latin American solidarity against capitalism and Western powers. He created coalitions with fellow Latin American states in pursuit of regional unity, actions that earned Venezuela regional allies in leftist nations such as Cuba, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Nicaragua, and international allies like Iran and Syria.

UNSUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC POLICIES Though Chávez’s social programs benefitted many poor Venezuelans, his policies came at a high economic and social cost that has laid the foundation for present and future economic challenges. Under Chávez, corruption, inefficiency, and mismanagement grew significantly. Chávez oversaw a decrease in oil production from 3.3 million barrels produced per day when he took power in 1998, to 2.4 million barrels per day in 2012. The effects of this decline have yet to be felt because of a corresponding increase in prices, but they may manifest themselves before long. According to MercoPress, oil accounts for over one third of Venezuela’s GDP, half of government revenues, and 90 percent of its exports. Ricardo Hausmann of the Kennedy School and former Venezuelan Minister of Planning criticized Chávez for remaining complacent despite Venezuela’s valuable resources.

“The good hand that Chávez was dealt—the high price of oil— was not used to create a stronger country or a stronger society … he threw it away with a set of policies that will prove unsustainable,” he told the HPR. Chávez’s socialist policies also hurt Venezuela’s productive capabilities by alienating business interests in the country.

Venezuela was listed number 180 out of 185 countries on the World Bank’s list of “Ease of Doing Business” economies, a result of its socialist polices. In addition to these difficulties, Venezuela ended 2012 with an annual inflation rate of 20.1 percent.

In the flourishing currency black market, a dollar is valued at

Though Chávez helped many with his socialist policies, those very policies had lasting consequences that excluded Chávez’s opponents and hurt the country and economy in the long-term.

SUMMER 2013 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 25

WORLD

Thousands gather in Caracas to support the continuation of “La Revolución bolivariana”.

16 bolivars, contrasted with the official rate of 4.3 bolivars to the dollar. Venezuela’s only reliable export in the face of these circumstances is oil.

In addition to these economic challenges, the country’s security has also taken a hit. More civilians were killed in Venezuela from 2003 to 2011 than in Iraq during the same period of time, making Caracas more deadly than Baghdad. “Astronomical levels of crime and violence make Venezuela the most dangerous country in South America in terms of homicide,” according to Arnson.

POLITICIZATION OF CIVIL SOCIETY Ultimately, Chávez’s tendency to polarize the population by demonizing his opponents will define his legacy. The division of society into his supporters and opposition frame many of his policies: Chávez characterized himself as Venezuela’s protector from imperialist, capitalist enemies who had lackeys in the domestic political opposition. As Hausmann states, “One of the worst aspects of Chávez’s legacy is that he created a set of myths based on the idea that the U.S. is trying to take over Venezuela and steal its oil.” Chávez often referred to his political opponents as “fascists,” “little Yankees,” and “good-for-nothings” in his political campaigns, intensifying the schism between his supporters and opponents and prompting similarly vitriolic claims against Chávez from the opposition.

Chávez also dramatically altered the constitutional and democratic traditions in Venezuela. He oversaw the rewriting of the Venezuelan Constitution when he took power in 1999, which allowed for greater protections for indigenous peoples and

26 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2013

women and established rights to education, housing, healthcare, and food while increasing the powers of the president and the military. In 2009, Chávez launched a public referendum to eliminate term limits for all public offices, including the presidency, allowing himself to run for president indefinitely. Arnson confirmed the opposition’s qualms about these reforms, stating that one of Chávez’s primary legacies is “of sharp polarization within Venezuela, and a weakening if not destruction of the institutions of representative democracy.” Chávez’s increased powers allowed him to respond to his opponents with the full force of the government and its resources, and in prominent cases, Chávez and his government used corruption charges and arrests as tools to subdue the opposition.

UNJUSTIFIABLE MEANS TO A SOCIALIST END “La Revolución bolivariana” had lofty and even some admirable social and egalitarian goals that were partially met. Yet those very policies had lasting consequences that excluded Chávez’s opponents and hurt the country and economy in the long term.

The oil-driven economy that funded these programs is unsustainable and will pose serious challenges to future governments.

The Venezuelan state is bloated, inefficient, and full of Chávez’s family and friends. Social services like housing, healthcare, medicine, and public jobs are only available to those who support Chávez and his government, and his opponents are demonized in the media and denied their democratic rights to free speech.

Ultimately, this politicized, polarized version of Venezuelan civil society will scar the country long into its future.

WORLD

FREE TRANSATLANTIC TRADE Seizing the Momentum

Friederike Reuter

A

fter years of expansion and growth, the Eurozone finds itself in crisis. Austerity measures following a sovereign debt crisis have spurred anti-European sentiment and a wave of nationalism, recently illustrated by the outcome of the Italian elections. The European project is at risk of being undermined by economic forces, while the region is in dire need of economic recovery and a success story.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, recently announced by President Obama in February during his State of the Union, provides exactly this long-needed economic rescue after fiscal and monetary measures have failed to end the economic slump in the EU. The United States continues its slow recovery trajectory since the beginning of the financial crisis in 2008, and thus both sides of the Atlantic should be in favor of a comprehensive transatlantic free trade agreement. Such an agreement would not only bolster unemployment and income in both economies but also secure their joint leadership position in global trade negotiations.

A PROMISING RELATIONSHIP Today, the European Union and the United States, whose economies account for half of the world’s GDP, maintain the largest trade relationship in the world, amounting to nearly a third of global trade. According to a study from the Centre for Economic Policy Research, the increase in trade resulting from a free trade agreement could expand this relationship by increasing exports by six percent in the EU and eight percent in the US, adding ¤119 billion and ¤95 billion to the European and American economy each year, respectively.

As Karel de Gucht, the European Commissioner for Trade, highlighted in his speech during the European Conference at Harvard, this income effect equal to about 0.5 percent to one percent of EU GDP would be “the cheapest stimulus package” one can imagine. The German Federal Ministry of Economics told the HPR that it expects that “a comprehensive, ambitious reduction of non-tariff barriers could create up to 110,000 new

SUMMER 2013 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 27

WORLD

jobs in Germany and approximately 400,000 in the EU.” The U.S. economy, for its part, could add up to 100,000 new jobs. Such news would be welcome in the current economic climate.

THE FAILURE OF DOHA The political climate is favorable for such change, as well.

Vital Moreira, chair of the Committee on International Trade in the European Parliament, identifies the absence of progress in multilateral trade negotiations as another motive for choosing to enter negotiations now. He explained to the HPR that the Doha rounds were expected “to bring a new wave of trade liberalization to the table.” Their subsequent breakdown has encouraged the formation of regional trade agreements instead, which is liberalizing global trade without including all 159 WTO member countries simultaneously. The multiplicity of interests within the WTO suggests that negotiations on a global level will hardly deliver any significant results in the near future; the European Union and the United States are better off engaging in a regional trade agreement instead.

In addition, the economic rise of China has likely contributed to the timing of President Obama’s announcement. The fear that global politics is shifting in favor of emerging economies may underpin Western interests in creating the largest free trading zone in the world. If the European Union and the United States overcome difficult negotiations to close a deal, they would “secure their leadership in establishing the rule-making” in international trade, according to Moreira. This will be crucial for the two largest economies in the world to maintain their grip on cornerstone trade issues such as intellectual property rights.

SETTING THE TONE FOR FUTURE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS The transatlantic agenda is not meant to merely benefit the two powerful blocs at the expense of third parties. In Moreira’s words, “there are externalities to non-tariff barriers … they will benefit not only parties who are negotiating but also third parties.”

According to the Centre for Economic Policy Research, an agreement would increase global income by up to ¤100 billion through greater global trade from the removal of nontariff barriers.

Both the European and the US side are aware that eliminating these regulatory non-tariff barriers is the essential component of any agreement. Average transatlantic tariffs are already very low at only about four percent and nontariff barriers currently represent the greatest impediment to free trade between the EU and the U.S. An ambitious agreement therefore has to focus on the convergence of regulatory standards in areas such as car emissions, product safety standards, or regulatory approval procedures of pharmaceuticals.

Successful negotiations that remove such barriers to free trade offer additional advantages beyond the immediate increases in trade. De Gucht emphasized that they could provide

28 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2013

“a policy laboratory for the new trade rules we need.” Former World Bank President Robert Zoellick agreed with de Gucht’s position in a March interview with Der Spiegel, explaining that an “EU-U.S. trade agreement, if completed, could be a great facilitator and set some good standards for the global economy.”

The challenges that stand in the way include very controversial trade issues, such as food safety and intellectual property laws. The Europeans have so far rejected genetically modified foods and refuse to serve American beef that is injected with growth hormones. They have claimed a right to “cultural exceptions” that, among other things, reserves the right to the Champagne region to produce sparkling wine labeled as champagne, or allows the French government to support its domestic film and audio industry through quotas and subsidies. It was hardly surprising that the French government, known for its more protectionist agenda, voiced concerns over a far-reaching EU-U.S. trade agreement and conditioned its support on the respect of European attitudes and values.

SEIZING THE POLITICAL MOMENTUM Nonetheless, Moreira noted that the political configuration in the European Union suggests that such divergences may be overcome through “creative and smart compromises that could keep the cultural differences.” Since the European Union ultimately has the power to set trade policy for all its 27 member states, it seems highly likely the European Commission can negotiate an extensive trade deal through a mandate from the European Council. The Commission can further count on the support of many European leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel or UK Prime Minister David Cameron, who have spoken out in favor of the deal, and on the support of the European Parliament, where five out of the seven political groups support trade.

In fact, the European support of a transatlantic trade deal is not simply a product of the crisis. Dr. Claudia Schmucker from the German Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank based in Berlin, told the HPR that Europe has for over 20 years attempted to “further deepen the partnership” with several initiatives. In the past, there had been reservations from the U.S. side, which only agreed to limited economic cooperation.

Therefore, it is important that the two blocks take the opportunity now to advance a difficult, wide-scoped free trade deal. The two sides are aiming to conclude negotiations in two years, after the projected start in June 2013. There is urgency to act, especially from the crisis-wrought European side, which should provide enough incentive to also address issues that are more difficult to negotiate. Though Moreira points out that a deal should not be rushed because of its complexity, he nonetheless hopes that both sides conclude an agreement before Obama’s last year in office when campaigning comes to the fore.

Hence, both the EU and U.S. should be able to agree on reducing transatlantic tariffs, subsidies and non-tariff barriers to trade by as much as possible by 2016.

WORLD

Peña Nieto and the Unions The Dirty Politics of Mexican Education

Denisse Garcia

A

s Elba Esther Gordillo, the 68-year-old leader of the largest teachers’ union in Mexico, stepped out of her private jet in Mexico City, she was apprehended by federal police and arrested on charges of embezzlement and corruption. It was Feb. 26, one day after President Enrique Peña Nieto signed his extensive education reforms into law, stripping the National Union of Education Workers (SNTE) of many of its powers. A highly controversial figure, Gordillo had been the president of the SNTE for 23 years, recently winning re-election in an uncontested race.

President Peña Nieto has stated that both of these moves were meant to combat the excessive authority and corruption found in the teachers’ union—especially in the practice of hiring and evaluating teachers—in order to better Mexico’s struggling educational system. Yet these reforms have come about in a highly politicized context, with the president and his party trying to reassert power in a traditionally union-dominated sector.

However, if Peña Nieto truly commits himself to reforming the infrastructure of the education system, even if his goal is simply to reestablish the strength of his government, these actions could be a step in the right direction for Mexican education.

THE STATE OF EDUCATION There is little denying that Mexico’s educational system is in need of reform. In the 2009 PISA, a reading, math, and science exam administered to 15-year-olds all over the world by the OECD, Mexico placed 48th out of 65 countries, significantly below average. Although Mexico has made strides in improving enrollment rates and raising the skills of the median worker, repetition rates still remain high, signaling a failure to adequately prepare these students in moving along the academic track.

These lackluster figures are concerning considering that approximately 25 percent of the public budget is spent on education, much higher than any other country in the OECD. As Dr. Duncan Wood, director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center, explained to the HPR, “This is not a question of funding or resources. Funding has increased dramatically over the last 12 years and yet standards have dropped,” due to improper distribution of resources. While the money should be spent on classrooms, technology, and teacher training, almost 97 percent of government spending goes towards teachers and administrators’ salaries, which are controlled by the SNTE.

SUMMER 2013 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 29

WORLD

BROKEN STRUCTURES In Mexico, any teacher who wishes to teach in a public school must be a member of the SNTE, which then assigns the teacher to a school with the purpose of evenly distributing quality teachers throughout the country. But Harvard professor Jorge I. Dominguez, an expert on Latin America politics, clarified that some teachers were hired essentially “through union connections,” which also allowed them to teach in the schools of their choice without any regard for their qualifications. And after six months of service, teachers earn lifetime tenure, which vastly undermines any remaining incentives to produce results.

Yet most of these practices were actually established by the PRI, President Peña Nieto’s party, in order to reward party loyalists.

The SNTE itself was a PRI creation and until recently maintained incredibly close ties with the party, providing political support in exchange for strong control over the teaching sector.

Despite this history, Peña Nieto has stated that he wishes to demonstrate that the PRI of today is vastly different from the PRI that ruled Mexico for an uninterrupted 71 years. But given the SNTE’s increasing independence from the party, Peña Nieto’s “reforms” are actually motivated by a desire to strengthen the power of the state. Dr. Eduardo Andere, an expert on education policy, spoke to the HPR on this subject: “This is a clear sign” that the party wants “control over education policy and does not like the current distribution of power in education,” he said.

First and foremost, the reforms signed into law will strengthen the national evaluation agency, the INEE, and require that education authorities follow the INEE’s recommendations. The reformed agency will create and enforce higher standards that will focus on using professional merit and non-discretional criteria in the hiring and evaluation of teachers—the very areas that have long been under the SNTE’s jurisdiction. Dr. Wood explains, that the unions “need to be addressed fully, and the education reform that was passed is a definite step in the right direction.” Though not a silver bullet, the reforms focus on introducing accountability in the measurement of new teachers.

A COMPLICATED HISTORY Mexico has a mixed history of implementing reform and fighting corruption. Although it has been successful in creating effective social policy in the realm of education—a conditional cash transfer program created in the 1990s called Oportunidades dramatically increased enrollment by paying mothers for their child’s school attendance—tackling corruption and inefficiency has also been the government’s method for silencing opponents.

In 1989, President Carlos Salinas de Gortari ordered the arrest of the leader of the powerful oil workers’ union, Joaquin Hernandez Galicia, on charges of corruption and illegal possession of weapons. Salinas painted the move as a measure to combat corruption in the union, but the arrest seemed more like a political show of force by the president. In 2006, Gordillo had a disagreement with the PRI presidential candidate at the time, Roberto Madrazo, which eventually led to her expulsion from the PRI. Following this incident, Gordillo created her own politi-

30 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2013

cal party to siphon teachers’ votes away from the PRI, a move that angered PRI party members. After negotiations to renew the alliance between the SNTE and PRI broke down in 2012, the teachers’ union fell completely out of their favor, leaving it with few allies.

Peña Nieto’s arrest of Gordillo is meant to imply that the government will no longer turn a blind eye to corruption and ineptitude. “[Gordillo] had really been an obstacle to improvements in education in Mexico,” Dominguez remarked. Though Gordillo held the support of the union, many in the country were wary of her excessive spending and were unhappy with the inadequate teaching and educational system. All three major parties in Mexico supported the reforms that would strengthen the government over the union, a significant symbol of unity for better political cooperation and against the SNTE. Thus, Gordillo’s arrest elicited the ire of few and instead boosted the popularity of the government.

AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE It must be noted that Gordillo herself was appointed by the PRI to head the SNTE in the late 1980s, raising concerns over whether the PRI will again play a hand in picking the next leader of the SNTE. Dominguez finds it possible that “there will be some political negotiation over who heads the teachers’ union.” If the PRI involves itself in the selection of the next leader to promote someone sympathetic to their interests, then it is difficult to determine whether the SNTE will become more transparent or instead return to its original function of serving as an extension of the PRI. As Dr. Andere warned against the possibility of exchanging “one undemocratic leaders for another,” which does nothing to shift the distribution of power. True education reform implies changing the practices of the past in order to provide the system with transparency and credibility.

Though the political motivations surrounding these changes in Mexico’s education system are concerning, questionable motivations do not imply inadequate reforms. The end result of a better education system could be a positive byproduct of the antagonism between Gordillo and the SNTE, and Peña Nieto and the PRI. But the PRI should avoid recreating the past relationship it had with the SNTE in order to implement lasting change. Peña Nieto has repeatedly stated that he wishes to further economic growth in Mexico, and improving the education system is a key factor in making Mexico more competitive.

But resorting to tactics of the past in order to enact change may prove problematic, as it can potentially discredit the claims of a new, democratic PRI. Mexico has a varying history in committing itself to reforms, often abandoning them once they no longer provide political capital. But there is no repudiating that these education reforms are necessary for the inefficient system in place today. If Peña Nieto truly wishes to signal the return of a strong, centralized PRI government, then it could be in his best interest to sincerely enforce these reforms and commit himself to rooting out the deeply entrenched problems of education system’s infrastructure and its relationship with the teachers’ union in order to create a more efficient education sector.

WORLD

THE 2013 ITALIAN ELECTIONS Beyond the Headlines Francesca Annicchiarico

M

edia coverage of the Italian elections on Feb. 24 and 25 occasionally slipped into a complacent reaffirmation of old clichés. As the new parliament convened for the first time in early March, much of the political analysis offered superficial explanations for the outcome, accusing the Italians of being irrational voters and of avoiding reality. Yet the election results should instead be seen as an inherently rational demand on the part of the population for change in the political class and in the party system.

“An imperfect political culture” – The New York Times The nature and structure of Italian civil society has undoubtedly affected the outcome of the parliamentary elections. According to Stefano Sacchi, professor at the University of Milan, citizens react primarily to “economic and personal variables,” often putting private interests above moral and civic considerations. This “imperfection” of Italy’s civic tradition explains why Mario Monti’s centrist coalition attracted only around 10 percent of the electorate despite Italians’ high regard for him. During his technocratic rule, Monti implemented harsh austerity measures like much of the EU, including tax hikes that affected Italians’ lifelong savings. Opposition to Monti formed based on personal financial decisions. Similarly, Silvio Berlusconi’s center-right coalition garnered one third of the vote despite Berlusconi’s multiple convictions. Sacchi argues that Italy “shows greater

toleration of immoral and corruptive behaviors on the part of politicians than other countries,” setting aside moral considerations when faced with real individual concerns. Nevertheless, painting the Italian political culture with such broad strokes masks a more nuanced truth. As professor Lorenzo De Sio at Libera Università di Studi Sociali told the HPR, only a portion of the Italian electorate is characterized by this attitude whereby economic and personal variables trump civic values. The centerleft coalition, he added, has appealed almost exclusively to the more active and participatory portion of civil society; their victory underscores the fact that a significant part of the population supports a more robust civic culture. In fact, Italy performs better than many other countries on some indicators of civic participation: the 75 percent turnout in the last elections is much higher than that in other advanced democracies.

“Send in the clowns” – The Economist International observers have also critiqued the Italians for the support they showed for both the Five Star Movement (M5S) and the center-right coalition, centered on the Popolo della Libertà party. To refer to their leaders, Beppe Grillo and Silvio Berlusconi respectively, as clowns, as The Economist did, overlooks the significance of the votes they obtained. “Grillo and Berlusconi are not clowns but rather [represent] political entrepreneurship,” Gianfranco Pasquino, professor at Johns Hopkins

SUMMER 2013 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 31

WORLD

The election results should instead be seen as an inherently rational demand on the part of the population for change in the political class and in the party system.

University stated in an interview with the HPR. The 25 percent of votes garnered by the Five Star Movement should instead be viewed as protest against the current system rather than the symptom of an illusion that the charismatic Grillo can solve Italy’s problems. As De Sio noted, Grillo accomplished what no party has ever managed to do since 1945: “he cut across the traditional political and democratic alignments,” earning support from both the right and the left. In this sense, Grillo has shaken the foundations of an old tradition of party affiliation that has kept the country stuck in dead ideological considerations.

As for Berlusconi, while he is undeniably an expert at the game of political campaigns, Italians did not “send in the clown.”

First, Berlusconi lost over six million votes compared to 2008, a sign of failure rather than success. Secondly, electoral studies have shown that a significant portion of the 30 percent who voted center-right did so in spite of Berlusconi and not because of him. Oreste Massari, professor at La Sapienza University in Rome, pointed out to the HPR that a portion of the population “is afraid of the left.” The center-left’s lackluster campaign, coupled with these sentiments, ultimately accounted for the electoral showing of the center-right.

Italians did not send in any clowns. They rather used the arguably low-quality political class available to them to express very rational concerns. Referring to the critiques of foreign media, Sacchi responded, “it is easy to point fingers from the outside, but living it is another story.”

THE STRAW THAT BROKE THE CAMEL’S BACK The economic crisis and the resulting austerity measures became the tipping point for discontent with a long-malfunctioning political establishment. According to De Sio, as long as the economy remained strong, Italians disregarded the heavy influence of interest groups on their representatives.

Therefore, the success of the M5S and the relative failure of the Democratic Party reflect a loss of legitimacy of the political class. According to Massari, Italy’s satisfaction rate towards political parties is as low as five percent, because Italians have had enough of the waste and inefficiency in a political class that has more benefits than any other in the Western world, so much as to be sometimes defined as a nomenklatura. The increase in taxation by Monti was particularly frustrating in the face of the government’s misuse of public finances.

32 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2013

The elections also showed that Italians are asking for political parties to reform and become more accountable. Massari aptly noted that in Italy, “political parties change their names, but not their leaders,” in the face of difficulty. Thus, the elections could be considered a positive turning point: “politics and politicians cannot be distant from citizens,” he said. “[Politics] need not be a world on its own; it needs to become more democratic.” The recent selection of anti-mafia magistrate Pietro Grasso to the senate presidency and of spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees Laura Boldrini to the deputy chamber presidency on March 16 is very promising.

However, many first-time legislators who gained a seat in the new parliament do not have sufficient political experience to properly govern. According to Massari, the shift from professional politicians to the M5S outsiders, many of whom have never previously been involved in politics, is “too big a jump.”

In Pasquino’s words, the election results are just the latest episode of a “20 year ongoing political struggle.” Massari defines Italy’s political style as a plutocracy of the political elite. The core of the problem, for Pasquino, is that political parties “have never had incentives to reform themselves.” Perhaps the most recent election cycle has changed the game.

BEYOND THE BALLOT Many observers received the result of the elections with much alarm because of the threat of ungovernability. What makes the Italian case so alarming is the electoral law, which does not guarantee a clear majority in the Senate and distorts the results for the lower house; indeed, it is commonly referred to as porcellum, or rubbish. The problem with the election, therefore, is not just how the Italians voted, but also the institutional conditions that constrained outcomes.

Whether the message sent by the Italian population will bring about a genuine reform of the political establishment is too soon to say. Observers like Sacchi are skeptical about the impact of the vote. The professor said that Italians are keen advocates of a radical change of politics, but they are very unsure as how exactly this change can be implemented. What is clear, however, is that citizens are more strongly demanding a greater say in their affairs, and elected representatives can no longer ignore it. “The cry of alarm,” said Massari, “has finally penetrated the parliamentary walls.”

BOOKS & ARTS

Sandberg’s Social Movement Formula: Leaning In for Leadership

Ginny Fahs

SUMMER 2013 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 33

BOOKS & ARTS

“W

hat do you think?” he asks, nodding at the book across my lap. I look up, startled. We have been sitting side-by-side in row 27, seats A and B for two hours now and this is our first time making eye contact. As the pilot announces our final descent into Boston Logan airport, my seatmate wants to know my opinions about Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In. I begin to respond, but he cuts me off. “I think it’s definitely a problem,” he says, referring to the dearth in women in higher leadership roles in business, politics, technology, and many other fields—the central issue Sheryl Sandberg illuminates and seeks to revolutionize in her book. My seatmate says he works at J.P. Morgan in Chicago and that while the women he knows in higher leadership roles there are fabulous, he believes they had to work twice as hard as their male peers to reach the company’s upper echelons. He describes the higher leadership at J.P. Morgan as a “boys club” that is difficult for any sorts of outsiders, women and homosexuals among them, to penetrate. “It’s not fair,” he remarks.

Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, Sheryl Sandberg’s first book released on March 11, makes America’s propensity for male-dominated leadership its central issue and sets out to define the problem, suggest concrete strategies for improvement, and inspire working women to help change the professional climate. Sandberg suggests that the most effective way that women can instigate cultural change is to “lean in,” find careers they love, work at them with gusto, and have the ambition to ride these careers all the way to the top of leadership structures.

Sandberg claims that her work is part memoir, part self-help book, and part career management manual, but really a “sort of a feminist manifesto” at its core. She hopes it will inspire both men and women to prioritize gender equality in the office and at home. “A truly equal world would be one where women ran half of our countries and companies and men ran half our homes. I believe this would be a better world,” Sandberg proclaims.

As Facebook’s current chief operating officer, a past vice president at Google, past chief of staff for the U.S. Treasury Department, and the mother of two children, Sheryl Sandberg is no stranger to the noticeable gender disparity in the leadership of many fine American companies and institutions. She utilizes tidbits of her personal experiences as her main evidence to support her book’s central claims: women’s success is hindered by societal and personal barriers, women’s empowerment at work must be matched by men’s empowerment at home, and workplace gender equality will improve as more women push to get higher leadership roles and use their new power to reform maledominated professional culture.

Sandberg relies heavily on her own experiences and psychology research to frame the problem of women’s stunted success in the workplace. She asserts that history and society expect women to be the primary caregivers and homemakers, noting that her own parents emphasized marriage over academic achievement, and argues that these expectations hinder women’s ambition when it comes to their own careers. Furthermore, Sandberg cites psychology studies suggesting that men get increasingly likeable when they have success but that the opposite is true for women.

As such, men get awarded for their assertiveness and confidence while women suffer a social penalty for these same attributes.

34 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2013

The bossy little kid who enlisted her younger siblings to work as employees in her invented kiddie clubs, Sandberg herself never struggled to cultivate leadership abilities, but she does admit that she has often tried to cloak her successes to maintain a degree of likeability among her peers. She kept mum upon being ranked one of the top students of her Harvard Business School class, for example, even when her male colleagues shared and were celebrated for their academic achievement. More surprisingly, Sandberg admits that she felt “horrified, embarrassed, and exposed” when Forbes named her fifth most powerful woman in the world. She tried to smother the article until a female colleague asked her to stop wallowing in insecurities and own the new title as most men given a comparable honor would.

Though demonstrative of her points, Sandberg’s anecdotes feel pretty distant from the experiences of her readers—most of them will never be ranked in magazines or valedictorian lineups at top business schools. To convincingly make the argument that women without her level of income and household help should be gritting their teeth and working harder, Sandberg needs more voices, experiences, opinions, and inputs of other, more “typical” women who have had to climb their way to leadership in their careers. Her book, especially early on, lacks these more “normal” perspectives from impressive businesswomen whose success has been a smidge less superhuman.

Examples from Sandberg’s own life become very relevant and powerful, however, when she uses her experience as a jumping off point for providing her readers with practical career advice.

Sandberg explains that her own professional success hinged on her willingness to advocate for herself and take risks like working for brand-new startups Google and Facebook in their young, vulnerable days. She urges her readers to do the same despite the internal resistance many women feel to risk-taking and selfpromotion, and she gives concrete advice for workplace behaviors that will help women stay likeable in spite of their ambition.

Between advice about salary negotiation (combine niceness with insistence), soliciting feedback (do it frequently and get comfortable withstanding criticism), and finding mentors and sponsors (don’t force it, don’t waste their time with your emotions), reading Lean In’s middle chapters feels like tapping into Sandberg’s wealth of workplace secrets and tricks of the trade— an opportunity many women would kill to have.

Her advice is holistic, too: her workplace perspective transitions to relationship coaching as she stresses the importance of marrying someone who will be supportive of a woman’s ambition, both at home and at work, and an equal partner in actualizing that vision. Making women and men equal partners in family life and breadwinning, she argues, will help counter the “worklife balance” debate that incorrectly frames the two realms as diametrically opposed. “Who would ever choose work over life?”

Sandberg asks, a question both male and female professionals should consider. Both genders seek elements of personal and professional meaning in their lives, so men and women should each get the richness and satisfaction of these two sides.

Sandberg’s final argument states that the best way to improve workplace gender equality is to get more women into higher leadership roles so that they can work to reform male-dominated professional culture however they see most fit. Right now, the lack of women in leadership means that those few female leaders face the near-impossible task of representing and advocat-

BOOKS & ARTS

Making women and men equal partners in family life and breadwinning, she argues, will help counter the “worklife balance” debate that incorrectly frames the two realms as diametrically opposed.

ing for all working women, which is unrealistic for the leaders and unhelpful for women at lower-than executive levels who face very different workplace concerns. Sandberg suggests that women must overcome competition and jealousy and commit to supporting each other in their climbs to higher leadership and the decision-making table.

Lean In is not just isolated theory but also a text that Sandberg intends to ignite a social movement, and the invitation comes on the book’s final page that encourages readers to join the Lean In Community online. The corresponding website LeanIn.org seeks to provide online community, education through free leadership lectures and resources, and the opportunity to join Lean In Circles, local small groups of women that meet for monthly discussions with the aim of supporting each other in their endeavors and careers.

Another key feature of the website is “Lean In Stories,” personal essays similar in tone to NPR’s “This I Believe” series, but focused instead on ambitious people who have leaned into their work. Hundreds of women including Melinda Gates, Oprah, the Bush sisters, Reese Witherspoon, Diane von Furstenberg, Kelly an assistant principal, Virginia an event planner, Ana a breakdance pioneer, and even President Drew Faust have submitted personal essays with their own Lean In stories as part of this initiative—all voices that Sandberg could have included to strengthen her book’s argument. The Lean In Foundation website demonstrates just how many women are already behind the movement, committed to leaning in and either working to reach higher leadership or using their positions of power to uplift and encourage the women coming behind them.

If a formula existed for sparking a social movement (one clearly defined problem + one spokesperson for the cause + money + corporate endorsements + grassroots community buy-in = social change), then Sandberg is following the formula perfectly—and it’s working. Weeks before Lean In launched, hundreds of articles were already bombarding international media in anticipation of the book’s arrival. The articles were so numerous, in fact, that the Wall Street Journal published a roundup that linked to 21 major stories anticipating the book in

the New Yorker, Time, the Washington Post, Forbes, and many other prominent publications.

Some of the flurry of articles anticipating Lean In criticized what journalists saw as Sandberg’s hubris and presumptuousness in starting her movement, while others encouraged readers to try and consider the book and it’s arguments separate from the character of the author behind it. Some journalists debated the utility of Sandberg’s claims for the average working Josephine, while others celebrated Sandberg’s helpful anecdotes for salary negotiation and seeking mentors, among other tough workplace interactions. The buzz around Lean In hasn’t stopped since the launch; articles about Sandberg and the book’s release continue to surface in international press nearly every day, though the book launched over a month ago.

The movement is working. I see peers reading Lean In in Quincy dining hall, a wonder considering how little reading Harvard students typically do outside of class. Online articles published every couple of hours continue to hem and haw and debate Lean In, and Sandberg has appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, 60 Minutes, and the Sanders Theater stage all within the past few weeks. The guy beside me on the airplane who spent the flight listening to music in Arabic through his headphones saw Lean In lying across my lap and paused his iPod to chat about the movement.

“Should we really be putting Sandberg’s lifestyle of overachievement on a pedestal?” he asks, explaining that he finds her success both superhuman and financially motivated, and that maybe women shouldn’t be comparing themselves to her standard. I wonder if he would make the same argument of a book by Bill Gates, Ben Bernanke, or Mark Zuckerberg even.

His reaction to Lean In further proves the urgency of Sandberg’s strategy: We need more women in higher leadership so that people starting their careers have many professional role models of their gender rather than just a few, limited narratives of women’s success. And as women continue to work towards leadership, Sandberg’s Lean In is igniting the debate and the sparking conversation, even between strangers. She’s taking the first step towards a successful social movement.

SUMMER 2013 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 35

BOOKS & ARTS

A TALE OF TWO IDENTITIES Fincher’s series mixes political opportunism and civic pessimism David Freed

S

tepping out of the darkness, Frank Underwood, played by Kevin Spacey, introduces himself to the audience. “There are two kinds of pain,” he begins, cradling the head of a whimpering dog injured in a hit-and-run, “pain that makes you strong or useless pain.” Brusquely, he tilts the dog’s head to one side and rotates. “I have no patience for useless things,” he comments as he snaps the dog’s neck.

House of Cards, Netflix’s $100 million project and the brainchild of Beau Willimon and David Fincher, invites viewers in for a ride in the ruthlessly ambitious mind of a South Carolina congressman. Underwood, who specializes in the backroom politics of Capitol Hill, is the epitome of Cards’ central duality. He exemplifies the nuanced view of politics Fincher’s work presents: a heavy dose of contemporary cynicism dulled by a steady stream of age-old idealism. Painted as both the most corrupt and the most powerful man in Washington, Underwood is simultaneously the immoral bureaucrat of today and the commanding congressman of yesteryear.

Underwood is the point man for Fincher’s Washington critique. Although much of the show’s initial publicity was directed towards the ways that Netflix altered the consumer experience—automatically shortening credits and optimizing episode times to fit trends in its consumer viewing database—the show itself also demonstrates a careful attention to public opinion.

Choosing salient political topics as episode fodder (education and environmental policy frame two of the show’s large story arcs), Cards plays directly into contemporary political cynicism.

Fincher’s illustration of Washington satisfies every pessimistic vision held by Washington outsiders, sparing no prey in his caustic portrayal of journalists, lobbyists, executives, and even the military.

THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS Underwood’s blatant exploitation of both family and friend to reach the top dominates the series’ plot, but the objects of Frank’s wrath are often Fincher’s most frequent targets.

The congressman manipulates media coverage through Kate Mara’s Zoe Barnes, a redheaded fireball of ambition whose

36 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2013

curt language and je m’en fiche attitude make her the show’s most compelling character. Barnes’ raw lust for prestige jumps off the screen as Mara perfectly balances the professional and edgy aspects of Zoe’s character. Underwood uses Barnes as a media microphone to leak valuable stories; through her, he pens articles that torpedo a secretary of state nomination and release valuable White House documents.

Barnes is the focal point of the show’s derogatory treatment of the news media. Working at the Washington Herald, Barnes’ breaking news stories are treated with suspicion by her coworkers and managing editor. The White House correspondent, Janine Skorsky (Constance Zimmer), cavalierly asks her whom she seduced to get her scoops—pre-empting a later conversation at indie publication Slugline where Skorsky tacitly asserts that a female journalist who doesn’t exploit her body for stories isn’t doing her job correctly. Barnes, who had been maintaining a sexual relationship with Frank that his wife Claire (Robin Wright) was perfectly aware of, reflects on this conversation and discontinues her dalliance with Underwood, who immediately cuts her off from breaking news. The harsh message about female journalists resonates loudly, but Fincher isn’t done. Zoe’s next hookup? Her former colleague at the Herald, a news reporter she exploits in her new quest to unearth the truth behind a dead congressman.

That dead congressman is Pennsylvanian Peter Russo (Corey Stoll), a youthful representative who lives with little regard for those around him. Coming up from working-class South Philadelphia, Russo’s drive to Capitol Hill should be a redemption story. Instead, Fincher conveys Russo’s identity through his addictions to alcohol and cocaine. Caught driving while intoxicated with an escort, Russo is backed into a corner when Underwood pulls up, absolving him of all legal harm at a steep price: a debt to Frank. The debt to Underwood traumatizes Russo throughout the series. While Frank convinces him to get clean by dragging him into myriad political no-win situations, the former alcoholic is forced to swap political integrity for its personal counterpart.

Not only do Russo’s struggles with alcoholism and substance abuse fit into larger suspicions about the morality of elected of-

BOOKS & ARTS

ficials, the way he prioritizes individual goals over his constituency matches contemporary political cynicism. His tragic ending, with the tantalizing twosome of alcohol and ample cleavage ruining the six months of sobriety he built up while running for office, preys on common conceptions about the immorality of politicians.

In an age when satisfaction with the legislators of Capitol Hill is at an all-time low, Cards taps into a reservoir of resentment in its spare-no-prisoners treatment of politics. Claire Underwood’s management of a nonprofit involves about as much emotion as her husband’s management of the country. She begins by firing half of her staff; later, at the expense of torpedoing her husband’s prized energy bill, she accepts money from a company specializing in oil production to fund projects overseas.

Her noble intentions are tainted with the unmistakable stain of corruption. Much like every other character in the show, her morals are contingent on her goals and ambitions—she unscrupulously sacrifices integrity in her means to achieve the desired ends.

Claire is not Zoe, in whom Fincher exploits the inconsistency between puerile features and her aggressive and cavalier sexual presence in emotionally unsettling ways. However, Claire’s apathy as she makes her husband into a cuckold while simultaneously maintaining a detachment from her new lover is downright eerie. Her intimacy with Frank resembles more of a business partnership than a marriage; their union is predicated on mutual support and romantically falls apart when business interests conflict. Employing a cynical view of Washington that extends to the bedroom, Cards gives no room for love in sex, only a predominating thirst for power. Here, Frank quotes Oscar Wilde, “everything in the world is about sex except sex. Sex is about power.” Desires for power drive sexual relationships and even the sanctity of marriage is a tryst broken in Fincher’s consummate cynical portrayal of Washington.

almost-tangible hunger of Underwood’s ambition. Referenced ceaselessly in his monologues to the audience, Underwood’s preference for power over fame and fortune dominates his personality. In the series’ penultimate episode, locked into war with a billionaire as he is vetted for the vice presidency, Frank makes a haughty comment about his opponent—noting that his wealth is more important as a measure of power than material well-being.

A REASSURING DISCOMFORT In this way, Cards skirts a tenuous line. At the same time that it fulfills the audience’s skepticisms about politics, it aims to satisfy idealistic beliefs about what politicians can truly be. House of Cards specializes in providing us a moribund version of what we, at our core, want to see. Although Fincher satisfies every deep fear we have about politics in a reassuringly horrific sense, the director assuages our concerns with strong central characters conjuring up utopic ideas of past politicians. Immorality and the thirst for power in Washington may be the dominant themes of Cards, but Spacey’s captivating and dominating Underwood is not long behind. In more ways than one, Netflix tailored the show to the psyches of an American conscious deeply suspicious of politics, simultaneously exploiting our fears while providing a light at the end of the tunnel.

AN ARCHAIC CONCEPTION For all of its political criticisms, Cards simultaneously harkens back to a forgotten ideal about the America political realm.

Although the show preys upon the immoral conceptions Americans hold about Congress, it offers a tacit reassurance of the predominant worry about politicians; namely, that is, Fincher’s characters get things done.

Like the legislators of yore, Underwood is brutal but undeniably effective. Viewed through one lens, the congressman cleverly uses the death of an impoverished schoolchild for political gain, forcing the hand of his union boss opponent. Seen through another, the plea is another ruthless Washington power play. Frank’s tactics are of dubious morality but highly effective.

A no-nonsense former militiaman from the South, Underwood presents a brusque tone and aggressive rhetoric that conjure up images of legislative titans like Lyndon Johnson and John C. Calhoun. His syrupy Southern drawl is at odds with his menacing attitude and creates a persona seemingly in tension with itself but also self-serving in his single-minded pursuit.

Frank’s persona reflects the dominant overtone of the series: the quest for power. It manifests itself in Zoe’s endless pursuit of the story and Claire’s emotionless abuse of both her husband and her own employees to further her own ambitions. It manifests itself in Russo’s dogged quest for the governorship and the

SUMMER 2013 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 37

BOOKS & ARTS

WONDERS OF WALSH “Action! Action! Action!

A Raoul Walsh Retrospective” at Harvard Film Archive Matt Walker

A PREPOSTEROUS POWERHOUSE The story goes that one evening, Raoul Walsh was driving along a remote Utah highway when his jeep suddenly collided with a jackrabbit, spraying Walsh’s face with glass and debilitating his right eye such that it had to be surgically removed. When recommended he install a glass replacement, Walsh refused, saying that he’d “have to take it out every time [he] got in a fight.”

Instead, he decided to don a black eye-patch—a fitting addition to his intrepid swashbuckling persona.

Indeed, Walsh has been characterized as a macho action director, tough, daring, and resolute. Known also as a mythomaniac, his autobiography includes the dubious tales that he stole John Barrymore’s corpse from the morgue and left it on a chair in Errol Flynn’s living room, that on meeting Winston Churchill they extemporaneously addressed each other as “Walshie” and “Winnie,” and that he’d never heard of famous tenor Enrico Caruso until Caruso sang a duet with Walsh’s sister at their country home.

However, Walsh never had a sister; his family life in fact quickly evaporated at age 15 when his mother died and his draconian father demanded that he leave home. “I was quite unprepared for the sudden blow that left me motherless,” he later wrote in his autobiography. “The terrible thing was that she was gone and I was only half a person.” Leaving home marked the start of Walsh’s adventurous pre-filmmaking period: he held a diversity of jobs in Havana, Vera Cruz, and Texas, working as a cowhand, horse breaker, gravedigger, and surgeon’s assistant.

The diversity of his early occupations mirrors the diversity of genres in which he worked as a director. In half a century of work, he made 170 films for five different studios. His films span countries and centuries, and the range of genres in which he prolifically worked is unparalleled by his studio era con-

38 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2013

temporaries. Genres include adventure stories, film noir, war films, westerns, historical dramas, crime thrillers, and romantic dramas. In all his work, however, he injected his dismissal of high-class indulgence and languid sentimentality. Indeed, Jack Warner (of Warner Bros.) once said, “Raoul’s idea of a tender love scene is to burn down a whorehouse.” Walsh adamantly believed the three greatest virtues of film were “action, action, and then action.”

Tom Conley, professor of visual and environmental studies at Harvard University, elaborates on reviewers’ reactions to Walsh’s declaration. The reviewers “recalled Aristotle’s Poetics, [which argues] that action and not psychology is needed to move drama forward.” But paradoxically, “human action in [Walsh’s work] is in fact psychology.” Walsh cannot be reduced to Aristotle, and a retrospective entitled “Action! Action! Action!” is somewhat of a misnomer. As Conley told the HPR, it is “highly oversimplified to say all he wants is action.”

BOYISH BRAVADO In spite of the virile intensity and fast-moving action sequences in Walsh’s oeuvre, his characters have a surprising tenderness and childishness. Not only do his films feature more intimate close-ups than other studio-era work, but also the characters themselves have a level of vulnerable infantility that most film critics and reviewers overlook. On closer inspection, the characters’ childishness complicates the plot and accounts for many of the famously memorable moments in his work.

The Thief of Bagdad (1924) follows a beggar, played by Douglas Fairbanks, as he steals his way to becoming a prince.

The film’s prologue reads, “happiness must be earned,” ostensibly introducing a morality film that emphasizes the virtues of hard work. However, the protagonist, “The Thief,” never works

BOOKS & ARTS

consistently or thoughtfully, but acts spontaneously and whimsically. His overarching impetuousness and mischievousness complicates his easy lifestyle when he is caught stealing, and drives the plot forward, for instance, when he chances upon and immediately falls in love with the princess.

Childishness is also central to the plot of White Heat (1949).

It is most obviously manifest in the psychotic gangster Cody Jarett’s excessive attachment to his mother. Canadian student filmmaker Kevin Ballon notes the parallels there between the gangster’s and Walsh’s life, especially the “tragedy of Walsh’s teens” when his mother died. We agreed that when Jarett finds out his own mother has died, his expression of loss is one of the most bold, primal fits of suffering in the studio-film era. Jarett’s childishness also manifests in his perpetuation of life-threatening danger near the film’s conclusion. To illuminate what I mean by “childish perpetuation,” let me indulge in an example: after throwing a violent temper tantrum, my infant brother’s tears would eventually run dry. In an effort to continue crying, however, he would then bump into tables, doors, and other hard objects to hurt himself and allow him to resume his lamentations.

A similar perpetuation stimulates the psychotic gangster Cody Jarett’s iconic line, “made it Ma! Top of the world!” after being surrounded by police at the film’s conclusion. Moments before, Jarett and one of his cronies had found a temporary hiding spot underneath an explosive globe-shaped oil tank.

Disliking the temporary lull in danger, however, Jarett ascends the oil tank, revealing himself to the police. The danger again subsides when his crony surrenders himself to the police; to again revitalize the life-threatening intensity, Jarett shoots his comrade, causing the police to open fire on Jarett who is shot and wounded. Jarett, however, determinedly re-catalyzes his suffering, shooting the oil tank to set himself on fire before his climactic final words.

They Died with Their Boots On (1941) features a macho, adventuresome protagonist, yet one whose actions also indicate an underlying immaturity. The film introduces George Armstrong Custer as a charismatic rebel rejected by the military, and follows him as he is thrust into high military ranks. Personally, I expected a Henry V-like transformation: after rising to power, the young rebel would realize how his own imprudence and impudence. However, he remains as ostentatious and insubordinate as before, thinking only of his own immediate desires. Kevin Ballon here also notes the “many inconsistencies” of the protagonist, including his tendency to “act whimsically,” to “change sides and betray” his comrades. However, at the same time, the film “glorifies [Custer] … and [the spectator] is inclined to love him even in all his arrogant heroicism.”

The protagonist’s adolescence also culminates in a bizarre act of self-sacrifice at the film’s conclusion. Earlier, Custer had valiantly sworn to protect the Native Americans in their land.

However, after being unfairly demoted and learning that a small troupe of inexperienced soldiers is going to attack the Native American’s land, Custer illogically contravenes his promise to the Native Americans, summoning his own group of dedicated soldiers and attacking the Natives himself. His illogical decision to rejoin the military to fight the Natives evidences his childishness in wanting to be part of that which does not want him, in acting thoughtlessly against his oath, and in rejecting his commitments to his soldiers and to the Natives.

IMPOSSIBILITIES OF OBJECTIVISM “My philosophy, in essence is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of life, with productive achievement as the noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute” —Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged (1957).

SUMMER 2013 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 39

BOOKS & ARTS

In an extreme way, Walsh’s three films evidence how Rand’s philosophy is practically impossible given the subjectivity of defining the heroic activity.

Defined during Walsh’s filmmaking years, Ayn Rand’s objectivist philosophy values self-interested productive achievement as the noblest activity. Walsh’s films evidence the social and personal prerequisites of any successful egotistic activity, which is at the foundation of Rand’s philosophy.

In The Thief of Bagdad, the hero only ever seeks his own personal happiness, is kind to nobody, expects holy figures to forgive indignities when he needs their help, and, as he says himself, “takes what he wants.” His selfishness is fruitful: at the film’s conclusion, he has won and married the princess and blissfully flies away on a magic carpet with her into the horizon.

Without effective policing powers to catch his wrongdoings or a community for him to support, The Thief’s egotistic lifestyle flourishes.

Like The Thief, Jarett is an apotheosis of egotism. He considers only his own immediate happiness, which he also obtains from perpetual thievery. However, his fate is sharply antithetical to The Thief’s, as he is driven to insanity and self-destruction.

Perhaps this is due to his dedication to his gang and to the cohesive policing power. Indeed, it is when Jarett discovers that one his gang members is a disguised cop that he begins to psychologically crumble, as though his sanity were somewhat subordinate to the functionality and solidarity of his gang. Further, with an effective law enforcement system, the egotistic thievery lifestyle is incompatible with a blissful life: rather than happily surviving like The Thief, Jarett is doomed to either perpetually run and hide or to live incarcerated.

They Died with their Boots On introduces a conflicting element of humanity to the purely egotistic life. The protagonist is at the mercy of both egotistic urges to pursue his own happiness and humanistic ones to care for others. This duality leads to irrational, unwarranted sacrifice. Custer’s conflicting desires both to please himself and to serve his country lead him to an illogical path wherein he and his comrades sacrifice themselves in a battle against the Natives. Had he been motivated solely by egotistic desires, he would surely not have gone into battle, leading himself to certain death. Similarly, had he acted solely for the care of his comrades, he would also not have gone into battle,

40 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2013

leading them all to death. What is it then, that catalyzes him to brazenly sacrifice himself and his countrymen? Perhaps it is in an attempt to satisfy both selfish and benevolent desires simultaneously; considering that duality, a logical course of action is the one Custer takes. Although he leads his men to death, he glorifies his own name and does save the small troupe of soldiers that would likely have perished had he not intervened.

In an extreme way, Walsh’s three films evidence how Rand’s philosophy is practically impossible, since defining the heroic activity is a supremely subjective act. Indeed, The Thief, Jarett, and Custer all define their actions as a noble way to perpetuate their own wealth and happiness. In spite of any pre-existing moral or social framework that might exist, they inevitably define nobility as that which benefits themselves. Thus, the films evidence how the egotistical individual’s definition of nobility not only may be personally unsuccessful depending on social and personal circumstances, but also may be entirely detrimental to society.

Of the 170 films Walsh made, he was never once nominated for an Academy Award. Perhaps the Academy could not see past Walsh’s macho persona or his work’s superficial bravado.

However, his characters’ underlying immature adolescence and the multiplicity of genres, cultures, and time periods his films explored suggest something more: they acutely reflect the possibilities and challenges of a philosophy defined during his working years. Art that attempts to inculcate its audience with philosophy easily can deter a spectator from engaging with the work. Walsh, however, said he wanted action, and that is indeed what he generously gave and what is most like to immediately attract spectators to his work. But between the explosions and battle scenes, there is a great deal of room for thoughtfulness, too.

This review was inspired by, “Action! Action! Action! A Raoul Walsh Retrospective”, at Harvard Film Archives February 1 – March 10, 2013. Due to popular demand, the Harvard Film Archives will be extending the retrospective later this spring.

INTERVIEWS

INTERVIEW: JON FAVREAU with Matt Shuham he paused and said, ‘We can do well in this country.’ It was just a very simple sentence. There was not a lot to it. But in that very simple sentence was the entire hope of a generation that had gone through so much in the late 1960s.

I am always attracted to simple, powerful sentences like that. You don’t need to dress them up with fancy rhetoric. It’s just speaking from the heart. In the midst of all the rhetoric you hear today, and all the political lines and quotes and sound bites, sometimes you find something that comes right from the heart and right off the top of the head that just nails it. I always think about that: ‘Am I being too flowery and trying to overreach here, or should I just keep it simple?’

Jon Favreau served as a speechwriter for President Barack Obama during his time in the U.S. Senate and during the 2008 presidential campaign. In 2009, he was appointed Assistant to the President and Director of Speechwriting—positions he held until March 2013 before stepping down.

As a speechwriter, what is your main goal in writing a speech?

The main goal is to tell some truth about an issue that’s out there that the President has chosen to talk about. I think at the President’s best, he has been able to cut through the noise and say things that, while not necessarily the most amazing rhetorical lines that are going to be etched in stone, are things that make everyone listening think, ‘Yeah, that’s how I feel and I believe him and think he’s trying to do the right thing.’

If we are able to do that, that is more important for us than anything else.

Barack Obama is president today because he was the most authentic candidate at a time when people had been tired of inauthenticity in politics. So in speechwriting, we have tried to stay true to that authenticity and true to President Obama’s beliefs by cutting through the easy points and actually giving him some real things to say.

Could you give an example of one of your favorite lines that someone other than the President has given?

There are probably a few thousand history and political science college students around the country who wake up every day and wonder, ‘What do I have to do today to follow in Jon Favreau’s footsteps?’ What advice do you give students who want to have an impact in political service or get involved in speechwriting?

The biggest thing is to take risks and not worry about getting the best job right away. Start at the bottom of the ladder—it’s fine, even if it’s frustrating for a while. I was doing press clips at four in the morning for $20,000 a year for a good chunk of the Kerry campaign and life was miserable. But I was happy to be a part of it because I thought to myself, this is the only way I am going to move up, and so I should enjoy what I have.

I would advise that when you are in that position, ask the people around you and the people you are working with to take risks. I knew what my job was and I wasn’t trying to reach for a job that wasn’t mine or overstep my bounds, but I still talked to all the communications directors and press secretaries around me and said, ‘If you need help or if you need an extra hand writing, I’d love to have a shot at it.’

Also, work even if it’s for nothing or even if it’s for practice— especially if it’s writing. In a lot of different jobs and professions, it’s hard to prove your talent. With speechwriting, you have something to deliver. If you can prove yourself well and deliver on paper, most people, if your work is good, will give you the chance. And that’s something I always feel blessed about with speechwriting. A lot of other folks, like my friends who are press secretaries, do amazing work every day and have a tough time finding recognition. But for us writers, if you write something well, someone will notice it.

One line I think about a lot is from Robert F. Kennedy’s famous speech on the night Martin Luther King was shot. He This interview has been edited and condensed. didn’t have anything prepared. Someone gave him something, and he said he didn’t need it. He just jumped up on the car and calmed the crowd and gave a very moving speech. At the very end

SUMMER 2013 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 41

INTERVIEWS

INTERVIEW: JON HUNSTMAN with Harleen Gambhir think the Republicans traditionally have had a stronger, more respected approach to dealing with issues like debt. Secondly, the trust gap distinguishes the Republican Party from the Democratic Party. I think if Republicans draw from their traditions going all the way back to Theodore Roosevelt, they are in a better position to take on the status quo and reform some of the structural deficiencies of the system.

On both fronts, whether it is the fiscal deficit or the trust deficit, I think Republicans are actually in a stronger position if they are able to corral answers to some foundational issues and project them in a way that speaks to a vision with optimism. I think we can survive and indeed thrive as a party.

In regards to your mention of inclusiveness, what do you think should be the Republican message on immigration reform and gay marriage?

Jon Huntsman served as the governor of Utah from 2005 to 2009, as United States Ambassador to China from 2009 to 2011, and was a candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

In thinking about the future of your party over the next few decades, what do you think the ideal Republican Party should look like?

My ideal party is courageous, optimistic, visionary, and inclusive. We can fill in the gaps in terms of the policies that surround those descriptions, but those policies will follow these core ideals.

When compared with the Democratic Party, what are the distinguishing features of that ideal Republican Party?

Mainly, our focus on fiscal issues and our nation’s debt, which need to be addressed. These issues are not right, left, conservative, or liberal—they are about basic math—and I

42 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2013

In terms of immigration, we need to see the issue as more than just relating to security. We have to see immigration as an economic issue. That is because immigration is, more than anything else, a driver of talent and innovation in this country.

We have policies that allow people to come to our schools and then kick them out of our country. We are depriving our country of brainpower and talent. So the Republican Party should increasingly come to view immigration as an economic tool and deal realistically with the 12 million people who are here and who are integrated in our societies. We have to deal with immigration realistically as opposed to rhetorically.

In my view, marriage equality is a conservative principle, because it involves equality under the law, something that Lincoln talked about back in 1860 as our first Republican president. And it is also about encouraging stronger and more stable relationships, which are good for any community.

Denying two people who love each other the right to marry is not a conservative principle. So for those reasons, I think marriage equality is a conservative ideal. Now, I do think the issue should be discussed by the states and that state legislatures will decide what they will. But as an overriding principle, I think equality under the law and encouraging stable relationships are part of this party’s foundation.

In terms of this vision for the Republican Party, who are the leaders and the factions that we should be watching?

I do not think they have necessarily emerged yet. We are coming off of two defeats and, indeed, in five out of the last six elections Republicans lost the popular vote. Factions will likely emerge over the next year or two, but that is healthy

INTERVIEWS

because there will be greater competition of ideas and personalities. But, of course, it is impossible to predict today who and what issues might rise to the top.

Last week, The Week magazine called Chris Christie the new Jon Huntsman. What is your response to that comparison?

If I responded to every remark by a political analyst, I would drive myself crazy. But I think Chris Christie is one of the more remarkable political talents in the country today. He is proving this at the local level by bringing together broad support for his policies. If anyone wants to draw a comparison between us, I would be highly flattered.

How do you think relations between the U.S. and China have changed since you stepped down as ambassador?

They are growing ever more complicated because of the pressure, stress, and strains that are put on the partnership, due to the fact that most major global issues involve these relations. America’s relationship with China is now a global relationship, as opposed to just a bilateral relationship. And that means that it is becoming increasingly more challenging to manage certain expectations that have become exceedingly high. The relationship is also historic in nature, in that the U.S. has never managed a global relationship before and neither has China. So putting the pieces together that will constitute success in this setting is a challenge. We are not there yet, and it will take a certain maturation process, but success must be achieved.

If you were given complete control over U.S. policy towards China, what things would you change immediately and what principles would guide your actions?

I would meet with Xi Jinping before September because we are wasting a whole year because the President does not want sit down with him until the fall. Jinping is newly installed in office, the President is newly reelected, and the clock is ticking. We have what I would call a blue sky in terms of our ability to be flexible in forging a stronger relationship over the next three to four years, but every month counts.

I would also deconstruct the major bilateral organizing body, the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, and replace it with a much smaller and more nimble operating vehicle

driven by the President, where there are regular meetings not on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly or the G20.

These would be focused bilateral meetings where each side would really get to know each other and get to understand each other’s needs and build trust. That is hard to do if you only have a part-time relationship.

Our guiding principles need to focus on building a relationship not just on mutual interests but shared interests. We do not have enough shared values in our relationship and we need to promote more—whether they involve human rights, democracy, free markets, or liberty. You can trade and work on regional problem solving, but these relations are temporary and ephemeral unless you have shared values. I am absolutely convinced that the younger generation in China is moving forward with a desire for the kind of values we enjoy and promote here in our country. Though it may take some time, one of our core principles going forward really needs to be developing a relationship that is driven more by shared values.

What do you think is the biggest misconception Americans hold about China?

A leading misconception is that China is destined and motivated by desire to confront us militarily. The reality is that China is consumed domestically with challenges, dissent, a restive population, and an economy in transition. The Chinese leadership dos not have time to think much about the rest of the world as much as we think they do. I think most Americans would be surprised to stop, learn, and reflect on that reality.

Do you believe that America will always be number one in the world?

Well that depends on how you define number one. I do not see a time in the next 100 years when the United States will fall victim to anything other than first place status as an animator, as a creator, or as an economic power. China is likely to overtake the United States in terms of sheer economic output in the next 10 to 15 years, but not as an innovator and a country that provides high quality of life. But we will have to become a little more accustomed to sharing the global stage with others. I think that will be the most significant mental adjustment that will take some getting used to.

This interview has been edited and condensed.

SUMMER 2013 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 43

ENDPAPER

THE CYNIC KIDS DON’T STAND A CHANCE Jonathan Yip

There has been much sturm und drang about the dismal fate of our generation recently. First, the New York Times columnist David Brooks published excerpts from an essay by a Yale senior, which declared millennials the “Cynic Kids.” We have, apparently, lost faith in American primacy, the capitalist system, and idealism. And the meritocratic system is turning into “Honey Boo Boo.” Then came a piece in Quartz by another Yale senior (there is a trend here) that quoted the lyrics of the band Vampire Weekend: “The Kids Don’t Stand a Chance.” He lamented the fact that Yale grads “haven’t been able to find jobs that pay better than minimum wage.” He concludes, “we’re cynical because we have to be.”

But, we don’t. We—they—are cynical because they want to be. They choose to overlook the hope, optimism, and obligation that should distinguish millennials. Their cynicism masks an underlying solipsism. They exhibit the same self-centeredness that defines the dyspeptic, “voice of our generation” TV show Girls. There, the stakes seem so high precisely because they are so low; the sheltered 20-somethings in the show manage to make the entire world revolve around them.

A similar self-absorbed revisionism emerges from the Yale seniors’ accounts of generational struggle, which gloss over the significant difficulties of every cohort of college graduates.

Buhler touches on 9/11 and the Quartz author talks about the recession of the 1980s. But, how do we measure ourselves against the social struggles of the 1960s or the upheaval of Vietnam? The college protests against the Vietnam War necessitated a presidential commission on campus unrest, and 2.2 million young men were drafted into military service.

Youth unemployment is bad today, but it was nearly as high in the 1980s. As our elders say, the more things change, the more

44 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2013

they stay the same. Can we really claim to be the generation of cynicism and fright?

In fact, far from cynical, we ought to be grateful for the unprecedented opportunity we have been afforded. More than almost any other generation, millennials have been isolated from the burden of war. Time has profiled “the other one percent,” the hundreds of thousands of young men and women in a “permanent military caste” who have borne a decade of war, freeing the rest of us to pursue our daily lives.

Drew Faust has further spoken of the “imperceptible updraft of inexplicable luck.” Of the 120 million 21-year-olds in the world, just thousands of us had the extraordinary luck to wind up at Harvard, Yale, and other colleges. Our success is the confluence of history, meritocracy, and pure chance, being at the right place at the right time. To overlook luck is to grow entitled, to lose “the sense of obligation that derives from understanding that things might have been otherwise.”

Finally, cynicism flies in the face of a world that has never been better. Globally, more people have been lifted out of poverty in the last six years than in the previous 25. Never before has such economic progress been made in so little time. Doctors have cured babies of HIV/AIDS. The Economist has heralded a “rising” and “hopeful” Africa. Self-driving cars may soon be a reality, and Steven Pinker argues that we live in the most peaceful era of human history.

Much of the world is still recovering from recession, but for people across the globe, there is immense hope. It is apparently not a great time to be a Yale senior, but there has never been a better time in history to be a human being. So why are we Cynic Kids again?

Amemor i alt oPr es i dentKennedy , t heI ns t i t ut eofPol i t i cshasasi t smi s s i ont o i ns pi r es t udent si nt oal i f eofpol i t i cs , publ i cs er vi ceandl eader s hi p.

TheI ns t i t ut eofPol i t i csatHar var dUni ver s i t y 79J FKSt r et|Cambr i dge, MA02138|( 617)4951360 F orevenmor ewayst obeapar toft heI OP , checkout :www. i op. har var d. edu