Winter 2011

HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW

VOLUME XXXVIII NO. 4, WINTER 2011 HARVARDPOLITICALREVIEW.COM

CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS Inside: Countermajoritarian Confounder, Islamism, and Obama’s 10 Letters

*this is not a Belgian waffle

The Liege waffle (from the city of Liege, Belgium) is a richer, denser,

sweeter waffle. Invented by the Chef of the prince-bishop of Liege in the 18th century as an adaptation of brioche bread dough, it features chunks of pearl sugar which caramelizes on the outside of the waffle when baked.

300 years later, the Belgian treat is now available in Harvard Square at Zinneken’s

1 Arrow Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 - info@zinnekens.com

HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW

VOLUME XXXVIII NUMBER 4 WINTER 2011

UNITED STATES 17 Trust Busting

ERIC HENDEY AND JAKE SILBERG

19 The State Budget Squeeze DANIEL BACKMAN

22 Public Service of the Future

IMEIME UMANA AND BEATRICE WALTON

24 The “Do-Less” Congress

THOMAS ESTY & JOHN PRINCE

WORLD

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 6 “Constitutional Conservative” Political catchphrase or doctrine? TOM GAUDETT AND SIMON THOMPSON

26 Under the Flag of Islamism

9 Countermajoritarian Confounder The largess of the Court’s legitimacy MEDHA GARGEYA AND ANDREW SEO

28 A Bipolar Gulf

11 Balanced Budget Realism Can America solve its fiscal crisis? GRAM SLATTERY

30 China and Belarus

13 The New Imperial Presidency The powers of the Oval Office expand CORINNE CURCIE AND ARJUN MODY

CLARE DUNCAN ELSA KANIA

NATALIYA NEDZHVETSKAYA

15 Treason in the War on Terror The allegedly transformed state of treason SAM FINEGOLD AND GINA KIM

BOOKS & ARTS

INTERVIEWS

32 America’s Pursuit of Happiness

38 Gary Johnson The former New Mexico governor on

ELI KOZMINSKY

34 The New Booksellers JULIA LEITNER

36 “Dear Mr. President” LENA BAE

American foreign policy NAJI FILALI 39 Diana Henriques Senior financial writer at the New

York Times on females in journalism SIMON THOMPSON

ENDPAPER 40 Taking a Hike

JEREMY PATASHNIK

Volume XXXVIII, No. 4, Winter 2011. The HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW, a nonpartisan journal of politics, is published quarterly through the Institute of Politics at Harvard University, 79 JFK Street, Cambridge, MA, 02138. Annual subscription: $25.00. Email: editor@hpronline.org. ISSN 0090-1030. Copyright 2011 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved. Image Credits: Flickr: 1- Mr. T in DC; 2-cmduke; 3-pareerica; 6-Gage Skidmore; 9-Phil Roeder; 11-images_of_money; 17-John Morgan; 19-kenteegardin; 24 – Flickr, geetarchurchy, Sig Note Cloud; 25-House GOP Leader; 26-Bakar_88; 34-Marcin Wichary; 40-Tim Sackton. Sarah Siskind: 4. Morristown Green: 5. Pragya Kakani: 10, 12, 16, 18, 20. U.S. Federal Government: 13-Eric Draper; 14-U.S. Army; 37-Pete Souza. Wikimedia: 15-H.B. Hall; 38-Ron Hill; 39-Fgdesign2. Harvard Public Affairs and Communication: 22. Random House: 32. Doubleday: 36.

WINTER 2011 | CONSTITUTION | HPR

1

HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW A Nonpartisan Journal of Politics Established 1969—Vol. XXXVIII, No. 4

When I first opened The Art of Fielding, an American novel that happens to be about baseball (and that EDITORIAL BOARD happens to have been written by a EDITOR-IN-CHIEF MAX NOVENDSTERN Harvard alum, Chad Harbach), it was MANAGING EDITOR CHRISTOPHER DANELLO 2A.M. in the middle of a school week, ONLINE EDITOR JEFFREY KALMUS during what Shakespeare might have COVERS EDITOR NEIL PATEL called a “long, dark night of the soul,” if UNITED STATES EDITOR ALEXANDER CHEN Shakespeare had cared about the angst WORLD EDITOR JAMES L. WU BOOKS & ARTS EDITOR PAUL MATHIS of college students. Luckily, Harbach INTERVIEWS EDITOR SIMON THOMPSON does care; I skipped sleep and meals BUSINESS MANAGER ANDREW BOCSKOCSKY to read the book straight through.

CIRCULATION MANAGER THOMAS GAUDETT America’s love of baseball stories has always been inscrutable to me.

DESIGN EDITOR ANDREW SEO GRAPHICS EDITOR PRAGYA KAKANI When John Roberts compares judges to STAFF DIRECTOR JOSHUA LIPSON “umpires,” for example, on the opening WEBMASTER ERIC HENDEY day of his confirmation hearing, and U.S. BLOG EDITOR PAUL SCHIED then proceeds to defend judicial WORLD BLOG EDITOR BEATRICE WALTON BOOKS & ARTS BLOG EDITOR RAÚL QUINTANA restraint on the grounds that “nobody HARVARD BLOG EDITOR CAROLINE COX ever went to a ball game to see the HUMOR EDITOR JEREMY PATASHNIK umpire,” I stare blankly. Can’t we do better? What compels us Americans, I SENIOR WRITERS wonder, to reduce weighty judicio-moral issues to the language of balls and sticks?

KATHY LEE, HENRY SHULL, JONATHAN YIP This garden variety sense of alienation, which comes about STAFF whenever the subject of baseball JAY ALVER, DANIEL BACKMAN, LENA BAE, OREOLUWA BABARINSA, HUMZA SYED is raised, is partly why I loved BOKHARI, PETER BOZZO, ALPKAAN CELIK, Harbach’s novel so much: his book SAMUEL COFFIN, CORINNE CURCIE, TYLER is an act of transposition; he takes CUSICK, JACOB DRUCKER, FARHA FAISAL, NAJI FILALI, SAM FINEGOLD, MIKHAILA FOthe democratic language of baseball GEL, ZEENIA FRAMROZE, MEDHA GARGEYA, and places it into that undemocratic ADITI GHAI, KAIYANG HUANG, CHRISTINE ANN HURD, NUR IBRAHIM, ELSA KANIA, world of “contemporary fiction,” ADAM KERN, GINA KIM, SANDRA KORN, HA which is written by authors trained LE, FRANK MACE, JIMMY MEIXIONG, PEYTON at elite universities (like Harbach) MILLER, ARJUN MODY, CHRIS OPPERMANN, LILY OSTRER, SAMIR PATEL, HEATHER PICKfor readers trained at the very same ERELL, JOHN PRINCE, BEN SHRYOCK, MATT universities (like me). Reading The Art SHUHAM, SARAH SISKIND, GRAM SLATTERY, MARTIN STEINBAUER, ALASTAIR SU, ROSS of Fielding is thus like looking across SVENSON, LUCAS SWISHER, RAJIV TARIGOPAmerica, and into a mirror, at once.

ULA, DANNY WILSON, JENNY YE, BENJAMIN The story centers on a shy and ZHOU, OLIVIA ZHU preternaturally graceful shortstop ADVISORY BOARD named Henry Skrimshamer, who was JONATHAN ALTER recruited to play at Westish College, a RICHARD L. BERKE “slightly decrepit liberal arts school on CARL CANNON E.J. DIONNE, JR. the western shore of Lake Michigan.”

WALTER ISAACSON Henry’s performance is exceptional. He WHITNEY PATTON ties the all-time record for the number MARALEE SCHWARTZ of errorless games, and then – and of course there’s an “and then” – with one 2 HPR | CONSTITUTION | WINTER 2011

wildly errant throw, he hits and nearly kills a teammate, and suddenly finds that his marvelously unselfconscious athletic gifts have abandoned him.

He can’t seem to throw straight again.

Henry’s trauma has something to do with what Harbach calls “the paradox of baseball.” “You loved it,” he writes, “because you considered it an art: an apparently pointless affair, undertaken by people with a special aptitude, which sidestepped attempts to paraphrase its value yet somehow seemed to communicate something true or even crucial about The Human Condition.”

And yet, he continues, if baseball is an art, “to excel at it you had to become a machine.” Baseball’s beauty comes from repetition, from the monotonous shaving off of millimeters and milliseconds, from the unfreedom of our search for perfection—not from creation.

In the heat of Henry’s own “dark night of the soul,” he intimates the problem. “All he’d ever wanted was for nothing to ever change. Or for things to change only in the right ways, improving little by little, day by day, forever…”

The disease afflicting Henry is called growing up. After Westish College, the promise of baseball – the promise that we might become perfect if we try hard enough – is set ablaze by the chaos of life.

Thus my manic night of reading.

The problem of baseball is the problem of Harvard: despite being notoriously difficult, it actually makes success too easy. We’re told where to throw the ball; that avoiding errors is enough; and that everyone will cheer as we run the bases. The hard part about life, as Henry discovers, is that none of this is actually true.

So there you have it, my first baseball analogy ever. Baseball matters for life because the two are so different.

THE FUNNY PAGES The HPR’s Constitutional Convention he United States has not ratified a constitutional amendment since T 1992, and the Funny Pages is pretty sure that we’re due. This issue, we look into our crystal ball to predict what the next amendments to the United States Constitution will be.

ngress to e tasked by Co b r e ev l il w e ommitte III: No superc r any reason, ever again.

V X X t n e m d n er, fo Ame the lation whatsoev serious about at draft any legis ry e v e ar e W make th Justices: upreme Court terpret strictly. We wanted to S : IX X X t n e lease in Amendm amendment; p th h ig -e ty n e tw . is amendment. th ad re absolutely clear to e ag 18 years of ust be at least m u o Y : X X ko X ion of Four Lo Amendment at rt o sp an tr r o from the ure, sale, The manufact , or the exportation thereof for beverage I: X X X t n e m of into Amend thereof e jurisdiction portation there within, the im d all territory subject to th an United States by prohibited. on re e h the Constituti to t purposes is n e m d n e cle of am thirty-first arti e h T : II X X X Amendment tates is hereby repealed.

2: EvS of the United gt now. Section ging g ri k n ru d o o lly chan Gggg! so Section 1: OM ollars!!1! Section 3: we’re tota I: II X X X t n e Amendm .” million d tes of America US of A gets a eryone in the country to the “Badass Sta e nt to the the name of th e of amendme endcl ti ar d ir h -t ty 2: No am The thir XIV: Section 1: s is hereby repealed. Section sed or ratified via X X t n e m d n e po Am tate tes shall be pro f the United S oever Constitution o nstitution of the United Sta urday night. Section 3: Wh Secat o ments to the C after 10pm on a Friday or S them, no questions asked. the r rn o tu e re ag e ss ems like text me orce One, pleas -first amendment. It just se F ir A to s y e k e thirty stole the ringing back th b e ’r e W : 4 n o ti ing to do. ndments responsible th d to label ame se u e b re fo to will here rabic numerals States.

A : 5 3 t n e m d n Ame nited that ution of the U een two adults tw to the Constit e b n io n u a efined as y. age is hereby d couples from Modern Famil ri ar M : 6 3 t n e Amendm one of the semblance to re e ower to m so s ar e b ger have the p introduce n lo o n l al sh t e going to e Presiden : Section 1: Th ress. Section 2: Instead, we’r em in place in the 7 3 t n e m d n e st ng Am stant-replay sy y two n passed by Co veto legislatio iew system similar to the in l be allowed to challenge an w the ie il ev a legislation-r l League. The President w upreme Court will then rev lation al is S National Footb tion during each term. The table evidence that the leg fu la re is ir g le is f er there pieces o rule on wheth legislation and urned. el. rt as it is not cru g n lo should be ove so , d e w l be allo unishment shal p al su u n U : 8 3 Amendment Jeremy Patashnik ’12 WINTER 2011 | CONSTITUTION | HPR

3

THE FUNNY PAGES The Harvard Administration Conducts Its Business Sarah Siskind ’14

As imagined by the Occupy Harvard protestors

In reality 4 HPR | CONSTITUTION | WINTER 2011

COVERS THE CONSTITUTION

A TRANSFORMATIVE REFLECTION NEIL PATEL The late Justice William Brennan stated that “the genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs.” Justice Brennan holds a reputation for being one of the most liberal justices of the Supreme Court, and it is clear that he viewed the Constitution as a source of political advocacy and reform.

Beyond structuring government, the Constitution plays a crucial role in establishing the values of American society and protecting the rights of individuals. When misalignments between the expectations created by the Constitution and societal realities become apparent, reform is necessary to realize the ideals set out by the Constitution.

A major purpose of the Constitution is to outline fundamental value choices within American society.

The Constitution makes these values transcendent and beyond the power of any part of government. Examples of these fundamental values include the separation of powers, the freedom of speech, the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments, and the right to due process. The challenge in interpreting the Constitution lies in the ambiguity underlying the effort to apply these values to current situations such as the growth of executive power (p. 13) or the prosecution of suspected terrorists. Successive generations of Americans have accepted or modified the Founders’ interpretations of

these values with respect to their own historical circumstances. The Constitution was not created to preserve an already existing system of governance but to make a new one which acknowledges values that the prior system failed to recognize.

The Framers of the Constitution were responding aimed to correct the problems of the Articles of Confederation and the Reconstruction Amendments marked the end of slavery. The values established by the Constitution provide a reference point to evaluate present day constitutional issues such as the power of the Supreme Court (p. 9), the election of the President, and the budget deficit (p. 11).

The Constitution is primarily a structuring document, laying out the system of governance, the powers of government bodies, and the values that transcend the authority of these bodies. By defining the limits of government, the Constitution aims to protect individuals. The Bill of Rights and the Reconstruction Amendments enshrine the emphasis the Constitution places on liberty and justice for all individuals. The changes and amendments made government institutions and the Constitution reflect the evolution of social conditions and broader acknowledgement of individual rights through history. As long as citizens believe that the fundamental values of the Constitution can be redeemed from incorrect interpretations and adapted to the challenges that society faces, the Constitution remains legitimate.

In this respect, regardless of how politicians view the Constitution (p. 6), the Constitution acts beyond temporal political majorities. This emphasis on the individual rights has contributed to the longevity of the American Constitution as one of the oldest politically extant constitutions.

Constitutions are a ubiquitous feature of governments around the world. Beyond organizing government, governments around the world have chosen to create Constitutions to outline the values held commonly by all individuals.

Participation from all major stakeholders ensured this inclusivity in South Africa, and the lack of inclusivity is the cause of the fatal flaws within Hungary’s recently proposed new constitution.

The longevity and strength of a constitution is determined by the applicability of these values to all individuals in society. A constitution provides a normative framework in which individuals can judge the present status of society against the ideals which a society is meant to live up to. Through this reflection, individuals can advocate for reform to move one step closer to a realization of the ideals put forth by a constitution.

Neil Patel ’13 is the Covers Editor.

WINTER 2011 | CONSTITUTION | HPR

5

“CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVE” Political catch-phrase or principled doctrine?

TOM GAUDETT AND SIMON THOMPSON Penned by our Founding Fathers 224 years ago, the Constitution has long been construed differently by political forces to justify their own political agendas. Conservatives in particular have been active in using this document to advocate for fundamental changes in government policy. Their efforts have culminated with congressional proceedings questioning legislation’s constitutionality, an effort led by Republicans like Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), who told the HPR that “The resurgence of constitutional conservatism has to do with the growth of the federal government.”

The roots of “constitutional conservatism,” the term applied to the GOP’s recent rhetoric, trace back to Barry Goldwater’s emphasis on individuals rather than government as the driver for prosperity. Though Reagan’s smashing electoral success brought this fashion into the norm, today’s conservatives have strayed from Goldwater’s and others’ original intent.

CONSERVATIVE DISCONTENT As Peter Berkowitz of Stanford’s Hoover Institution wrote in January 2009, renewed focus on the constitutional question originated with the Republican Party’s immense losses in 2008. The devastating setbacks inflicted on Republicans rallied an ideologically narrow base and fostered new rhetoric. Further, the libertarian sect of the Republican Party had grown discontented with President Bush, whose administration had substantially increased the government’s purview over fiscal matters and civil liberties.

Once President Obama began to

implement his agenda, conservatives began to rally against a president they viewed as guilty of fundamentally unconstitutional actions. Trevor Burrus, a legal associate at the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies, told the HPR that the bailouts were “the main culprit.”

Conservatives, unable to defeat the President’s agenda in Congress, attacked legislation on constitutional grounds.

This appeal has manifested in many forms. Presidential candidate and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has hallmarked her campaign as one motivated by constitutional conservatism, which includes repealing “Obamacare.”

The current House, led by Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), mandated that every piece of legislation passed by the lower chamber identify the relevant portion of the Constitution that provides legal legitimacy. Even more, Joe Miller, the 2010 Tea Party-backed Senate candidate in Alaska told the HPR, “In 2010, a number of Tea Party candidates, including myself, self-identified as constitutional conservatives in order to differentiate ourselves from ‘compassionate conservatives’ who nearly bankrupted the country while leading us into wars and nation building.”

Though Miller narrowly lost his election, over the past two years, constitutional rhetoric has become winning vocabulary and spurred a movement that, according to TeaParty.org founder Dale Robertson, has “decided to follow in the footsteps of Gandhi and Martin Luther King” in peacefully accomplishing goals and gaining

6 HPR | CONSTITUTION | WINTER 2011

“the attention of our leaders.” Some, however, are more dismissive. Ian Millhiser, political analyst for the Center for American Progress, tells the HPR, “This notion that the primary purpose of our Constitution is to handicap our national leaders’

ability to solve national problems has been around, and it rears its ugly head every now and then.”

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGIDITY? Prominent conservative minds like the late political philosopher Frank Meyer and National Review founder William Buckley promoted a certain constitutional conservatism that, as Berkowitz suggested, is

accurately grounded “in America’s founding ideas, and the intellectual coherence of the alliance...between partisans of freedom and partisans of tradition.”

Berkowitz adds, “It’s a characteristic…of conservatives to respect the wisdom of the past contained in tradition.”

Nonetheless, as Georgetown professor Jeffrey Rosen suggests, “Citizens disagree plausibly and legitimately as to the meaning of the Constitutional text.” For instance, though many conservatives view universal health care legislation as unconstitutional, there are few who would argue for complete repeal of New Deal programs such as Social Security. Offering a different perspective, Howard Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Caucus and Constitution Party founder, suggests that conservatives

“are cautious about the political impact of being comprehensively critical of Social Security.”

Harvard Law professor Richard Fallon notes that, in interpreting our Constitution, those on the “left, right, and center all think that if people knew more about the Constitution then we would have a better polity than we have now.” But, Fallon adds, the “vast majority of what Congress does is constitutional...and these numbers do not vary much from administration to administration.”

The political tension over interpreting the Constitution has seen the right challenging what it perceives to be

overly expansive legislation and liberals deferring to the vagueness of constitutional wordage. This debate, which Burrus views as revolving around “the very important principle...that the Congress cannot have unlimited power,” is challenged by those who naturally resist against substantial changes. Fallon notes, “The fact that, when Congress does something dramatic of a kind it has not done before, people ask the question of whether or not it is constitutional is not a surprise.”

GONE ASTRAY? The Tea Party movement, citing the Constitution as the basis for smaller government, has also received considerable criticism. Rosen, when asked about the Republican presidential candidates, argues that hypocrisy exists in that “those same candidates that hope that the courts will strike down health care reform and much of the welfare state…then bash those same courts for judicial activism.” Rosen also critiques the conservative employment of constitutional arguments, saying, “There is too quick a tendency on the right to run to court to reverse their political defeats by invoking the constitution.”

Neither has the constitutional issue reconciled the conservative and libertarian GOP wings. Berkowitz says, “I don’t think there has been a philosophical meeting of minds of the two conservative camps.” Indeed, one might well wonder whether the constitutional conservatism espoused by today’s Republicans has strayed from the roots originally examined by Meyer and Buckley, and put into practice by Goldwater and Reagan.

As the pseudonymous W.W. wrote in The Economist in June 2011, liberals, when speaking about the constitutional movement, often hint “at a far more radical agenda than meets the untrained eye.” Yet, some like Joe Miller advocate for this radical approach, saying, “Time is not any patriot’s ally in this fight. Moderation in advocacy and delay in reform will almost certainly fail in its attempt to save the Republic.”

WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS

By Robertson’s estimation, “The job of the Tea Party is far from over because we have a lot of work to do before we are able to bring back a constitutional form of government.” Senator Lee adds, “What happens in 2012 in the direction of constitutional conservatism is going to make what happened in 2010 look like a Sunday picnic.” However unsettled the debate over the significance and intent of constitutional conservatism may be, conservatives have found a winning electoral message, even while legal scholars anguish at its usage.

Tom Gaudett ’14 is the Circulation Manager. Simon Thompson ’14 is the Interviews Editor.

WINTER 2011 | CONSTITUTION | HPR

7

The Harvard Political Review. On screens near you.

HarvardPoliticalReview.com

8 HPR | CONSTITUTION | WINTER 2011

COUNTERMAJORITARIAN CONFOUNDER The largess of the Supreme Court’s legitimacy

MEDHA GARGEYA AND ANDREW SEO In 2009, 33 legal scholars pushed for a Judiciary Act implementing regular appointments to the Supreme Court, term limits for Justices, ousting aging Justices, and reforming the Court’s process of granting review.

An observer might have expected the reformers to gain traction; after all, most of America’s government remains spectacularly unpopular. Yet such expectations proved mistaken. The bill never materialized into law, and despite some scholarly dissent, the Supreme Court enjoys high public approval ratings. At a time when Americans increasingly distrust the president and Congress they elect, the appointed judicial branch has rarely proved more popular.

The paradox calls to mind the countermajoritarian problem first discussed by the late Alexander Bickel. In a purported democracy, why do people think so favorably of an institution consisting of nine appointed individuals in a temple of justice? Further, why have attempts to democratize the judiciary failed? The answer appears to lie in the institution itself. Despite the Supreme Court’s isolation from the public, judicial reform is unlikely as long as the Supreme Court is considered legitimate and enjoys an extensive reserve of good will with the public.

THE LEGITIMACY OF LEGITIMACY Many scholars assert that the Supreme Court enjoys high public approval ratings because it appears legitimate in our democracy. In an interview with the HPR, Harvard Law School professor Richard Fallon described three different types of legitimacy: sociological, moral, and legal. Fallon states that while most scholars think only of sociological legitimacy, moral and legal legitimacy are equally important for the Supreme Court. Sociological legitimacy, Fallon asserts, entails “legitimacy as a source of authority that causes people to obey institutions even when they don’t agree with the outcome.” In a legal context, this translates to other branches complying with a decision of the courts without protest. Moral legitimacy involves the Supreme Court maintaining its power by not offending the moral sentiment of the people. Last, Fallon describes legal legitimacy as the Court staying within the plausible bounds of its authorities. In its combination of all three, the judicial branch strengthens its popularity and power.

Over time, the Court has further enhanced its legitimacy by mediating its own influence. In an interview with the HPR, Professor Ryan Owens of the University

WINTER 2011 | CONSTITUTION | HPR

9

of Wisconsin said, “The court has made a concerted effort over time to get involved in cases only as a last resort.” The Supreme Court bears the power to grant a writ of certiorari in cases it deems significant enough to hear, but selects only those that it thinks require more exacting judicial scrutiny. Professor Owens noted that the Court is more likely to accept cases where the lower courts are in conflict and rarely accepts a

Bob Barnes of the Washington Post told the HPR that there is very little that the Court can do to lower its goodwill in public opinion.

Indeed, there is very little it can do to change citizen’s perceptions at all. Barnes cites polls showing a plurality of Americans believe the Court to be “too liberal,” despite its frequent conservative rulings.

Barnes continued, “If people knew more about the Court, they may

decision simply because it disagrees with the verdict. By its judiciousness in its selection of cases, the Court declines to influence matters that lie beyond its power.

like it less.” Yet such may prove a difficult task. In a recent poll done

by Newsweek magazine, less than 1 percent of the nation can name all nine Justices of the Supreme Court.

public acceptance. In an interview with the HPR, Duke Law Professor Paul Carrington clarified the argument, reasoning that the Court’s “popularity rating doesn’t tell you anything about what it is doing.”

Individuals’ perceptions of their judges rely less on specific ruling and more on holistic evaluations. A recent slide in approval numbers, 15 percent in the past two years, stems from general dissatisfaction and distrust of government, not anger from specific cases like Citizens’ United, Carrington asserts.

“It is a countermajoritarian institution that nevertheless enjoys reserve or diffuse support from the public, although that support, it appears, will ebb and flow to a degree as does support for other, more visible institutions,” said Russell Wheeler of the Brookings Institution. It resulted from “a drop in the approval of government institutions generally,” he added.

The justices themselves pay little attention to the numbers, as their responsibilities are linked neither to popular opinion nor approval from any other citizens. Professor Carrington summarized the justices’ sentiments by saying, “It is a very arrogant institution. They don’t care what other people think ... they are self-indulgent.”

THE DEMOCRATIC DEFICIENCY Professor Owens further describes a “fundamental psychosis in the American public.” Owens notes that members of Congress suffer from extremely low levels of support, while the Supreme Court and military enjoy high rankings.

These high approvals may seem paradoxical considering the lack of an electoral connection. Somehow, Owens notes, the public construes “the Court as not being subject to the same pressures and is willing to give the Court the benefit of the doubt,” says Owens.

NEGLECTING THE NUMBERS? The acceptance of the Supreme Court’s legitimacy further reflects in public polling data. An October 2011 Gallup poll indicates that 46 percent of Americans approve of the job that the Court is doing. In the same poll, Congress’s rating stands at a meager 13 percent. The Court consistently outperforms its sister institutions, suggesting that the benefits of elections upon popularity can be overstated.

Public polls on the Court serve less as a reflection of job performance based on individual cases and more of a summation of

SUPREME CRISIS? Looking ahead, the prospect for reform is slim. At a time when widespread Occupy tumult has called for fundamental changes within the political sphere to no avail, similar calls for reform within the Courts have fallen on deaf ears.

When asked what the chance is that lifetime tenure would be abolished or any other reform implemented, Professor Carrington replied by saying that one “need[s] a moment of crisis of some sort to get something done.” As the only court explicitly created by the Constitution, the Supreme Court has held

10 HPR | CONSTITUTION | WINTER 2011

an unchallenged position in the realm of American government and decision-making. Such Constitutional mandate gives credence to the Justices’ indifference towards the polls, and unless their legitimacy suddenly diminishes, they will carry out their responsibilities

indefinitely.

Medha Gargeya ’14 is a Staff Writer. Andrew Seo ’14 is the Design Editor.

BALANCED BUDGET REALISM

Can America solve its current fiscal crisis?

GRAM SLATTERY The rapid mushrooming of America’s national debt, combined with resurging limited government sentiment, has revived interest in a once dormant legislative prospect: a federal balanced budget amendment. To be sure, a constitutional control on government finances is nothing new. In 1936, a per-capita limitation on public debt, spearheaded by Minnesota Representative Harold Knutsman, reached the House floor. Since then, several other constitutional amendments have been proposed, voted upon, and failed. Yet today’s sentiments stand near historic highs. This past year alone, congressmen from both parties proposed eighteen balanced budget amendments, ranging from the mushy and unenforceable to the politically and economically unfeasible.

THE BALANCED APPEAL In its purest form, the balanced budget amendment draws skepticism from many economists. From a Keynesian perspective, the balanced budget amendment’s merits—restricting spending—are actually flaws. In July, five Nobel laureates wrote to Congress that restricting federal expenditures to certain deficit levels would “mandate perverse actions in the face of recessions.”

Paul Krugman, opposing the amendment, affirmed, “The worst thing we can do for future generations is not to run sufficiently large deficits right now.”

This doubt however, is not strictly a left-wing phenomenon. David Boaz, executive vice president for the Cato Institute and an eminent opponent of government actions, told the HPR, “Statesmen should have the ability to ‘address…economic emergencies.’”

Even free-market libertarians like Boaz, to some extent, accept that handcuffing the government and mandating austerity during recession may not be a wholly pragmatic solution to America’s fiscal problems.

Instead, any balanced budget amendment must entail

flexibility and an institutional means for coping with extraordinary circumstances. A sufficient proposal would include an effective mechanism for curbing debts, while allowing the government to respond appropriately to prevailing economic conditions. This budgetary amendment would require skillful crafting, technocratic composition, and extensive political wrangling. While certainly a tall order, such legislation is not without precedent, at least in the international context.

THE GERMAN OPTION In 2009, Germany implemented an amendment to its constitution to counter what had been a creeping deficit problem. Its restrictions, forbidding deficits over 0.35 percent of GDP except in an economic emergency, prove an exemplar of effective budget regulation.

Flexible, enforceable, and countercyclical in nature, this measure has helped Germany maintain growth while the Eurozone flounders. Economist Thurstayan Baskaran lauds the policy, pointing out that the fiscal constitution “does take the economic situation into the account, but requires that it be balanced according to the business cycle.” Likewise, Lars Feld, a member of the German Council of Economic Experts, the official advisory body to the Bundestag, told the HPR that while the new fiscal

WINTER 2011 | CONSTITUTION | HPR

11

constitution is “relatively flexible” in nature, it effectively “puts Germany into a position where it cannot easily incur debt.” Among its provisions is an allowance for German politicians to temporarily suspend the regulations during economic crises, while still holding the government accountable for debt accrued during a downturn.

What makes the German solution interesting is that it was born not out of anti-government conservatism or libertarian principles, but rather the pragmatic fusion of academic knowledge and policymaking. It requires economic calculations by apolitical bodies and includes specific figures, including a maximum deficit of 0.35 percent of GDP in neutral market conditions.

These components prove essential to the greater budgetary scheme.

The legislation came about after decades of continuous growth in German public debt, but does not attack the welfare state. It rather attempts to curb what had been, in the words of Baskaran, “politicians’

propensity to spend too much, while taxing too little.”

DOMESTIC CONCERNS Unfortunately, balanced budget proposals in Congress fail to include any of the adeptness of the German model. While many popular proposals have elements of flexibility, like supermajority votes to temporarily override new fiscal constraints, they largely lack certain necessary built-in mechanisms, such as automatic business cycle adjustments. Further, these proposals are often riddled with hyper-partisan elements, such as Congressman Bob Goodlatte’s (R-VA) proposed amendment of implementing a governmental spending cap at 18 percent of GDP. Such constraints would severely handicap the government’s ability to stimulate the economy during crisis. Meanwhile, many liberals likewise refuse to consider any entitlement program reforms, even though economists largely agree that growth in Medicare costs

12 HPR | CONSTITUTION | WINTER 2011

will cripple America’s long-term fiscal health. The only mainstream proposal that includes some form of countercyclical policy is that of Tea Party-aligned Congressman Justin Amash (R-MI). However, Congressional support for Amash’s bill is dwarfed in comparison with other, more ideological bills, including Goodlatte’s. It is precisely this political nature of American balanced budget proposals that fails to muster serious academic support.

Conversely, Germany’s economic and technically crafted aspects of its new fiscal constitution effectively balance the dangers of austerity with the pitfalls of unrestrained growth in debt.

To be sure, praising the German model is not tantamount to a prescription for the United States to copy the country’s fiscal controls.

After all, the political and economic conditions between the two nations are indisputably different. However, when congressional leaders begin to search for pragmatic solutions to the problem of public profligacy,

a success story abroad would be an appropriate place to start. Baskaran insisted that, because of the German controls’ flexibility relative to the business cycle, these rules were at least partially exportable.

Feld likewise points out that the “constitution is not a blueprint, but is in line with what Switzerland already has,” and illustrates that such constitutional regulations are applicable in varying national contexts. Still, an examination of the specific, technocratic elements of potential balanced budget amendments may ignore the actual ideological fault lines upon which the two parties fight in Congress.

Conservatives have offered a variety of proposals like Goodlatte’s 18 percent budget cap to attack the growth of government, while attempting to masquerade as a pragmatic strategy to fight a legitimate problem. Liberals, on the other hand, by-and-large reject constitutional

law as a means to quell public debt, a notion epitomized through the words of President Obama when he claimed that while “we need to get to the point where we can balance the budget…[w]e don’t need a constitutional amendment.” Perhaps Obama and the Democrats place too much trust in their own capacity to put the nation’s fiscal house in order without any coercive, structural rules; perhaps the Tea Partiers and Republican establishmentarians trust too little. However, when Congress begins discussing the possibility of a wellbalanced budget amendment, they must realize that when pragmatism rules, implementation of such a rule is neither unprecedented nor impossible. Just ask Angela Merkel.

Gram Slattery ’15 is a Staff Writer.

THE NEW IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY

The powers of the Oval Office continues to grow CORINNE CURCIE AND ARJUN MODY While the Constitution meticulously lays out the workings and duties of the legislative branch, the founding fathers’ commentary on the executive branch proved significantly more limited. The powers explicitly granted to the President are wholly contained within Article II, Section II. Among the few responsibilities listed are judicial appointments and control over the military.

Today, the Executive Branch plays an increasingly important role in both foreign and domestic affairs.

Not only does the President set his party’s domestic legislative agenda, he can even commit troops to conflict abroad without Congressional consent. The growth of Presidential authority in the ill-defined War on Terror, demonstrated by President Obama’s controversial target killing of American Anwar al-Awlaki, indicates a need for Congress and the Supreme Court to check the executive branch’s growing authority.

THE INCREDIBLE GROWING PRESIDENCY Historically, sitting presidents have expanded executive authority in crisis. Lincoln famously suspended

habeus corpus during the Civil War, and Franklin Roosevelt magnified Presidential clout exponentially during the Great Depression. More recently, President Bush inherited a Congress that had proven deferent to presidents from Nixon onward, a legacy he fully exploited.

Princeton Professor Julian Zelizer told the HPR that, “Since [the] 1980s, we’ve seen a real acceleration in the expansion of executive authority as a means to circumvent the legislative branch, particularly with regards to national security.” Zelizer believes that conservatives, though initially skeptical of government and its reach, have found in executive power a convenient tool to achieve their goals.

A WARTIME PRESIDENT The War on Terror provides a unique lens through which to evaluate recent expansions of executive power. The September 11 attacks enabled the Bush

WINTER 2011 | CONSTITUTION | HPR

13

administration to apply wider and more powerful techniques to enhance domestic safety. The immediate terrorist threat allowed laws to pass swiftly with little debate, the U.S.A. Patriot Act being a prime example.

Arguing that national security would depend primarily upon intelligence gathering, supporters increased the government’s surveillance capabilities.

Other examples underscore this notion of war growing the President’s office. The National Security Agency claims the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists allows the government to conduct wiretaps and electronic surveillance without warrants. Author and lawyer Bruce Fein told the HPR that this means American citizens “no longer need to have a criminal record to justify the use of spying on them by the American government.” Former Department of Justice official John Yoo provides a different perspective, asserting that “preventing terrorist attacks depends on spotting, in advance, patterns and connections in communications, travel and transfers of funds, rather than for waiting for the attacks to occur.” For his part, Yoo led many efforts to enhance government authority during the Bush administration, emphasizing the need for efficient and obstacle-free security measures. To be sure, much of this debate ultimately hinges upon the philosophical divide weighing the relative importance of privacy and security. Yet it has been the president— not Congress—who sets that final balance.

THE OBAMA RERUN? While President Obama often chastised his predecessor for unlawful abuse of powers, his administration has ironically kept course. Indeed, renewing the Patriot Act, continuing wars in the Middle East, and expanding security and intelligence agencies’ powers all tie Obama to Bush’s legacy. President Obama has also significantly scaled up drone usage in targeted assassinations abroad, a move hotly debated by legal

14 HPR | CONSTITUTION | WINTER 2011

scholars. Though American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki famously declared jihad against the United States, many objected to his target killing, which the administration executed without trial or even an indictment.

This apparent breach of the al-Awlaki’s inalienable rights leads Fein to claim, “All of our rights, now, depend upon the good will and benevolence of the President.”

Again, Yoo views the situation differently. As he puts it, “American citizens who join the enemy do not enjoy a roving legal force-field that immunizes them from military reprisal.” He continues, “If the U.S. were to reserve criminal justice rules for American terrorists, it would only encourage al-Qaeda to recruit citizens and ease their path into this country.” In his apparent agreement with Yoo, President Obama’s policies seem less driven by ideology than by pragmatism.

ONE BRANCH VERSUS TWO Observers do question whether the growth of executive authority will continue indefinitely. The imperial presidency’s greatest threat remains that another governmental branch will curtail these powers.

Previously, Congress has acted swiftly when it feels that the Executive Branch has over-stepped its reach. During the Nixon Presidency, Congress passed the War Powers Act and the Budget Reform Act to strengthen its own role in the policymaking process. However, in today’s polarized climate, any serious legislative attempt to check presidential powers seems far-fetched. Harvard government Professor Carols Rosillo told the HPR that “It takes a very determined Congress to override a Presidential veto, and partisan politics often come in the way… [O]ften, if Congress agrees with the substance of a policy, they will be less concerned with the constitutional questions involved.”

Yoo counters that Congress does have options, including: “reducing funding for the military, eliminating units, or freezing supplies.” Yet these options are often politically disastrous and likely unfeasible. Robert Higgs, a libertarian economic historian, agreed that Congress is simply, “too interested in the upcoming election and too in-favor of their own power to attempt actions that might make people feel more unsafe, even though they protect their liberties.” Indeed, the President can even simply disregard legislation when suitable, as evidenced

by Obama commencing military action against Libya without Congressional consent, essentially bypassing the War Powers Act. The Supreme Court may appear the branch best able to effectively check executive authority. The Court has already played an important role in the War on Terror, with its decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld reaffirming the right of habeus corpus over presidential objections.

Nevertheless, many of these decisions amount to little

more than a slap on the wrist, and the general trend of executive growth continues. The Court must create a new legal framework, specific to the war on terror, which clearly defines terms such as “enemy combatant.”

In time, the ultimate check on executive authority is the American electorate. Zelizer worries that, “because of the current focus on the

economy, people aren’t concerned with growing presidential powers right now.” Proceeding forward, the global terrorist threat continues, even with Osama bin Laden’s death.

With both major parties unwilling to dismantle the national security apparatus, the trend of increased executive authority will not be reversed in the near future. The judiciary, with its insulation from

political machinations, may be best suited to counter this dangerous trend. Ultimately, however, Americans must decide what liberties they are willing to sacrifice for additional security.

Arjun Mody ’14 and Corinne Curcie ’15 are Staff Writers.

TREASON IN THE WAR ON TERROR

The allegedly transformed state of treason SAM FINEGOLD AND GINA KIM When is a citizen guilty of treason? The Treason Clause in the U.S. Constitution was written to prosecute Americans who betrayed the country on the behalf of enemy nation-states. For much of the United States’ history, the charge was a substantial one: rarely invoked, and usually only then against those who had joined another side in wartime.

In the post 9/11 era, however, the U.S. faces increasing threats from amorphous, non-state actors, such as alQaeda. Many domestic terrorists still seem to fit the description of treasonous individuals as laid out by the Treason Clause, despite the changed nature of security threats. Nonetheless, in the entire War on Terror, only one individual, Adam Gadahn has been charged with treason, and he remains at large. Prosecutors choose to indict treasonous actors for lesser crimes, due to the difficulty and political consequences of prosecuting treason despite technological advances that have made treason easier to detect and prove. As such, one might well consider whether the founders’ original intent has been maintained.

GETTING TO THE HEART OF TREASON In its definition of what does and does not define treason, the Constitution provides a framework for judging a citizen’s actions only through the relationship between the individual and the nation-state. As the Constitution states, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless

on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” Professor Brian Carso of Misericordia University told the HPR that the clause ensures “allegiance” among citizens to the state as a “necessary precondition of government.” Indeed, it would be difficult to imagine 18th century thinkers considering anything but.

At first glance, then, the definition of treason may appear succinct and clear. However, the ambiguity of “war,” “adhering,” and “aid and comfort” have proved challenging for legal scholars. According to Carso, the great Supreme Court Justice, John Marshall, “wrote his longest opinion of over 25,000 words in the verdict of the case of Aaron Burr.” Marshall largely struggled to qualify Burr’s assembly of boats an act of war. Professor Carso said Marshall’s verdict of innocent produced a “high standard of evidence” for conviction for treason.

To this date, only 40 prosecutions of treason have occurred in U.S. history. Many did not lead to conviction.

In the words of Tom Bell, Assistant Professor of History at Chapman University, treason has become something of an “artifact” in the courts. It is only considered for crimes that provoke a deep societal reaction and a sense of “communal betrayal,” as Professor Carso puts it.

WINTER 2011 | CONSTITUTION | HPR

15

A CASE FOR TREASON Despite the high burden of evidence required for the conviction of treason, advances in technology have improved the ability to detect and prove treason.

As Professor Phil Malone of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society points out, the Internet has created a whole new medium for crime. He emphasizes that the growth of global networks has flattened once insuperable barriers. “You could engage in criminal activities from your bedroom in Topeka,” Malone muses. Indeed, Malone notes that viruses and hacking pose nearly the same potential for harm as destroying buildings.

As opportunities have increased, so have motives.

Over the time of the War on Terror, America has seen increases in disloyal acts that appear to shift a citizen’s allegiance. Toni Johnson, a staff writer for the Council on Foreign Relations described an “uptick” in disloyal crimes traced to “international organizations like alQaeda” since 2008.

Nonetheless, increases in prosecutors’ powers defuse the likelihood that treason charges will apply to disloyal crimes. For example, in 2009, Bryant Vinas pled guilty to conspiracy to murder U.S. nationals, providing material support to Al-Qaeda, and offering expert advice and assistance. While his might seem to be treasonous, at least in principle, Vinas was instead convicted under statutes in the Patriot Act. Indeed, the indictment of Adam Gadahn in 2006 was the first treason indictment since 1952.

THE CASE DISMISSED Even Gadahn might prove a special case. By acting as an enemy propagandist, Gadahn enticed a sense of “communal betrayal,” in Carso’s words. Gadahn was featured in and helped produce videos for Al-Qaeda, in which he identified himself as “Azzam the American.”

Gadahn’s trial thus appears similar to the prosecution of enemy propagandists during World War II. Kristen Eichensehr, author of “Treason in the Age of Terrorism” said, “In World War II, the United States prosecuted a number of U.S. citizens who worked as propagandists for German and Japan. These were citizens who went abroad and worked in the propaganda ministry.” The only apparent change in the state of treason is that disloyal or treasonous individuals aid terrorist groups rather than countries.

The lack of prosecutions for treason, despite the similarities to the past, likewise may be traced to the inconvenience of such trials. Given Gadahn’s selfidentified affiliations with Al-Qaeda, his case was relatively easy to prosecute. Carso explains that the treason clause is “restrictive” and “not an efficient way to go after a terrorist generally.” The death sentence tied to treason is far more controversial than a long prison term.

Despite the political consequences of a treason conviction, however, the term has been thrown around loosely. Media frequently portrays any type of disloyal act as treasonous. Yet, as E.J. Hilbert, the FBI agent instrumental in the indictment of Adam Gahdan, said, “Treason is very, very specific. And it’s the only crime that is actually laid out in the Constitution.” The writers of the Constitution clearly defined treason, described its prosecution, and its punishment. The framers wanted to ensure that government could not arbitrarily take away the rights of its citizens.

A LINGERING CHARGE The Founding Fathers thus intended to make treason difficult to prove and created evidentiary burdens to prevent fraudulent, politically motivated, claims of treason. At face value, alternative means of prosecuting disloyal acts may seem to bypass the evidentiary burdens of treason and betray the spirit of the treason clause.

Nevertheless, treason remains a frequent aspect of popular media. Even if individuals are prosecuted for conspiracy under other laws, these laws may be, “in the public discourse, translated into the equivalent of treason” according to Professor Carso. In this sense, justice is still delivered and the framers’ original intent for the clause remains intact.

Sam Finegold ’15 and Gina Kim ’15 are Staff Writers.

16 HPR | CONSTITUTION | WINTER 2011

UNITED STATES TRUST BUSTING

The Antitrust Division strikes back

ERIC HENDEY AND JAKE SILBERG

“The combination of AT&T and T-Mobile would result in tens of millions of consumers…facing higher prices, fewer choices and lower quality products for mobile wireless services.” So declared Deputy Attorney General James Cole, bringing the Department of Justice (DOJ) into a national debate on government’s role in business.

Previously, the Obama administration had proven relatively inactive in its enforcement of antitrust law. The DOJ’s challenge to the AT&T merger represents a shift from rhetoric to action, and among scholarly, legal, and political schools.

Whatever the ultimate outcome, the dispute’s resolution will create precedent for future government interventions in the business sector.

among others, would later use such arguments to advocate for the deregulation of the banking industry.

Chicago scholars believed that the central objective of legal systems should be to effectively allocate resources and maximize wealth. Accordingly, they argued, government should not break up trusts if the benefits of centralizing production outweigh monopoly costs. Reacting against the aggressive antitrust policy of the 1960s, Chicago legal scholar Richard Bork argued in The Antitrust Paradox that decisions in antitrust cases should be based solely on consumer welfare. This thinking fundamentally shifted antitrust legal norms post-1970s, and dominated much of America’s policymaking.

THE BOYS FROM CHICAGO For the past several decades, antitrust scholarship has largely based in the ideas of neoliberal, freemarket thinkers at the University of Chicago during the 1970s. Reacting against Keynesian interventionist policies, economists like Milton Friedman and Robert Lucas argued against government involvement in trade, regulation, welfare, and antitrust policy. These ideas formed the bedrock for Reagan’s revolutionary economic policies, and influenced decisions well into the 21st century. Alan Greenspan,

AFTER THE CRISIS Despite decades of its dominance, Chicago School thinking has faced recent challenges. After the housing market collapsed in 2007, many began to doubt that markets were fundamentally rational. Joseph Stiglitz, a Columbia economics professor, said in 2009, “The Chicago School bears the blame for providing a seeming intellectual foundation for the idea that markets are self-adjusting and the best role for government is to do nothing.”

Despite the recent shift of antitrust scholarship and increased

political support for regulatory solutions, the DOJ under Obama has not actively enforced antitrust law.

Gary Reback, antitrust attorney and author of “Free the Market,” told the HPR that many progressives hoped that the Obama administration would “turn a corner” on antitrust policy, ending an era of relatively unconditional approvals of mergers.

While campaigning, Obama had promised to appoint an Antitrust Division head who “actually believes in antitrust law.” Since 2008, however, Justice adopted a handsoff approach, and the Antitrust Division currently stands leaderless.

Additionally, many outsiders questioned the DOJ’s decision not to challenge United Airlines’ merger with Continental. Even though experts anticipated an increase in fares and the Government Accountability Office concluded that less competition would occur, the DOJ did not take legal action.

Instead, hoping to avoid a lengthy litigation process, the parties settled

WINTER 2011 | CONSTITUTION | HPR

17

out of court, and United transferred 36 takeoff and landing slots to its competitor Southwest. F.M. Scherer, a Harvard Kennedy School antitrust law professor, maintains that such concessions have become “standard negotiating practice in these kinds of deals.” Indeed, when Live Nation and Ticketmaster merged in 2010, the DOJ forced the companies to spin off some of their subsidiaries as independent competitors as a condition for approval.

WHY AT&T? The DOJ thus surprised observers by blocking the AT&T and T-Mobile merger, halting preparations to combine the two networks. Observers have pointed to T-Mobile’s reputation as a maverick in the mobile industry as a possible explanation for the decision. Andrew Schwartzmann, who leads the Media Access Project, a consumer

group opposed to the merger, told the HPR that the DOJ believes that “the impact of the merger on prices and handsets available will be larger than one would expect. Because it’s T-Mobile, it gives it special status.”

Further, T-Mobile is known for promoting “disruptive pricing” plans. The DOJ even cited T-Mobile’s role as a “challenger brand” in its briefs against the merger.

AT&T nonetheless counters that the merger would expand broadband coverage to 97 percent of Americans.

Experts like Larry Downes, consultant and author of The Laws of Disruption, support AT&T’s assertions. Downes argues, “Given the regulatory hurdles carriers face in building cell towers and acquiring spectrum, mergers are the most effective way mobile providers can expand their service to keep up with exploding demand for new services and more data traffic.” However, an

18 HPR | CONSTITUTION | WINTER 2011

embarrassing leak has hurt AT&T’s messaging. An internal AT&T report accidentally posted on the Federal Communications Commission’s website concluded that the company could achieve the same broadband expansions by spending less than $4 billion on its own network, one-tenth of the acquisition cost for T-Mobile.

The large size of the companies’ market share also likely impacted the decision. AT&T has argued that local low-cost carriers are increasingly the main competition for national carriers in regional markets. Justice disagreed and instead highlighted that a post-merger world would see Sprint, Verizon, and AT&T control 90 percent of cellular customers.

T-Mobile and AT&T compete directly in 97 of the top 100 cellular markets, whereas in comparison, United and Continental only control a combined 18 percent of the airline market.

POLITICAL EFFECTS Unexpectedly, both right and left wing figures have criticized the Justice’s action. Elements of the Tea Party, ideological successors to the Chicago School, have declared their support for the merger. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), ranking member of the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, has written to the FCC to expedite approval.

Organized labor, integral to the Obama coalition, has also supported the merger, arguing that it would slow or reverse outsourcing in the telecommunications industry. “The DOJ’s action would put good jobs and workers’ rights at the bottom of the government’s priorities,” Communications Workers of America President Larry Cohen declared. “Instead of acting to block this merger, our government should be looking to support companies that create, keep and return good jobs to the United States.” Though Obama cannot intervene in the case, pushing public opinion against

the merger could bring him into conflict with a key constituency.

POSSIBLE RESOLUTIONS The decision on the AT&T case has major implications, both politically and ideologically. Some observers think a settlement will occur, but Schwartzmann argues that “reading the Justice Department’s brief, it’s difficult to reconcile that with negotiations.” A court victory against AT&T could push the Obama Administration towards a more active anti-trust policy, while losing would weaken the DOJ’s leverage in future mergers. Final resolution, whether via the courts or negotiated settlement, will offer important answers about the government’s relationship with business.

Eric Hendey ’14 is the Webmaster. Jake Silberg ’15 is a Contributing Writer.

THE STATE BUDGET SQUEEZE

Low revenues and high costs plunge states into crisis DANIEL BACKMAN

As America’s economic recovery crawls forward, its states suffer from depleted revenues and large spending commitments. Experts project between $30 billion and $40 billion in combined state budget deficits for fiscal year 2012. Though the federal government runs deficits during recessions to fund expansionary policies, many states are constrained by constitutional balanced budget requirements.

They must close deficits by cutting spending and raising taxes,

choking recovery with behaviors that compound macroeconomic problems.

Policymakers should not seek to eliminate balanced budget amendments, an important federalist measure to prevent states from amassing enormous debts.

Rather, the federal government should offer short-term deficit relief to states and enable them to better project revenues and outlays, as well as making rising pension costs more transparent.

BALANCED BUDGETS AND PRO-CYCLICAL POLICIES While every state but Vermont has a balanced budget requirement, deficits still occur because the regulations usually only cover operating budgets, comprising about half of state spending. Compounding the problem, this requirement applies only to projected budgets, where states foresee higher revenues and smaller expenditures than reality might suggest. As Harvard Law School professor

WINTER 2011 | CONSTITUTION | HPR

19

Howell Jackson told the HPR, states “formally comply with balanced budget rules but do not fulfill the spirit of the amendments.”

As a result of their evasions, many states stand in dire fiscal condition.

Periodic deficits are manageable, but Brookings Institute’s Tracy Gordon explains that states have been running deficits for the past five years because of the recession.

Now states seek to cut spending, but Gordon adds, “If states run out of money, there are a lot of people who are hurt, and these are often the most disadvantaged people in our society.” The Obama administration, recognizing the threat presented by state statutes, offered fiscal relief in the 2009 economic stimulus.

This money prevented some layoffs and spending cuts, but now funds are drying up. Gordon points out, “State governments are continuing to lay off about 30,000 employees per month. This is not only bad for

the macroeconomy; it also means a lower quality of services that state and local governments are able to provide.”

As Gordon’s example illustrates, aid proposals such as the American Jobs Act are important steps toward alleviating state budget crises.

With spending cuts continuing, the federal government should continue to offer aid to the states. Harvard Kennedy School Professor Daniel Shoag asserts, “State spending can be a real driver” for the economy.

Thus, Jackson says, “A revenuesharing mechanism [between the federal and state governments] can be appropriate.” Devising that mechanism to disperse aid to states remains complicated, because aiding states with the worst fiscal crises merely increases the moral hazard that states will spend frivolously.

Awarded assistance based on other measures, like the unemployment rate, might prove a better bet.

20 HPR | CONSTITUTION | WINTER 2011

SHORT-TERM CRISIS When states make emergency cuts, they often proceed without carefully considering the long-term consequences. Most budget yearly, which, when coupled with balanced budget requirements, offers little incentive for long-term focus.

Gordon points out, “There is a lot of push now to improve forecasting on the state level and engage in longer- term planning.” Additionally, state revenues vary considerably between years and work poorly under short-term restrictions. The income and capital gains taxes prove substantially cyclical, plunging states into deficits during recessions. Thus, to prevent shortsighted emergency policies, states should project both revenues and outlays over longer periods. As Elizabeth McNichol of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities maintains, “Long-term, multi-year forecasting on both the spending and revenue sides… gives

the states the opportunity to figure out the impact…on spending programs or tax systems for the long-term balance of their budget.”

One particularly effective mechanism may be the pay-as- you-go rule. This method, which the federal government followed from 1991-2000, would require every spending increase or tax cut to be financed by a tax increase or spending cut of equal size within five years. This policy helped create budget surpluses during the 1990s, and should be pursued as a structural fix to prevent budget crises from reemerging, at both the state and local level.

which include creating defined contribution plans similar to 401Ks found throughout the private sector.

Miron claims the benefit as that “[States] don’t have to do the fancy accounting and make those projections because… the employer is never on the hook.”

Further, Miron believes the federal government should offer block grants to states for Medicaid expenses,

“[T]he federal government should offer short-term deficit relief to states and enable them to better UNSUSTAINABLE COSTS project revenues and outlays, as Even when the current crisis ends, however, states will still face the prospect of disaster in their well as making rising pension pension funds. Pensions for public employees are funded by collecting taxes from workers and investing costs more transparent.” them in diversified portfolios. Shoag states, “It’s sort of like borrowing from the workers to invest in the stock market.” While these funds have typically earned high returns, approximately eight percent annually, the investments are highly susceptible to downturns, and have suffered greatly recently. Yet states continue to discount their obligations to pension funds without taking risk into consideration.

Funds’ behavior exposes taxpayers to substantial liabilities. Economists Joshua Rauh and Robert NovyMarx estimate that state pensions are currently underfunded by about $3.23 trillion, assuming the eight percent discount rate. Considering that pension obligations are, as Jackson states, “very difficult to adjust due to legal and contractual arrangements,” many question whether pension obligations should be calculated at such high, risky rates. Given the volatility of pension funds, taxpayers will likely have to bail out public pensions, unless they are reformed.

Experts suggest various solutions. Shoag offers, “Pension obligations probably should fall under a balanced budget amendment.” This would prevent states from underfunding pensions, and would specify how exposed taxpayers actually are. Still, the underfunding itself is not an immediate crisis for the states. According to McNichol, 40 states have taken action recently to either reduce benefits or increase employee contributions. She adds, “It is important to separate out the immediate problems that the states are facing as a result of the impact of the recession on their budgets…from some of the longer-term issues, like pensions, which they don’t have to resolve tomorrow.”

Nevertheless, given the growing burden of pension obligations, especially health benefits, states should not take these problems lightly. Jeff Miron, Harvard economics professor, offers some structural solutions,

rather than reimbursing states for half of all health care costs. According to Miron, “[States] would be forced to allocate [Medicaid funds] in ways that were affordable.”

In this weak economy, states should not drastically adjust pension or health care benefits. Over the longer term, they should still make the necessary projection and accounting changes. Ultimately, there are no easy answers, and states face complex constraints, often misunderstood in public discourse. But the solutions outlined can, with the right political will, mitigate the current situation and protect against future crises.

Daniel Backman ’15 is a Staff Writer.

WINTER 2011 | CONSTITUTION | HPR

21

PUBLIC SERVICE OF THE FUTURE

Can universities prepare graduates to lead?

IMEIME UMANA AND BEATRICE WALTON In Harvard College’s 2011 Baccalaureate address, University President Drew Faust declared that the recession and slow economic recovery actually meant that the current generation of graduates was, “in a strange sense, liberated.”

Faust urged students to embrace uncertainty and take career risks to pursue passions that they might otherwise abandon. Yet despite their apparent freedom, many graduates find it increasingly difficult to justify taking public sector jobs beyond a few years. Indeed, though Teach For America and other service organizations enjoy great interest among graduates, most students seek well-paying private sector jobs for the long term. Likewise, the percentage of graduates of elite

institutions entering finance, though slightly dampened by the recession, has remained high.

From expanding financial aid to subsidizing internships and community service work, universities and colleges have attempted to promote diverse career paths. However, the responsibility of educating the next generation of America’s public servants cannot fall solely on educators alone.

Ultimately, government careerbuilding initiatives are necessary to provide youth with critical realworld support and direction.

THE ROLE OF ELITE EDUCATION Faust told the HPR that Harvard’s sustaining legacy has been its

22 HPR | CONSTITUTION | WINTER 2011

mission to “create people who seek knowledge their whole life and use that ability, and that commitment to knowledge, to make a difference in the world.” However, what constitutes that difference? Though many of her students enter into finance and consulting, Faust insists that these fields make, “important contributions in enhancing economic growth for the world” and are “personally satisfying because of the kind of questions it raises and talents it calls on.”

Anthony Marx, former president of Amherst College and current president of the New York Public Library, offers a different perspective.

He insists that elite higher education has a “responsibility...to hold up public service, and examples of public service, as life paths that we value and need as a society.”

Universities and colleges should be concerned with the career paths of their graduates, particularly those in the public realm. According to Marx,

“To the degree that the graduates of top universities are not going into public service, into teaching, and into all kind of arenas that require talent for us to have the kind of society that we want, that is something we should worry about.”

Still, Marx and other education experts conclude the best way to shape students’ post-graduation plans to present them with “the opportunity to explore alternatives and...leave it to them to decide what they want to do with their lives,” as Mary puts it. These experts agree that the liberal arts curriculum should not explicitly tell students what fields they should enter upon graduation, but rather provide students with a wide array of choices. These higher education institutions can go even further, alleviating key obstacles that students face in entering the public sector.

REDUCING THE BURDEN OF STUDENT DEBT Education policymakers should first seek to remove the constraint finances play when students consider career options. For example, when expanding Amherst’s financial aid to ensure that students did not need loans, Marx increased the number of low-income students matriculating to his college. However, while the no- loan policy, similarly adopted at other universities and colleges over the past decade, was aimed primarily at making college more accessible, its secondary effect was to make opportunities for public sector careers after graduation more obtainable.

Expecting undergraduates to shoulder the debt burden precluded many from pursuing low salary public careers, including teaching and social work. Marx believes this effectively meant “coming to college was reducing options rather than opening options for how you want to spend your life.” Likewise, Julie Morgan of the Center for American Progress told the HPR that reducing college debt during the economic slump is more important than ever in keeping doors open for students struggling to “tell what kind of job will be waiting on the other end.”

Higher education institutions also have a responsibility to subsidize summer internship opportunities for low- income students. Faust insists that such formative experiences in public service can be quite inspiring and serve as practical training, observing, “We try to give students the support to undertake public service while they’re undergraduates, because we find that students try it out and often love it and will continue it as a career.”

THE GOVERNMENT’S ROLE Despite colleges’ and universities’ efforts, major gaps still exist. A Brookings Institute study found that Millenials, that generation born after 1985, were far

more interested in public service than their immediately preceding antecedents. Yet, while interest abounds, government agencies from the Pentagon to USAID have lamented impending retirements and subsequent expected labor shortages. According to Peter W. Singer, an author of the Brookings study, a disconnect exists.

“We have a public sector that still hasn’t figured out how to recruit the Google generation...and is instead more attune to the Mad Men Generation.” While opportunities exist for public sector work, many students need assistance to make the transition possible.

The Higher Education Act, passed in 2008, achieved some progress in recruiting students for fields with high demand, including nursing and teaching, by providing student debt relief. Similarly, the Brookings’ study found that 71 percent of the Millennials studied were interested in a scholarship program entailing five years of government service upon graduation, paralleling the military academies. Morgan believes that along with additional support provided by the Obama Administration, “Programs like [the Higher Education Act] can really help guide individuals back to [the careers] that might have been their original intention before taking on the debt.” Indeed, strengthening institutional support for students hoping to enter public service would be an exceptional step towards resolving this dilemma.

CHANGING THE DISCOURSE Mark Bray, a representative with the Occupy Wall Street press team, suggests that connections can be made with the movement’s frustrations. He maintains, “There is the sense [amongst Occupy protesters] that the boards of trustees and presidents of universities prioritize certain types of programs...related to corporate interests and donations,” and expend less effort supporting social work. Bray believes the Occupy movement understands that students have difficulties paying off high student debt and “justifiably search for the most high income jobs possible,” whether or not these jobs “best promote the well-being of society.”

Regardless of Occupy’s other goals, the prospect of students entering the public sector has not garnered such attention since the Kennedy era. Supporting youth in entering these careers is a challenge that will entail support from both institutions of higher learning and the government. The sooner policymakers act, the more society will benefit.

ImeIme Umana ’14 is a Contributing Writer. Beatrice Walton ’14 is the World Blog Editor.

WINTER 2011 | CONSTITUTION | HPR

23

THE “DO-LESS CONGRESS” The State of the Union has hindered the 112th Congress

THOMAS ESTY AND JOHN PRINCE After Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives last November, they vowed to repeal major legislation passed by the previous Congress and satisfy the Tea Party, whose conservative votes and voices lifted them to victory. However, despite months of rancorous debate on topics ranging from health care to the notorious debt ceiling, Congress has not accomplished much.

Bills pass one branch of Congress only to be immediately shut down by the other. This phenomenon has characterizes many previously divided Congresses, but today’s historic polarization signals a shift in how the government functions. Analyzing the circumstances surrounding this impasse provides a glimpse into political debate in the near future.

24 HPR | CONSTITUTION | WINTER 2011

BUSINESS AS USUAL A cursory glance at history indicates that Congress has seen similarly dire circumstances before. Midterm elections have often ushered in legislatures dominated by reactionaries hostile to the incumbent president. Yet it is unfair to lambast this Congress with the ‘Do-Nothing’ label, as Harry Truman did to his Republican opponents in the 80th Congress. Joseph Postell, professor of political science at the University of Colorado, told the HPR, “It’s hard to define what it means to be a donothing Congress. It seems like obviously compared to the Congress before it…this Congress has done much less. It’s certainly a do-less Congress.”

Yale Professor David Mayhew asserts, “Generally speaking, major enactments come later in a Congress under divided party control. It takes longer to cool down the antagonisms and make the deals.” This indicates that any greater progress under divided Congresses this early would be surprising. “The current Congress seems more or less typical in actual enactments,” continues Mayhew.

Indeed, this session’s major achievements remain limited to free trade deals with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, and the debt compromise, which, while controversial and tricky in its negotiation, eventually passed.

A DIFFICULT POLITICAL CLIMATE Several factors underlie the dearth of progress.

Postell believes these include, “greater polarization, the Tea Party, and the circumstances in which the country finds itself.” The current economic crisis has dominated Congressional attention, preventing most other issues from emerging. Reaching meaningful compromise on the incredibly broad issue of economic recovery has been difficult. While the American people hope for quick remedies, both parties are careful to not upset their bases with fiscal or economic heresies. Members of the Tea Party, for example, have been particularly vocal in their emphasis on shrinking the size of government.

Liberals, likewise, have consistently refused to reform entitlements: the problem which economists agree will become the largest driver of future deficits. A growing focus on ideological purity, including GOP pledges to not raise taxes, has stalled negotiation by forcing legislators to toe the party line or face primary challenges.

The changing Republican base has also made compromise with the Democrats increasingly difficult.

Theda Skocpol, Harvard government professor, maintains that Republicans, “have a huge Tea Partyoriented caucus that has really made it impossible for Speaker Boehner, even if he wanted to, to make any kind of compromise.” While party feuding has occurred since time immemorial, Skocpol believes that “Republicans in both the House and the Senate are determined to do

nothing at all. Their top priority is to defeat President Obama in 2012…I don’t think the Republican Party can go a whole lot further to the right.” The data support Skocpol’s claim. According to National Journal, the 112th Congress is the most polarized in modern history.

The moderates of years past have largely disappeared, wiped out in wave elections and replaced with dogmatic ideologues.

Compounding this scenario is a rather perplexing occurrence: the American people may not even know what they want. Postell thinks that “At this point no one knows exactly what the public mood is...Maybe the public is still waiting to see what the economic stimulus and health care acts produce.” History has shown that the country’s mood can rapidly swing when dissatisfaction is widespread. When no dominant voice of the people emerges, however, Congress treads cautiously. Indeed, despite the fact that Congressmen and Senators typically have their own clear-cut agendas, Skocpol states, “Voters in general often don’t know what to do when they’re disillusioned with things.”

Representatives in Washington can only sit and wait while their constituents make up their collective mind.

THE ETERNAL CAMPAIGN The lens through which the public sees its representatives has also shaped the discussion, or lack thereof. The sheer volume of media analysis and criticism continuously assails Americans, overwhelming all other discourse. Postell believes there is great significance in “the amount of political commentary the people are subjected to these days.”

As pundits offer constant reminders of Congressional gridlock, general dissatisfaction with the political system becomes an unavoidable outcome. While intense scrutiny of politicians before an election is nothing new, this focus is now relentless. Immediately after new legislators win elections, the next campaign cycle begins.

Augmenting this obsession with campaigns, a core to conservative politicians’ plans for 2012 is convincing the public that the Obama administration bears the blame for continued economic distress. While opposition to a president by the opposing party in Congress is standard practice, Skocpol believes that “what we’re seeing under Obama is new. The Republican popular base… outright hates and fears Obama.” Delivering any major legislative victories would increase Obama’s standing, creating a conundrum for GOP leaders seeking to leave their mark. Others feel that contention has simply become the new norm, with Postell citing the deepseated opposition liberals had against President Bush.

However, he does believe, “There is a problem here with the constant campaign.”

EYEING 2012 With an increasingly conservative Republican base and outrage surrounding the sour economy afflicting both parties, the current legislature is certainly a “DoLess Congress”. The media’s fixation has fired up partisans of every stripe. In this toxic environment, national policy-making has stagnated. Regardless, America is facing major changes.

Skocpol says that “the 2012 election is probably one of the most pivotal in American history; [if the Republicans win, they] will restructure the role of government in society.” A sweep of the House, Senate, and White House by Republicans would constitute a national mandate for overturning of Obama administration policies. However, if Obama wins reelection, Skocpol believes, “The Republicans may take a step back and realize that they have gone too far.”

Such a victory would constitute an endorsement of the President and a rebuke against the ‘Do-Less’ Congress’s policies and practices.

John Prince ’13 is a Staff Writer. Thomas Esty ’14 is a Contributing Writer.

WINTER 2011 | CONSTITUTION | HPR

25

WORLD UNDER THE FLAG OF ISLAMISM

Christian minorities in the Middle East fear new regimes CLARE DUNCAN

In early October of this year, 24 Egyptian demonstrators died in the country’s worst episode of violence since Mubarak’s fall in February. The clash between Coptic Christians and government forces highlights the religious diversity of region many assume to be monolithic. Copts took to the streets of Cairo to protest an attack on a Coptic church, only to be considered—mistakenly or otherwise—as a potentially aggressive force, leading to the fatal confrontation.

As many countries, newly free from decades-long authoritarian rule, begin to form new democratic systems, Christians face an uncertain role in social and political life. Many fear the emergence of political parties and movements as the prominent face of Islamism: itself a political ideology that believes the values of the state should reflect those of Islam. The increasing prominence of Islamism in the Middle East has caused alarm in some Christian communities, forcing them to evaluate their place in society and the role they hope to play in any new political

system. Theirs is not misplaced apprehension; the rise of Islamism and its potential consequences for Christians remains a valid concern, given the prominent role many Islamist parties assume in the new political discourse.

HISTORICAL LEGACIES Like many other aspects of sociopolitical and economic life in the Middle East, Western imperialism shaped Christians’ position in the region. Given the mission civilisatrice aspect of French and British colonialism, Christians often enjoyed certain privileges that their Muslim counterparts lacked. “There was this idea of…the obligation of the French and the British to protect the Christian minorities,” explains Harvard Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations Professor William Granara. Christian support for their foreign rulers, tacit or otherwise, proved a double-edged sword. As European empires crumbled, many Christians vocally supported the cause of Arab nationalism in an effort to stave off the advances of Islamism, a movement angry at the elevation of

26 HPR | CONSTITUTION | WINTER 2011

their Christian neighbors and eager to return to a more fundamentalist approach to Islam in government.

Harvard Visiting Professor Kirk Beattie explains, “For Christians, Arab nationalism was a political ideology they could pin their hopes on, in a way they obviously wouldn’t want to do with an Islamist formula.” The secular nature of Arab nationalism provided an outlet for Christian political expression and promised equal citizenship in a way Christians felt Islamism could not. Christians recognized the potential threat of conservative Islamist movements to their standing in society, and retreated into secularism to prevent it.

THE REVOLUTIONARY FIGHT In Egypt, Christians participated in the February revolution just as actively as did Muslims. “Copts felt the heavy hand of the state in the same way Muslims did,” comments Beattie. Six decades worth of repression gave way to popular uprisings. As active participants in those uprisings, Christians— like the rest of the population—

expected unthreatened recognition of their equality as citizens. The right to participate in government without fear of repression, religious or otherwise, proved as primary a revolutionary motivation for Christian revolutionaries as it did for Muslims.

Nonetheless, the October clash in Cairo illustrates some Christians’ wariness of their new government’s real intentions. For decades, permits to build Christian churches required special permission from the government, while building mosques proved a much simpler affair.

The transitional government has promised to aid church building, but has taken no action. The military’s violent response to the Coptic protests and its perceived hesitancy in turning over power to a civilian government have led Christians—and many Muslims—to express concern over the direction of Egypt’s future.

Whether this military transitional government is specifically hostile to Christian political freedom or to political freedom in general, such an arrangement would nonetheless be a setback for Christian sociopolitical life.

THE RISE OF ISLAMISM Though Christians, like others in the Middle East, support the right to freedom of political expression so advanced by the revolutions, several experts note the prevalent worry that Islamism will restrict those very rights. In particular, analysts express concern about the imposition of Islam-based laws and implicit government policies supporting. No matter how great the desire for freedom, “there is a fear in the minds of a lot of people that the beneficiaries might end up being the Islamists,” says Beattie.

Islamists could in turn attempt to consolidate their power by playing to the sentiments of a majority Muslim constituency, without turning to the voices of the Christian community.

The case in Syria presents a stark example of Christians’ fears of what could happen after authoritarian regimes fall. There has been surprising reluctance among Christians to support the fight against Bashar al-Assad. “The [Syrian] Alawite government has done a lot to protect other minorities,” says Granara. Indeed, given that al-Assad comes from a minority sect himself,

affect the structure or composition of new government systems.

Their paucity could skew the representative structures that were ostensibly set up to provide fair and equal governance in countries that had not enjoyed such for decades.

All of these factors have combined to sow anxiety in the Christian communities of the Middle East.

It is reasonable to predict that a

“The increasing prominence of Islamism in the Middle East has caused alarm in some Christian communities, forcing them to evaluate their place in society and the role they hope to play in any new political system.” his Ba’ath party has proven relatively accommodating. Though they may be critical of its totalitarian aspects, many Christians still support the Assad regime, given the protections they have been afforded. Christians in Syria look to Iraq as an example of the effects of sectarian tension.

After Saddam Hussein’s fall in 2003, large numbers of Christians left the country, fearful of the persecution ensuing from sectarian strife.

DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES Political turmoil, the rise of political Islamism, and general concern for the future have all prompted a troubling trend: the emigration of Christians from the Middle East. Habib C. Malik, in his book Islamism and the Future of the Christians of the Middle East, describes this emigration as an “exodus of individuals, families, and communities [that] proceeds unabated,” moving to Europe and the United States. Fearful of the possibility of secondary status in countries filled with sectarian strife or strong Islamist parties, Christians are preempting their concerns simply by leaving the area. This emigration of Christians could easily

conservative Islamist government could lead to clear delineations between Christians and Muslims.

Whether that separation is explicitly embodied in law or implicitly embodied in tacit government practices, the Christian fear of living as not-quite-equals in countries purporting equality will have been vindicated. It may be that the rise of moderate, pluralist Islamist parties, such as Ennahda in Tunisia, and liberal democratic coalitions will be the saving grace for Christians, a middle ground between the authoritarianism of the regimes of the past and the discrimination of fundamentalist Islamism. If such governments fail to emerge, however, Christians could soon look back on the Arab Spring with some regret.

Clare Duncan ’14 is a Contributing Writer.

WINTER 2011 | CONSTITUTION | HPR

27

A BIPOLAR GULF

The Cold War between Saudi Arabia and Iran

ELSA KANIA In the calculus of Middle Eastern power politics, Saudi Arabia and Iran stand on the opposing axes of power. The nations suffer an ongoing cold war, originating in the Iranian Revolution, and have recently waged a series of proxy wars. Changing levels of U.S. engagement in the region, along with the effects of the recent Arab Spring, have fundamentally altered the rules of the game in the Middle East. In the increasingly polarized Gulf, Saudi Arabia and Iran’s responses, combined with the exercise of influence through the use of oil money, ideology, and strategic intervention, have ramifications for the security situation in the Gulf and beyond.

THE BAD NEIGHBORS The rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran proves a relatively recent exercise. As late as the 1970s, the Nixon Doctrine labeled both nations the twin pillars of U.S. policy in the region. Nonetheless, the 1979 Iranian Revolution brought to power a revolutionary regime increasingly antagonistic towards its Arab neighbors, as well as the United States. Saudi Arabia’s support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, amounting to an estimated $25 billion, likewise contributes to today’s tensions with Iran. More recently, the formation of the Gulf Cooperation Council, a regional league of Arab monarchies, was intended to contain Iran.

Following Ayatollah Khomeini’s dearth, more

28 HPR | CONSTITUTION | WINTER 2011

moderate Iranian leaders initiated what Mohsen Milani, a Persian Gulf expert, describes as “a charm offensive toward Persian Gulf countries,” in order to end Iran’s international isolation and rebuild its faltering economy.

A period of relative détente followed, in which relations between Iran and its former enemies became cordial, if not entirely amicable. However, the U.S. invasion of Iraq created a regional power vacuum. Among the unintended consequences of the Iraq War was the end of a primary counterweight to Iranian power. Milani told the HPR that this was a “decisive moment” because the overall balance of power shifted due to the presence of American troops and Iraq’s transformation from “Sunni- dominated anti-Iran government to a Shi’adominated Tehran-friendly government.”

CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS? Iran’s ascendency in Iraq did not come without struggle. As Saddam’s fall opened Iraq to Iranian influence, Iraq became the site of a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Saudi Arabia has funneled funds and fighters to Sunni insurgent groups, while Iran supported both the Shi’a government of President Nuri al- Maliki and more radical Shi’a actors, including the anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

Yet Iraq was only the beginning. Gregory Gause, formerly a Kuwait Foundation Visiting Professor at the Kennedy School, describes Iran and Saudi Arabia as a “very serious rivalry played out mostly in the domestic politics of Middle Eastern states.” In the context of this broader struggle for economic and political power throughout the Middle East, both sides exploit sectarianism. In particular, Iran and Saudi Arabia enjoy Shi’a and Sunni theocracies, respectively, which present themselves as the vanguard of the Muslim world and view each other as illegitimate. Christopher Boucek, an associate in the Carnegie Endowment for Peace’s Middle East Program, emphasizes that “You can’t separate the fact that one’s Arab, one’s Persian, one’s Sunni, one’s Shi’a [and] there’s a lot of chauvinism that goes around on both sides of this as well.”

THE NEW MIDDLE EAST Iran and Saudi Arabia have played active roles in the Arab Spring, responding flexibly and pragmatically to the regional upheaval. Both nations have selectively

supported autocracies and rebel movements when it suited their geopolitical strategy.

Seriously threatened by the popular protests in fellow Gulf monarchy Bahrain, Saudi Arabia intervened militarily in support of the al-Khalifa royal family while accusing Iran of instigating Bahrain’s Shi’a majority. Iran, on the other hand, faces a serious challenge in the revolt against the al-Assad regime and has largely supported their long-standing ally in Syria while the Saudis call for regime change.

As Gause emphasizes, Saudi Arabia is “certainly against spread of democracy in the Middle East [and] in the Arab world, yet it may be willing to tolerate or even support the emergence of democratic regimes where it may be in its strategic influence to do so.” Similarly, Iran, banking on the power of its revolutionary ideology, has tried to portray its own 1979 revolution as the model for the Arab Spring. Nonetheless, Gause points out that Iran in Syria faces the loss of “strategic depth at the heart of the Arab world.” As the Arab Spring progresses, such flashpoints will become more and more prevalent.

ILLUSION OR STABILITY? Despite some amount of unrest and pressure for democratic change, both Iran and Saudi Arabia have largely proved able to maintain the status quo. Despite facing double-digit unemployment, both governments have used the continual influx of oil money to alleviate potential economic tensions through governmental redistributions. Saudi Arabia, while recently experiencing the outbreak of riots in its Shiadominated Eastern province, has yet to face any sustained popular protest. Although the Iranian regime has been strengthened by its survival of the challenge of the Green Revolution, its position may be less secure. According to Djavad

Salehi-Isfahani, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, “The tensions that underlay the 2009 demonstrations in Iran continue, and, if anything, they’ve become… stronger because the economy now is in worse shape.”

Indeed, Iran’s internal struggles complicate its foreign policy. Judith Yaphe, a former senior analyst on Middle Eastern and Persian Gulf issues for CIA, suggested to the HPR, “This could mean the end of the [Iranian] revolution as we know it.” In Saudi Arabia, the upcoming question of succession will necessitate passing power to the next generation. The nation’s recent concessions, most notably offering women certain electoral rights, indicate the regime’s awareness of the need for some amount of modernization. In the context of an uncertain international context and changing domestic dynamics, change is both eventual and inevitable.

Washington, allegedly linked to Iran, only sensationalizes the increasingly charged dynamics between these two countries. On the geopolitical chessboard of the Middle East, the recent alleged assassination plot is but one among many recent moves made by both countries. Regardless of the facts or motives behind Iran’s alleged plot, Boucek told the HPR, “If the Saudis believe it was a serious plot, then it’s a serious plot, and that’s how they’re going to treat it.” Beyond the media firestorm, as Yaphe said, “This is different, you haven’t seen this kind of…outright aggression before between both sides.” Escalation and the increasing heat of this cold war may play a decisive role in regional politics and will continue to shape the future of the Gulf.

Elsa Kania ’15 is a Staff Writer.

ROUND AND ROUND The recent emergence of a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in

WINTER 2011 | CONSTITUTION | HPR

29

CHINA AND BELARUS: A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP

The People’s Republic keeps Europe’s last dictatorship afloat NATALIYA NEDZHVETSKAYA

China’s history of supporting authoritarian regimes—from Kim Jong Il’s North Korea to Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela—is well established and widely criticized. The Chinese Foreign Ministry has outlined a policy of “oppos[ing] interference in other countries’ internal affairs under the pretext of democracy and human rights,” including trade sanctions in the category of “interference.” Amidst the country’s astronomic rise on the economic worldstage, however, one relationship that has been little explored is that between present-day China and Aleksandr Lukashenko’s Belarus.

Lukashenko has been Belarus’s president since 1994, heading a repressive government with a substantive history of human rights abuse. Not without cause do critics dub him “Europe’s last dictator.” Nonetheless, Lukashenko has forged substantial links with China.

Bilateral trade between the nations has grown from $34 million in 1992 to over $2.5 billion in 2010. Further, China stands as involved in Belarus’s politics as it does in its economics. From Minsk to Beijing, evidence of growing economic and diplomatic links suggests a mutually beneficial relationship that will continue to develop in the coming years.

CHINA’S BEST FRIEND In an interview with the New China News Agency in October 2010, Lukashenko stated that China was Belarus’ best friend. He explained his rationale: “China’s investment has never had any political strings attached, therefore, we are more than willing to see China speed up its investment in Belarus on a larger scale.”

Lukashenko’s statement accurately identifies one of the fundamental principles of Chinese foreign policy: an emphasis on economic inter-connectedness and a professed disinterest in domestic politics. This principle

30 HPR | CONSTITUTION | WINTER 2011

allows China to dominate trade with developing markets.

In contrast with more demanding Western nations, China appears a non-threatening world power with a no-strings-attached policy.

Money certainly has a role to play in Belarus’s rapprochement. Current estimates place China’s total Belarusian investment at $15 billion, following the extension of a multi-billion dollar credit line.

By comparison, total annual foreign investment in Belarus in 2010 was a mere $9 billion. Though Russia remains Belarus’ largest trading partner, accounting for almost half of all foreign trade, China has made tremendous headway, becoming Belarus’ largest nonEuropean counter party. While pursuit of profit may seem to explain China’s investments, the explanation is insufficient. With its inefficient and largely outdated industrial economy and a poor credit rating, Belarus does not fit the profile of an attractive business partner.

It is equally unlikely that Belarus’ natural resources are the answer. The country lacks the natural gas and oil supplies that have brought wealth to neighboring Russia and Ukraine and contains only 20 percent of the pipelines used to transport these goods to the European market. While access to cheap energy drove China to develop relations with Venezuela and Nigeria, the same cannot be said of Belarus. Stronger ties with Minsk will not result in cheaper energy bills for Beijing.

PEAS IN A POD A more trenchant factor may be that of politics. To

the annoyance of human rights groups worldwide, China and Belarus have continued to support one another on controversial issues, including the One-China Policy and Lukashenko’s contested election to a fourth presidential term. In 2009, under China’s aegis, Belarus was granted partner status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, becoming the only geographically European power significantly involved with the Asia-dominated mutual-security group. Lukashenko has visited Beijing on four separate occasions, in 1995, 2001, 2005, and 2010.

China’s outreach may pay the additional dividend of moving Belarus out of Russia’s orbit. In the past years, relations between Russia and Belarus have been strained, the result of unpaid debts and less-thanideal relations between Lukashenko and Russian President Medvedev.

While China and Russia often cooperate, their partnership suffers an element of rivalry. Developing ties with Belarus could be China’s attempt to gain greater influence in Russia’s backyard.

END OF THE ROAD? For the past decade, Lukashenko’s foreign relations tactic has consisted of playing the EU and Russia off one another. With both the EU and Russia deeply mistrustful of Belarus, Lukashenko has changed strategies.

Like a miracle drug, Belarus’ relationship with China has the potential to lengthen the lifespan of Lukashenko’s presidency.

Belarus is not North Korea, however. It cannot afford to cut off ties with its European neighbors or become solely dependent on China.

Further, in the face of an economic crisis—a 33 percent inflation rate coupled with a 36 percent devaluation of the currency— Belarus requires multiple allies to fall back on. Having procured a $3.5 billion bailout from the Eurasian

Economic Community, led by Russia and Kazakhstan, Belarus is still awaiting a verdict on its request for $8 billion from the IMF. China has contributed another $1 billion in trade credits. Even with its growing relationship with China, then, Belarus still depends on the West.

Space,” an EU-type alliance between Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, would be more realistic with Lukashenko out of office.

Ultimately, Lukashenko’s decision regarding the IMF bailout will likely be determined by the additional offers he receives from Russia and

“Bilateral trade between the nations has grown from $34 million in 1992 to over $2.5 billion in 2010...From Minsk to Beijing, evidence of growing economic and diplomatic links suggests a mutually beneficial relationship that will continue to develop in the coming years.

At the moment, however, Belarus stands in a position of supplication.

Much of Lukashenko’s current power comes from his control over Belarus’ industries, about 80 percent of which are state-owned. Though the IMF has made it clear it “set no political conditions for its loans,” its economic conditions, requiring Lukashenko to privatize much of these industries, may prove a tough pill. He will likely seek to avoid accepting the terms, if he at all can.

WESTERN COLD FRONT OR BELARUSIAN SPRING If Belarus accepts the IMF’s offer, however, the EU may gain the levers of political power. Unlike Lukashenko, private industry owners will not be willing to risk huge financial losses in order to save an outdated regime, especially one which keeps them from further profits. Should Lukashenko remain in charge, his power would be limited by a business-focused coalition.

Neither China nor Russia is likely to oppose Belarusian liberalization, as both states would benefit from a more efficient trade partner. Indeed Putin’s call for a “United Economic

China. If China is willing to risk resentment from the international community, it has the ability to keep Lukashenko in power. It is unlikely that the factors in Lukashenko’s favor—money, natural resources, and international politics—are great enough to warrant such action on his behalf nonetheless.

Yet Lukashenko’s greatest challenge may be within. In addition to facing pressure from the global community, Belarus enjoys a silenced but visible opposition at home. This formula of pressure from the international community and a domestic movement has proven successful in the Arab Spring. It may succeed again in the Belarusian Fall.

Nataliya Nedzhvetskaya ’13 is a Contributing Writer.

WINTER 2011 | CONSTITUTION | HPR

31

BOOKS & ARTS Jeffrey Sachs’ bestselling book The End of Poverty argued for eradicating extreme poverty in the third world through foreign aid. Previously, the author made his academic reputation as an economic advisor to former Soviet Bloc countries. Thus, it is a gloomy irony that Sachs’ most recent book, The Price of Civilization, is his attempt to halt the decline of the first world’s wealthiest nation.

Sachs, an economist at Columbia University and president of the school’s Earth Institute, is one of many authors who have lately focused on forming an account of America’s problems. His diagnosis largely concerns what he sees as the political transformations aligning American governance with the interests of the elite over the masses.

Yet all this is but a symptom of a larger national malaise, one Sachs hopes to address by shifting the public interest from the pursuit of wealth to that of happiness.

In covering controversial issues of such a sweeping character, Sachs occasionally comes off as polemical, and at times loses track of the firm economic basis for his prescriptions. In large, however, The Price of Civilization stands out as an astute overview of America’s contemporary ills—economic, political, and even cultural. Moreover, Sachs uniquely works to broaden the scope of his macroeconomic inquiry, changing the target of his policy proposals from material affluence to a more holistic understanding of public wellbeing.

AMERICA’S PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS ELI KOZMINSKY

THE PRICE OF CIVILIZATION,

by Jeffrey Sachs. Random House, 2011. $27.00, 336 pp.

32 HPR | CONSTITUTION | WINTER 2011

PATIENT HISTORY Sachs views his work as “clinical economics,” focused on understanding all the particularities of his patient in order to prescribe an effective cure. The book’s first part documents the deleterious symptoms afflicting America, exhibiting the issues—decreasing infrastructure spending, declines in human capital, abysmal PISA test scores—in literally graphic detail. Sachs does not, however, overuse his reams of data. Instead, he succinctly presents the relevant and alarming evidence with all the panache of a scatter plot, before moving on to his more substantive work of the book.

As a clinician and commentator, Sachs rightly concerns much of his investigation with the patient’s history: in this case, America between the presidencies of Carter and Obama. During this period, the author argues, popular governance gave way to plutocracy. The country ceased to be a “mixed economy,” Sachs believes. In this narration, it was initially Carter who “began the processes of deregulation,” supplying momentum for the looming “Reagan Revolution” of tax cuts for top earners, decreased spending on civilian

programs, deregulation (especially in finance), and outsourcing of core government services. “All four of these major policy changes took hold in the 1980s,” Sachs writes, “and are still in place today.”

UNDUE INFECTION The lasting triumph of the Reagan Revolution is due in no small part to Reagan’s successors, Sachs argues, who have been subsumed into what the author derides as a “corporatocracy.” Moneyed interests stifle more populist and progressive public policy in Sachs’ account, infecting even the supposedly leftwing administrations of Clinton and Obama. Ultimately, the undue influence cripples the possibility of solving America’s chronic problems, leaving the country in a “New Gilded Age.” Pressing concerns of the larger public, such as healthcare or outsourcing, seem wholly alien to the powerful elite.

Here Sachs’ writing takes on a vitriolic tone, sometimes at the expense of accuracy. For example, it is certainly true that, like his predecessor, Obama ignored campaign finance reform during his first term as president, leaving the floodgates of corporate electioneering ajar. But when Sachs seriously asks, “What have been the real differences between Bush and Obama?,” one has to wonder if the author is evenhanded about “Obamacare’s” namesake. Passages like these sound more like Paul Krugman than an honest clinician.

Nonetheless, the author’s course of treatment for America’s political paralysis largely makes up for his polemical forays. Though he at first stumbles, hinting at his hopes for a third party under the moniker of “Alliance for the Radical Center” to galvanize the voting populace, Sachs finds firm footing promoting such initiatives as public campaign finance and bans on lobbying. With these in place, the author foresees a

Congress that is no longer “a maze of special interests,” and a president who can stand as a real agent of change.

THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS As central as these political concerns appear, though, Sachs sees America’s problems as rooted in a deeper “moral crisis.” Not only are national politics rotten, the constituents are ill informed or misled about its functions—if they even care about them in the first

itself; it is a means towards common happiness, broader issues, broader scope To this more “holistic” end, as he calls it, Sachs proposes establishing “national metrics for life satisfaction,” the goal being to shift the public focus from “How much money are you making?” to “How are you feeling today?” Granted, such an approach is at times more emotional than economical, just as The Price of Civilization more closely resembles a work of public psychology than one

“Do we really need, as the author suggests, the spiritual teachings of the Dalai Lama to tell us to turn off the TV or reign in our shopping sprees?” place. Sachs points to more profound failings: Americans watch too much television, buy too much on credit to satisfy ephemeral cravings, and are overall unhappier than their global peers, not only in Sweden and Denmark, but also in countries like Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic. America is caught, Sachs writes, on a “Hedonic Treadmill” of sorts, clamoring to get richer and ending up more miserable in the process.

In his freewheeling furor Sachs sometimes manages to stray from his primarily empirical enterprise.

Do we really need, as the author suggests, the spiritual teachings of the Dalai Lama to tell us to turn off the TV or reign in our shopping sprees? Fortunately, Sachs returns to his more mundane subject of national welfare in due course. Here the author’s choice of words from the late senator Robert Kennedy ring truer than those of the Buddha: “For too long we seem to have surrendered personal excellence and community value in the mere accumulation of material things.”

Wealth for Sachs is not an end unto

of sterile statistics. Yet for Sachs, the quantitative and qualitative poles of his study inform a larger, more accurate macro snapshot of both states of the union—material as well as mental. Adhering to the above dichotomy merely amounts to policy analysis with one eye closed.

The rub, of course, comes down to paying for these pleasing programs.

But as Sachs notes, Scandinavian governments maintain national euphoria through prudent practices, without any gaping deficits. While the requisite trade-off is higher taxes, it is a bill that Sachs thinks America can and should foot. This is, perhaps, the price of a civilization worth inhabiting.

Eli Kozminsky ’14 is a Staff Writer.

WINTER 2011 | CONSTITUTION | HPR

33

“DOES THIS LOOK GOOD ON MY BOOKSHELF?” The apparel chain book industry JULIA LEITNER

As academics offer their elegies for the printed book, consumers might notice more books being sold outside their traditional habitat. Volumes increasingly accent the window displays of stores like Anthropologie and Urban Outfitters, embellishing the complex décor with a quaintly vintage charm. Leaving behind the drab arena of bookstore window displays, these books for the aesthetic elite aspire to adorn the bookshelves and coffee tables of the cultured bourgeois, the slouching hipster, and the traditionally bibliophobic. What these books lack in content they make up for in beauty. They look trendy and seem to whisper, “Buy it. Who knows?

You might even read it.”

REFRESHER COURSE With the volatility in the print market, compounded by the recent demise of Borders, publishers have sought novel strategies to sell books. According to Harvard Business School professor Bharat Anand, however, the perceived death of the book industry may be oversold.

“If you look at total unit sales of books in the last 15 years,

34 HPR | CONSTITUTION | WINTER 2011

you find pretty robust sales,” said Anand. “It’s not that people are running away. A large part of this is driven by the cost side rather than the demand side.”

The industry’s major challenge remains economics.

Anand points out that books are part of a fixed-cost structure; regardless of market changes and consumer demand, the cost of printing books remains the same.

With lower production costs and prices, e-books have posed a major challenge to the print industry. A report for the Communications Industry Forecast for 2011 showed that spending on e-books increased by 102.8 percent this year, while spending on new print books declined by 4.9 percent.

Yet booksellers should not build a funeral pyre for their flammable print editions. The Kindle and e-book have revolutionized the experience of a book. Yet even they have their limits. One can no longer caress, smell or crack the binding. E-books make publishers “think more creatively about what the form of a book is,” says Anand.

A printed book proves a full experience: aesthetically demanding and interactively intriguing. Publishers

thus increasingly seek retailers who know how to sell aesthetically desirable novelty objects.

THE BOOKSHELF TEST One company in particular stands out for its success in creating an aesthetic environment: Urban Outfitters and its subsidiary Anthropologie. Both emphasize the shopping experience; they fabricate a stimulating yet comfortable habitat for their targeted customers. “We create a unified environment in our stores that establishes an emotional bond with the customer. Every element of the environment is tailored to the aesthetic preferences of our target customers,” the store’s annual report states.

Books prove a crucial component of those preferences When Anthropologie opened its first location in 1992, it carried a handful of books to set the ambiance, alongside intricately scented candles and antique furniture. As The New York Times reports, Anthropologie’s book inventory now stands at 125 volumes “Books make [customers] want to shop. It gets them thinking, seeing the beautiful things in books,” observes Alex Quintana, an employee at the Anthropologie in Cambridge, MA. “We use them for display just as much as a product to sell.” The selection is dizzying. Beyond the more obvious selection of 1000 Ideas that Changed Fashion, Modern Vintage Style and The Gospel According to Coco Chanel: Life Lessons from the World’s Most Elegant Woman, perusing the book catalogue of Urban and Anthropologie offers such variety as Vanity Fair’s Proust Questionnaire: 101 Luminaries Ponder Love, Death, Happiness And The Meaning Of Life, 5 Very Good Reasons to Punch a Dolphin in the Mouth, Fried Chicken and Champagne, Hot Guys with Baby Animals, and elegantly bound copies of Penguin Classics novels.

The books boast rapid knowledge, escapist travelogues and designer fetishism. There is a clear emphasis on seasonal products, boutique cookbooks, gag books, and the artistic avant-garde. According to Sarah Clausen, an employee at Urban Outfitters in Harvard Square, there are also an increasing number of books based on blogs and websites.

THE ULTIMATE ACCESSORY Not only do these retailers know how to present books, but they define their ideal clientele though their inventory. The books reach their prime audience through gender separation, accentuated by clothing accessories.

“All the books over there are directed towards our male customers,” said Clausen, indicating a laden table in the middle of the men’s clothing section. “Upstairs are fashion,” as well as the female clothing department.

They know who you are and what you want when you walk into the store. The client base is predetermined and so is the selection of books. Clothing retailers’ bookselling

strategies parallel a similar trend in the e-book industry.

E-books and Internet purchases grant certain new insights to publishers and Internet retailers; they can track purchases and target individuals. “Publishers until recently knew nothing about you and me. When you bought a John Grisham book for the fourth time, they knew nothing about that,” explains Anand. Now Amazon can try to sell you a fifth John Grisham book and an extra padlock for your door, just in case.

“A printed book proves a full experience: aesthetically demanding and interactively intriguing.”

The vendors stand aware of their power. As Urban Outfitters officially states, “From men’s and women’s apparel and accessories to items for the apartment, we offer lifestyle-specific shopping experience for the educated, urban-minded individual in the 18 to 30 yearold range.” Their fiscal report adds to the description: “We have established a reputation with these young adults, who are culturally sophisticated, self-expressive and concerned with acceptance by their peer group.”

Nonetheless, while stores like Anthropologie and Urban Outfitters specify the clientele and inventory selection, according to both Clausen and Quintana, books in these locations are often impulse buys. “It’s mostly guys waiting for their girlfriends while shopping,” says Clausen.

A BRIGHT FUTURE? Framing limp stacks of flowing silk shirts, the books in Anthropologie and Urban Outfitters in many ways signal the past and future of the printed book. Here, books are celebrated for their aesthetic appeal. They signal a certain lifestyle. Besides, displaying a Kindle wouldn’t be half as attractive or avant-garde.

While Urban Outfitters and other novelty book retailers are unlikely to rescue the print book industry, they reflect an interesting trend in the book market. For the book industry in general, Anand points out, “One of the challenges is that people who read, read a lot, and people who don’t, don’t. The challenge is how to increase buyers, how to reach out to other customers.”

When this reporter asked Clausen whether she thought the books at Urban Outfitters got people who do not normally buy books to read, she responded quickly and with a sarcastic smile: “The books are pretty juvenile, so I’d say yeah.”

Julia Leitner ’14 is a Contributing Writer.

WINTER 2011 | CONSTITUTION | HPR

35

“DEAR MR. PRESIDENT” LENA BAE

Each night at the White House, Barack Obama gets handed what he calls his “homework packet”: a three-ring binder filled with policy memos, intelligence briefings. Yet it is a slim purple folder that he often reaches for first. Inside the folder are ten letters carefully selected by Mike Kelleher, the director of the White House correspondence office.

The letters are a cross-section of then 200,000 e-mails, 100,000 letters, and 12,000 faxes that American citizens send the president each week. For Obama, these letters offer a window into the real emotions of Americans, often lost to the president in the dayto-day demands of the executive office.

Eli Saslow, a staff writer at The Washington Post, has traveled across the country to spend time with ten authors of Obama’s letters. The product is Ten Letters, a story about America through the lives of its citizens, and of their complicated connections to the president.

These authors include Democrats, Republicans, those alienated from politics, and those too young to have an affiliation. In their messages, they pour out the details of their lives and those of their families. They exhort Obama to act on various issues, both thanking the president and condemning him.

Lucy Gutierrez, an Arizona resident of Mexican heritage in her young twenties, was spurred to write one of these letters after seeing her town, Kingston, transformed after the passage of Arizona’s controversial immigration law. Senate Bill 1070 mandated the prosecution and deportation of illegal immigrants. Its passage forced Lucy to make a decision as the unofficial matriarch of the family:

stay, in the midst of increasing discrimination and hostility, or go, as had over half of Kingston’s Hispanic population. As Saslow recounts, Lucy saw the bill in many forms. “It was the false rumors of immigration checkpoints at [Lucy’s] local grocery store and policemen sweeping through Hispanic neighborhoods wearing black ski masks. It was the empowered conservatives who walked around town wearing T-shirts that read ‘Why Should I Have to Press 1 For English?’…It was the cable customer who approached her desk at work angered by his bill and told her that ‘we don’t want you people here.’” Beleaguered by the stress, Lucy writes in her letter, “I am a U.S. citizen but I feel like I don’t belong here anymore.…Right after the bill was signed I went into a restaurant to buy breakfast and I was greeted by a gentleman who told me ‘I don’t know why they let you kind in here.’... Where is the America I thought I knew?”

Saslow explains that this connection between writer and president is increasingly valuable to Obama, living in an era where the Oval Office seems ever more remote from Americans’ daily concerns. The time when the public could make leisurely visits to the White House, joining the first family for meals, is long gone. Saslow notes that Obama, as the first black president, was given Secret Service protection a full eighteen months before the 2008 election, the earliest in history for a candidate.

Yet other letters are often a desperate last prayer for those affected by the president’s decisions.

For Jen Cline, a young woman on the verge of filing for bankruptcy for the second time, it didn’t matter that no

36 HPR | CONSTITUTION | WINTER 2011

one might actually read her letter.

The three pages, “more a streamof-consciousness journal entry than a formal note,” was a cathartic exercise in itself. In such cases, the president seems like the one person who could make a difference, even though it is likely that he will never read the missive. For Hailey Hatcher, concerned with the fate of his town after the BP oil spill, Obama was last of the many politicians he had written to in an attempt to spur change.

Saslow is a master at evoking the authors’ stories through vivid dialogue, vignettes of daily life, and powerful language. One can’t help but grip Ten Letters tightly as Saslow depicts Natoma Canfield, a leukemia patient who becomes an important part of Obama’s fight for health reform, reluctantly swallowing her eleven daily pills, wincing through

TEN LETTERS,

by Eli Saslow. Doubleday, 2011. $29.95, 304 pp.

the pain caused by the abrasions chemotherapy has left in her mouth. Saslow does not romanticize these individuals; the people Saslow introduces his readers to when are those they run into on the street every day.

However, while Saslow’s narrative offers us threedimensional Americans, the man who does fall through the cracks is Barack Obama. The president is shown entangled among constituents’ interests, balancing between catering to organizations, genuinely trying to express himself, and attempting to connect with the public. Saslow depicts Obama somewhere between the Obama of grandiose dreams and speeches the public sees, and the personal Obama with all his banality and his private passions.

Instead, the president’s own perspective in Ten Letters is a wistful recognition of the limits of his role. Comparing the presidency to his earlier days of community work, Obama reminisces: “The people were right there in front of me, and I could say, ‘Let’s go to the alderman’s office,’ or ‘Let me be an advocate in some fashion’… What I have to constantly reconcile in my mind is that I have a very specific role to play in this office, and I’ve got to make a bunch of big decisions that you hope in the aggregate will end up having a positive effect over this many lives.” In such a context, the letters are the

president’s most honest window into a citizen’s life, yet words that cannot be directly answered in a forceful act of problem-solving. However, Obama often writes back, and on occasion sends a check or forwards the letter to a relevant public official with a note to “please take care of this.”

The letter writers are aware of the president’s limits.

And yet, the poignancy of their messages lies in the connection they declare to Obama both as the president and as a fellow human being. “I’m sure you know, Mr. President, what it feels like being raised without a father… what would you do if it was your mom out there being treated like that?” asks teenage Jessica Duran. “I know you are a busy man…and on top of that having a family…

But please understand I too have a family that expects me to fix everything for them,” explains Lucy. Whatever the number of Secret Service agents that now surrounds the president, or the protocol that carefully regulate the president’s every appearance, Ten Letters gently reminds us of those defining elements that remain as true as ever in Americans’ relationship to their president.

Lena Bae ’13 is a Staff Writer.

WINTER 2011 | CONSTITUTION | HPR

37

INTERVIEWS GOVERNOR GARY JOHNSON The former New Mexico governor and 2012 GOP presidential candidate on foreign policy NAJI FILALI Gary Johnson is a former two-term governor of New Mexico and current candidate for the GOP nomination for President. He is known for his lowtax libertarian views and is an avid mountain climber and triathlete.

Harvard Political Review: Where do you differ with fellow libertarianleaning presidential candidate Ron Paul?

Gary Johnson: I have the unique experience of leading a start-up business that eventually employed over 1,000 people. I also served 8 years as governor of New Mexico and, while Ron Paul got to register his principled “no” vote on issues he disagreed, I got to debate and discuss my vetoes for weeks on end. Lastly, I am not a social conservative. I would describe myself as a classical liberal, and I support a woman’s right to choose.

HPR: What is the Gary Johnson plan for economic recovery?

GJ: I believe we are on the verge of a monetary collapse. We’re not immune to the mathematics of continuing to spend more money than we take in.

If elected, I will submit a balanced budget to Congress in 2013 that will reduce federal spending by 43%. I also promise to veto any legislation where expenses exceed revenue and to advocate for throwing out the entire federal tax system and replacing it with Fair-Tax. I share in the outrage of Occupy Wall Street protesters that government picks winners and losers,

and implementing FairTax would fix this.

HPR: How do you explain being left out of nearly every primary debate?

GJ: No matter how you cut my exclusion, I think you just have to judge it as grossly unfair. CNN excluded me from the second debate after coming up with a rule that I had to be at 1% in 5 national polls, even though I met that criteria. During my last debate, Fox News Network chose to interpret the rule as the last 5 national polls where my name appeared and, as a result, I was included. I don’t want to claim to be ahead of others that have been given opportunity, but I just want to claim equal footing to those individuals and I’m not being given that equal footing.

HPR: What would you do today in the Middle East if you had the chance to reshape American foreign policy?

GJ: I would get out of Afghanistan and Iraq tomorrow. I would not have participated in Libya. I think involvement needs to start with a military threat and that occurred in none of these countries, including Iraq. I originally thought involvement in Afghanistan was totally warranted, but I think we wiped out al-Qaeda after the first 6 months. We’re building roads, schools, bridges and hospitals in Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries and we have those same needs here.

HPR: Can you explain your policy on

38 HPR | CONSTITUTION | WINTER 2011

marijuana legalization?

GJ: I’ve advocated legalizing marijuana. Control it, regulate it, tax it. I’m opposed to the drug war but right now Republicans can’t grab ahold of the notion that half of what we spend on law enforcement, the courts and the prisons is drug-related, and to what end? We have the highest incarceration rate in the world, and this is America? I think if we legalize marijuana we will take giant steps as a nation to come to grips with rational drug policy in this country which starts with looking at drugs as a health, rather than criminal justice, issue.

HPR: Where do you view the viability of your campaign right now?

GJ: The viability at this point depends on being in these debates, so I’m not viable. This is a real uphill battle and just not being treated fairly, which is what I actually expected to be the case, leaves a real bad taste. I continue to be out here on the road talking to as many people as I can, but that doesn’t quite compare to the debates where millions of people can tune in.

Naji Filali ’14 is a Staff Writer. This interview has been condensed and edited.

DIANA HENRIQUES

Senior financial writer at The New York Times on the Madoff family and female journalists SIMON THOMPSON Diana Henriques is a senior financial writer at The New York Times. She has been a Pulitzer finalist and was granted the first interview with felon Bernie Madoff upon his incarceration. She has authored four books, including “The Wizard of Lies: Bernie Madoff and The Death of Trust.”

Harvard Political Review: How did you first get interested in journalism?

Diana Henriques: I became involved at age 13 with my first newspaper with a local student group. I came to love the newsroom environment and my love for journalism followed. In college, I was a campus journalist at The George Washington University Hatchet in the late-1960s, which were exciting times to be a journalist in Washington. I eventually made the shift into financial journalism at the Philadelphia Inquirer and have worked for The Times since 1989.

HPR: What obstacles have you had to overcome to get to the bottom of investigative financial stories?

DH: My initial reaction was to say that actually financial journalism is easier, and here’s why. When I first covered government issues for different New Jersey newspapers, it was the era of “shmooze” reporting where you gathered information for political coverage by shmoozing with politicians and for crime stories by shmoozing with cops. I was a young woman, and it was a time when a young woman reporter had to navigate the landscape rather carefully. In contrast, next to the bureau where I worked was the county hall of records. I learned how to trace land records, ownerships, and deeds, and I started to get good stories about, say, county commissioners who were planning highway routes past

land they had just purchased. This was my first introduction to documentbased reporting, and I quickly realized a document doesn’t know if you’re a woman or a man. I started to focus on avenues of reporting where legal papers were the skeletons of the stories, and it was a breakthrough for me.

The financial corporate world is an intensely difficult place to develop sources. The document landscape is wonderful, but the sourcebuilding landscape remains the most challenging I have ever worked in. The current environment with so much hostility aimed at corporate America has intensified that challenge.

HPR: How did you establish such a strong level of trust with the Madoff family?

in dealing with people like that, any responsible journalist will tell you that it’s a different game. You’re dealing with someone who may not realize the power of the published word, and I think that in such a situation any journalist has an obligation to take care, and I did.

I felt that if I could help Ruth feel at ease then I could help the public see something remotely resembling the real Ruth Madoff. My aim was not to decide how the public viewed her but, rather, to say this was as close as I can get to showing you Ruth Madoff, and then let the reader decide whether she is a sympathetic person or not.

HPR: What advice would you give to DH: The goal is to put the interviewee females looking to pursue a career in enough at ease so that you can see the journalism? real person and communicate that to your readers. Why Bernie agreed to DH: I think women entering the field talk to me is a mystery, but I have to of journalism have a much easier path assume that the only reason he would than they once did. They’re walking agree to talk would be that he had through doors that my predecessors an agenda. He ignored my interview chopped down with brute force and requests for six months and, finally, lawsuits. I think that to the extent in August 2010, two months before that I succeeded in what most times my book was due, I got to sit down was a men’s world was because I kept with him and witness his personality the chip off my shoulder. Anger is in person. You hear people say how not a useful tool, diplomacy is. But if charming and convincing he was, it’s really what you want to do, you’ll but if you haven’t met him, you find common ground with the men for haven’t seen it fully. The visit was not whom it is their dream job, and that’s particularly factually helpful, and I really how I’ve been able to navigate. was able to catch him in lies because of my preparation. But what I never The views expressed in this interview could have prepared for was his ability are those of Diana Henriques and do to drift seamlessly between truth and not necessarily reflect the views of The lie, which is truly a master act.

New York Times. Simon Thompson ’14 My relationship with Ruth has is the Interviews Editor. This interview been a little different. She is not a has been condensed and edited. professional public figure and lived her life entirely as a private woman and, WINTER 2011 | CONSTITUTION | HPR 39

ENDPAPER TAKING A HIKE

JEREMY PATASHNIK

Recruiting season comes every year at Harvard. In fact, I think it might come twice a year. Truth be told, I don’t really know when recruiting season is. There comes a day every autumn and/or spring when, strolling down Plympton Street at dusk, I see an army of well-dressed undergraduates hurrying past me into the New England night, and I know it is recruiting season.

Recruiting can be a polarizing topic here. For many students, it is a busy, stressful time: info sessions are attended, hands are shaken, free food is accepted, and bonds that will last at least several minutes and at most a few weeks are forged. (This, I’m told, is networking, and there’s a chance that recruitees’ future happiness and success depend on it.) Other students spend recruiting season lamenting the fact that so many of their peers take jobs in finance and consulting, careers that ultimately, these students argue, offer high salaries but contribute little to society.

But there is yet another group of students who are often forgotten in the fray. You probably have not heard much from us, but that is only because we’re not saying anything.

We are united only by our apathy, and although most of us have no interest in spending two or—god forbid—more years of our lives working in finance or consulting, we take no issue with the students who do pursue those careers.

Let me explain why I count myself in this group.

We like to celebrate diversity at

Harvard, and in many ways, this campus has become a much more diverse place over the decades. Still, for most undergraduates, getting into Harvard meant following the same path. We took the most advanced classes in high school, we excelled in them, we wrote good essays, we tested well, and we each had a handful of impressive extracurricular achievements to boot. There are exceptions to any rule, but for the vast majority of us, this was the path that took us to Harvard. It is an uphill, but well-marked, path, and for most—but certainly not all—of us, the question was not whether we would attend college, but where.

Senior year of college is the first time when most of us face truly uncertain futures. Of course, I’ve always known this day would come, but I had imagined it would be different. No doubt these past four years have been a formative time for me, but I had always thought they’d be more formative. I imagined that I would leave college knowing exactly what I wanted in life and exactly what I would need to do to get it. But I’m increasingly aware that the path to fulfillment—whatever the hell that is— is not a leisurely walk up a gentle slope.

I look down the road, and I realize that on this path there is scrambling and rock climbing, wrong turns and backtracking. It is easy to get lost, and the farther I hike, I fear, the farther I might feel from my destination.

(One day when I’m old and wise, I’m sure I will understand that the hike

40 HPR | CONSTITUTION | WINTER 2011

itself was my destination.) This is an exciting time of life, but it is also—and no one had properly warned me of this—incredibly scary. The world is a big, intimidating place, and it is hard not to feel a little small and confused and just overwhelmed by it all.

So what does any of this have to do with recruiting? We are often reminded that a Harvard education is a privilege, and with this privilege comes a responsibility to give back to our society. I believe this to be true, and I think that, ultimately, giving back will be an essential part of living a fulfilling life. But we seniors also face the stark reality of needing to find the trailhead at a time in our lives when, quite frankly, we are all pretty clueless about the world, in general, and what we want from it, in particular. If one of us thinks that his or her path to a fulfilling life might begin on Wall Street, at a consulting firm, in the Teach for America corps, at the White House, in Hollywood, or in a tent in Harvard Yard, who are any of us to say otherwise? At the end of the day, we’re all just trying to find our ways and make a difference in this crazy, scary world, and we should be supportive of our classmates’ endeavors as we begin our journeys beyond the gates.

Among other things, we may need to borrow money from our investmentbanking friends some day. Let’s hope they’re well-networked.

Jeremy Patashnik ’12 is the Humor Editor and the U.S. Editor Emeritus.

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