Fall 2019: At All Costs

HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW

CALIFORNIA FRAUD

GROWING PAINS

STRIKING A BALANCE

VOLUME L NO. 3, FALL 2019 HARVARDPOLITICS.COM

AT ALL COSTS

FALL 2019 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 1

HARVARDPOLITICS.COM/REDLINE

2 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW FALL 2019

AT ALL COSTS

This issue’s cover topic was originally proposed by Marian Bothner, Savitri Fouda, and Gordon Kamer.

3

California Fraud Vicki Xu

6

The Billionaire President Nidal Morrison

CAMPUS 11 Glitz in Harvard Square Joseph Winters 14 For Divestment, the Future Mimics the Past Clay Oxford 8

Return the Returns Katharine Heintz

32 Growing Pains Jamal Nimer

UNITED STATES 17 The Remnants of Federalism Lawrence Jia

8

Return the Returns Katharine Heintz

CULTURE 37 Familiar Scenes on the Final Frontier Kendrick Foster 40 Striking a Balance Lauren Baehr 42 Renaissance for Rwanda’s Dogs Katie Weiner

INTERVIEWS

20 Birthday Cakes, Not Wedding Cakes J.D. Deal

44 The Climate Crisis: Jamie Margolin Winona Guo

22 Where the Workers Are Jay Garg

46 Our Independent Judiciary: Judge John Bates Garrett O’Brien

25 Ghostwriting the Government Swathi Kella

ENDPAPER

WORLD

48 Fighting for Space Akshaya Annapragada

28 The Invisible Deluge Ava Salzman 31 Growing Pains Jamal Nimer 40 Striking a Balance Lauren Baehr

34 The Divide Up North RunLin Wang

Email: president@harvardpolitics.com. ISSN 0090-1032. Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved. Image Credits: Photographer: 30- Jen Guyton. Canva: Cover, 25. Creative Commons: 1,8- George Hodan; 35G20 Argentina. Flickr: 36- Andrew Scheer. GoodFreePhotos: 48. The Noun Project: 33- purplestudio; 34- Mehmet I K Berker. Pexels: 1- Vladislav Reshetniyak; 3- Matthew T Rader; 39- Alex Andrews. Unsplash: 1,31- Sharon Pittaway; 1,40,41- Andrea Nardi; 5- Ev; 6- Michael Parulava; 14- Martin Adams; 16- Markus Spiske; 17- Jassim Vailoces; 18- Ian Tuck; 19; Thought Catalog; 20- April Pethybridge; 22- Agus Dietrich; Jeremy Dorrough; 37- Aperture Vintage; 42- Patrik Inzinger; 44- Patrick Hendry; 46- Wesley Tingey. Wikimedia Commons: 6- Центробанк РФ; 28- EOSDIS Worldview. Design by: Madeleine LaPuerta, Trina Lilja, Kendall Rideout, and Matthew Rossi.

FALL 2019 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 1

FROM THE PRESIDENT

HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW

At All Costs

A Nonpartisan Undergraduate Journal of Politics, Est. 1969—Vol. L, No. 3

EDITORIAL BOARD PRESIDENT: Russell Reed PUBLISHER: Wyatt Hurt MANAGING EDITOR: Chimaoge Ibenwuku ASSOCIATE MANAGING EDITOR: Katie Weiner ASSOCIATE MANAGING EDITOR: Jessica Boutchie STAFF DIRECTOR: Alexis Mealey SENIOR COVERS EDITOR: Sarah Shamoon ASSOCIATE COVERS EDITOR: Kendrick Foster SENIOR U.S. EDITOR: Amir Siraj ASSOCIATE U.S. EDITOR: Ilana Cohen ASSOCIATE U.S. EDITOR: Clay Oxford SENIOR WORLD EDITOR: Keshav Rastogi ASSOCIATE WORLD EDITOR: Kelsey Chen ASSOCIATE WORLD EDITOR: Corbin Duncan SENIOR CULTURE EDITOR: Savitri Fouda ASSOCIATE CULTURE EDITOR: Marian Bothner SENIOR CAMPUS EDITOR: Will Imbrie-Moore ASSOCIATE CAMPUS EDITOR: May Wang INTERVIEWS EDITOR: Gordon Kamer BUSINESS MANAGER: Cate Brock ASSOCIATE BUSINESS MANAGER: Cathy Yin SENIOR DESIGN EDITOR: Matthew Rossi ASSOCIATE DESIGN EDITOR: Madeleine LaPuerta ASSOCIATE DESIGN EDITOR: Trina Lilja SENIOR MULTIMEDIA EDITOR: Jacob Heberle ASSOCIATE MULTIMEDIA EDITOR: Nicolas Medrano SENIOR TECH DIRECTOR: Jason Huang ASSOCIATE TECH DIRECTOR: Natea Eshetu Bashada ASSOCIATE TECH DIRECTOR: Max Snyder COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT DIRECTOR: Alexandra Diggs

STAFF Alienor Manteau, Alisha Ukani, Alison Chen, Allison Piper, Amy Danoff, Amy Wang, Annelisa Kingsbury Lee, Audrey Sheehy, Benjamin Firester, Bridger Gordon, Byron Hurlbut, Campbell Erickson , Carter Nakamoto, Chloe Lemmel-Hay, Chris Sun, Clara Bates, Colton Carpenter, Connor Brown, Connor Schoen, Daniel Friedman, DJ Kranchalk, Eleonore Evans, Eli Berlin, Emily Malpass, Emily Moss, Esha Chaudhuri, Ethan Schultz, Gabrielle Landry, Graham Walter, Hadley DeBello, Hafso Muse, Hope Kudo, Isabel Cole, Isabel Isselbacher, Jacob Blair, Jacob Kern, Jake McIntyre, James Blanchfield, Jamie Bikales, Jamie Weisenberg, Jay Gopalan, Jerry Huang, Johannes Lang, Jon Riege, Jose Larios, Joseph Minatel, Josh Berry, Katherine Ho, Katie Miao, Kendall Rideout, Kevin Bi, Lainey Newman, Lauren Fadiman, Lindsey Bouldin, Lu Shao, Manuel Abecasis, Marcus Trenfield, Matthew Hatfield, Matthew Shaw, Max Snyder, Meena Venkataramanan, Mfundo Radebe, Michael Montella, Michael Wornow, Mikael Tessema, Mimi Alphonsus, Natalie Dabkowski, Nick Danby, Nikole Naloy, Noah Knopf, Noah Redlich, Pawel Rybacki, Peyton Dunham, Roger Cawdette, Rumi Khan, Ryan Chung, Samantha FrenkelPopell, Sandy Koenig, Sanika Mahajan, Sarah Tisdall, Satish Wasti, Sophie Dicara, Tamara Shamir, Tom Slack, Trina Lilja, Vanessa Ruales, Will Finigan, William Boggs, Winona Guo, Yash Kumbhat, Yashaar Hafizka, Yuri-Grace Ohashi, Zachary Buttenwieser, Zehan Zhou SENIOR WRITERS: Akshaya Annapragada, Alicia Zhang, Andrew Zucker, Anirudh Suresh, Beverly Brown, Chad Borgman, Darwin Peng, Drew Pendergrass, Eve Driver, Hank Sparks, Nicolas Yan, Perry Arrasmith

ADVISORY BOARD Jonathan Alter Richard L. Berke E.J. Dionne, Jr. Ron Fournier

Walter Isaacson Whitney Patton Maralee Schwartz

2 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW FALL 2019

T

oday, there is little question that we live in a world that is shaped by wealth, and by the inequality that it creates. Money is central to our political system, with candidates on both sides of the political spectrum promising to redistribute wealth to “the people,” though they vary in whom they propose to redistribute it from. Whether the culprit be coastal elites or big corporations, the problem is unchanging: Wealth and power are deeply intertwined, and those who have the former gain the latter in spades. As the 2008 financial crisis and more recent college admissions scandals have illustrated, the pursuit of fortune often motivates individuals to violate legal and moral codes, and it promotes the culture of conspicuous consumption — or, more frankly, overconsumption — that has contributed to the environmental crisis we face. Money itself is a construct, constantly evolving as it has most recently with the “cashless” economy, but it has value that shapes the very political world we live within.

From our home in Cambridge, we know well that its impact, while political, also extends into the personal. Following recent lawsuits, Harvard has been forced to release unprecedented information about its admissions process, revealing the preferential treatment that contributes to the prominence of legacy students, who make up approximately 30 percent of the undergraduate student body. Recognizing the on-campus effects of this privilege, illustrated most clearly in exclusive social groups like final clubs, Harvard’s administration has taken aggressive action to try to minimize the influence of family wealth in its increasingly economically diverse student body.

Campus Divest activists, on the other hand, continue to lobby that same administration to acknowledge the inherently political nature of its endowment, as Clay Oxford explores in “For Divestment, the Future Mimics the Past.” As members of an institution that privileges affluent applicants and grooms members of the future elite, we entered this issue aware of the unique perspective we bring to these questions of wealth and its excesses.

In the third issue published by the

HPR’s 51st editorial board, three writers contemplate the role that greed and wealth play in politics both in the United States and abroad. Nidal Morrison investigates Vladimir Putin’s speculated wealth in “The Billionaire President,” noting the balance Putin must strike between maintaining financial power and upholding his everyman’s rhetoric. “Return the Returns,” written by Katharine Heintz, excavates the surprising history of presidential tax returns to contextualize Donald Trump’s decision not to disclose his own. And in “California Fraud,” Vicki Xu responds to the infamous Operation Varsity Blues, arguing that while California and New York may be hotbeds for such grand displays of corruption, greed can be found anywhere wealth can.

By the time you read this, we will already be hard at work on our final issue together preceding elections in November. As an undergraduate-led and produced publication, our turnover is fast, and with each new year we welcome a fresh group of first-years who, during their time at Harvard, will shape the future of our publication. Over 50 years of constant change, there are two enduring missions that form the core of our work and our community: teaching fellow Harvard students to translate their thoughts into digestible and provocative essays, and providing our readers with thoughtful words produced by young people engaged in political discourse. You, our readers, play an integral and lasting role in the work we do, and we hope you will continue to enjoy the content we produce for many years to come.

Russell Reed President

AT ALL COSTS

Vicki Xu

T

he once-promising blood testing company Theranos rose and burst in Silicon Valley, as did the college admissions scandal Operation Varsity Blues. Both scandals, which rocked the international community to its core, had many operations centered in Southern California. At first glance, it looks like fraud might just be part of Californian culture.

But a closer look reveals that this assumption is not exactly true. Palo Alto, a moneyed Silicon Valley suburb, and Newport Beach, a similarly affluent Orange County suburb, both attract some of the world’s richest due to their proximity to the tech and entertainment industries, respectively. Fraud scandals do not seem to be appearing out of Fresno or Salinas, where median household incomes are one-half to one-third as high as in Palo Alto and Newport Beach. The question of fraud has less to do

with Californian culture as a whole and more to do with how the residents of California’s pockets of wealth behave.

Interestingly, these enclaves have much in common.

Moreover, California’s richest areas are not alone in hosting fraud bubbles: similar patterns take place around the country and the globe. New York City, for instance, houses Anna Delvey, the wannabe socialite who bilked fellow socialites out of hundreds of thousands of dollars by having them pay her bills and promising to pay them back with money she never had; Bernie Madoff, who operated a Ponzi scheme worth tens of billions of dollars; and the hundreds of Wall Street investors who artificially inflated housing values in 2007 and 2008, eventually leading to the Great Recession. Large-scale fraud accompanies wealth and influence.

FALL 2019 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 3

AT ALL COSTS

CALIFORNIA: A STUDY IN WEALTH Wealth and opportunity attract ambition and genius, and Silicon Valley and L.A. present no shortage of brilliant, talented, and ambitious people. The gap between what people aspire to and what they actually get often brings about fraud, which snowballs in magnitude when mixed with money and power.

Because of this, the two areas are both worthy of attention.

Silicon Valley in particular has developed a reputation for being cool, sexy, and innovative. Tesla CEO Elon Musk smoked weed during a video podcast. Stanford Medicine bus stop ads run slogans such as “Disrupting the healthcare industry,” word choice that makes the institution sound more like a startup than a healthcare provider. Some of Silicon Valley’s most powerful investors and executives attend exclusive sex- and drug-fueled parties, where their behaviors are an “extension of the progressiveness and open-mindedness — the audacity, if you will — that make founders think they can change the world,” Emily Chang wrote in Vanity Fair.

A startup perhaps too good to be true, Theranos thrived in this environment. Its founder, Elizabeth Holmes, was known for her charisma, her eloquence, and her propensity to mimic Steve Jobs’ turtleneck-wearing fashion. She secured for Theranos millions in funding and a board of powerful people that included senators, a general, a former secretary of state, and a bank CEO — but that had little biotech representation. Unfortunately, her company’s supposedly revolutionary blood testing technology did not actually work, and for years employees secretly ran Theranos blood tests on traditional machines rather than on socalled Theranos technology.

Silicon Valley’s innovation-centered culture, while often resulting in truly innovative products, also produces great pressure to be one of a kind. More generally, the amount of talent and wealth in the area inevitably produces comparisons and standards, such as the Fortune 500 list or Time magazine’s annual “50 Best Innovations” article. These provide fuel for ambition that may come at the cost of integrity, and Holmes is an extreme example of the phenomenon.

A similar situation occurred in the college admissions scandal. Anxious parents paid $400,000 to $2.5 million to college consultant William Rick Singer to obtain admission for their children to schools such as USC, Stanford, and Yale. In social circles where money and status are king, having a child in an elite school is the cherry on top. To reach that peak of prestige required some rule-breaking, especially with kids who were not so interested in that elite accolade. As Harvard sociology professor Michele Lamont explained, “It’s a world where people are so obsessed with achievement and consumption that they are not even aware that by buying into the institution, they’re destroying the value of what they’re buying.”

Underneath this all runs a strong undercurrent of the American dream. In Silicon Valley, where tech startups such as Google and Amazon can amass enough wealth to rival entire nations within a generation, and in L.A., where an unconnected actress can rise from anonymity to stardom within just a couple years, the notion of rags to riches burns brightly. Plug in, grind, and you will reap the rewards. The American dream necessitates ambition and fixates on success, and with others so clearly succeeding all around, there is pressure to maintain face. As a result, people will always aspire to things they may not

4 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW FALL 2019

necessarily get.

Of course, this is not to say that fraud must only exist in moneyed hubs; the story plays out thousands of times in thousands of different communities in thousands of different magnitudes, from the kid from Oakland who buys counterfeit Jordans to keep up with his friends to the currency forger to the Wall Street investor who artificially inflates stock values.

However, wealthy areas do give rise to the organized and exorbitant instances that land in the news. These areas have the resources, influence, and power to greatly feed fraudulent schemes and the uber-successful people to produce envy; couple Elizabeth Holmes’ will with the sheer amount of funding, clout, and manpower Silicon Valley offers startups, and Theranos’ explosive rise is not surprising at all. Neither is the success of Operation Varsity Blues, which capitalized on desperate parents with money to burn. Before anyone catches on to what is truly happening, the fraud often grows to a magnitude so great, involving so many people and transactions, that the story becomes a front-pager for weeks.

A RICH TRADITION IN CONSUMPTION The desirability of fame and wealth in Silicon Valley and Southern California ultimately produces a fake-it-till-youmake-it mindset among some of the ambitious. But this is no different from any other area with many conspicuous rich people: Americans gravitate toward wealth and status, a timehonored American tradition since the rapid industrialization of the 19th century. In that era, rising standards of living brought mass-produced goods to everyone’s doorsteps, introducing a new era of consumption. For the first time in the country’s history, the common person could afford to use goods for leisure and enjoyment, not just for utility. Clothing styles diversified and households invested more in furnishings such as curtains, upholstery, and furniture. Goods began to signal prestige and social status in addition to their function.

Economist Thorstein Veblen termed the phenomenon “conspicuous consumption,” and some of the country’s richest were wrapped up in it. The Carnegies, Rockefellers, and Vanderbilts all felt the pull, with the last family building a string of obnoxiously fabulous mansions all over the East Coast.

The rich in that era served as a “moral compass for the rest of society,” according to Lamont, and for the rich the compass pointed toward the accumulation and display of conspicuous wealth.

Today the pull has not changed. A significant subset of American society is incredibly concerned with wealth. Birkin bags, some of which can cost as much as a physician’s annual salary, are a statement of power among the upper echelons of New York society. Jackie and David Siegel’s 90,000 square foot Florida McMansion — a self-described American Versailles with rooms bigger than people’s entire houses — went unfinished, but testifies to the ideal of bigger, grander, and more extravagant. Hypebeast brands, which make clothing whose value is compounded by the abstract value of “hype,” holds allure at all socioeconomic levels.

Countless message boards, forums, and blog posts concern themselves with affording streetwear, and the counterfeiting industry runs strong for these reasons as well.

Some may argue that most Americans do not concern themselves with such flagrant, explicit displays of wealth. After all,

AT ALL COSTS

what fraction of a percentage of American society is actually occupied by these Silicon Valley venture capitalists and New York socialites? Moreover, within these groups, what fraction of a percentage exhibits their wealth so unabashedly?

Still, the visibility is what counts. In an interview with the HPR, U.C. Berkeley sociology lecturer Andrew Barlow noted, “There’s a feeling of measuring oneself by the standards created by the rich — dreaming of owning things that will make you happy … of buying raffle tickets, working yourself to death for a new house.” People gravitate toward wealth and status, and just a couple displays are enough to exert great influence.

“There’s definitely an anxiety that inequality creates for people who perceive themselves as having less,” said Barlow. Indeed, a 2015 study by Yale researchers found that in an initially unequal society, greater visibility of wealth correlated with exacerbated inequality, lower cooperation, and lower societal wealth.

There is an insatiable greed for the bigger and grander, and the inequality is apparent today. Reality TV shows such as “Keeping Up With the Kardashians,” which depicts the family’s glittery opulent lives, reinforce this anxiety, as do braggadocious songs that commonly scale the Billboard Top 100.

“Whoever thought money can’t solve your problems / must’ve not had enough money to solve them,” croons Ariana Grande in her single “7 rings,” in which she flaunts her newfound riches.

Social media allows enormous wealth displays, too; millions of posts fall under luxury brand hashtags such as #louisvuitton and #balenciaga on Instagram.

Regardless of whether or not the luxury items featured are genuine, what matters is that these examples are all over our feeds. In an interview with the HPR, assistant professor at UNC Chapel Hill Alice E. Marwick explained that luxury influencers are “appearing in your feed, sandwiched between people you know and experiences you’ve had … and they become flattened into similar things.” Marwick continued, “With social media … you have this window into the lifestyle of the wealthy that is sort of lacking context. Even Instagram celebrities and luxury vloggers, there’s a sense that you’re getting these glimpses into their lives. You see people on social media, you think, ‘Oh, they have that, I should have that. They’re just like me,’ or, ‘Why aren’t I like that? What’s missing in my life that I don’t have those things?’ It enables that display of wealth.”

must be maintained, and at some point the ends seem to justify the means.

The affinity for glitz, glamour, and conspicuous riches, exacerbated by social media, feeds into a cycle that ends in fraud.

While California may seem like a magnet for such behavior, however, it is by no means the only place where it happens.

Large-scale fraud is a necessary by-product of wealth and ambition. n

THE SOCIAL MEDIA WORLD Fraud is a byproduct of our captivation with success symbols, and the online ecosystem gives extreme visibility to success stories. Failures, in contrast, are not publicized as much, especially when not juxtaposed with success. The trend follows the same logic as research publications, which rarely detail negative results even though dead ends themselves often offer valuable information.

The relative lack of failure stories — or our choice to ignore the ones that exist — creates a situation that encourages faking and cheating when failure does occur. It is quite possible that Holmes founded Theranos out of good intentions but turned to fraud as bad results piled up and she continued to prioritize accumulating wealth and power. It is certainly true that parents embroiled in the college admissions scandal, anticipating failure, chose to get their children into elite schools through the back door. Success is intoxicating, fairly achieved or not. The image

FALL 2019 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 5

THE BILLIONAIRE PRESIDENT

Nidal Morrison

“W

hen money speaks, the truth keeps quiet.”

This Russian proverb refers to the connection between wealth and corruption, and when it comes to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s wealth, the truth does indeed keep quiet. Current estimates by various economists put Putin’s wealth anywhere from $60 billion to $200 billion.

However, official figures fall far short of even the lower end of that spectrum.

This begs the question: How has Putin amassed so much money with an official yearly salary of only $150,000? Putin’s wealth can be traced to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the ensuing “shock therapy” reforms, during which he rigged the system for personal advantage. While Putin’s power as president is only enhanced by his wealth and vice-versa, continuing sentiments regarding the evil of wealth among the populace mean Putin must hide his wealth in order to be seen as a man of the people.

RUSSIA’S TRANSITION TO CAPITALISM The story of Putin’s wealth begins in Soviet Russia, when the country’s communist government imposed a command economy.

The Soviet administration controlled investments, and all major industrial assets were publicly owned. Another feature of the Soviet economy was the five-year plan. Beginning in 1928, the Soviet government instituted a series of five-year plans meant to transform the country from an agrarian society to an industrial one, but these plans were largely unsuccessful. Although the Soviet Union enjoyed an initial period of economic growth under this system, the economy began to slow down because the country exhausted the resources and technology it previously used to catch up to the West economically.

As the economy was stagnating, Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev implemented a series of economic reforms known as perestroika, or “restructuring.” While these reforms aimed to decentralize the economy and open the country up to foreign trade, they ultimately failed to revive the Soviet economy. After

6 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW FALL 2019

the Soviet Union collapsed, in another attempt to prop up the economy, the new Russian government suddenly released price controls and quickly privatized previously state-owned enterprises in a set of reforms known as shock therapy. As a whole, these reforms led to hyperinflation, skyrocketing unemployment, and near economic collapse.

However, as Marshall Goldman states in “The Piratization of Russia: Russian Reform Goes Awry,” these reforms resulted in “one of the world’s greatest transfers of wealth” to date. With the shock therapy reforms, petroleum, natural gas, and metal deposit industries became privately owned. The Russian government transferred ownership of these enterprises through voucher privatization, a method where the state handed out vouchers, which represented shares in previously state-owned industries, to everyday citizens. This program took place from 1992 to 1994, and 98 percent of the Soviet population participated. However, since most people were not well-informed about the value of their vouchers, the political elite grabbed the best vouchers, and thus the most shares in the now- privately owned enterprises. A new oligarchy had emerged.

PUTIN, THE OLIGARCH After Vladimir Putin came to power in the 2000 Russian presidential election, he cracked down on the original oligarchy, seizing control of their industries and driving some into exile.

But what emerged after this crackdown is less clear. The Guardian journalist Luke Harding, who has written extensively about Putin’s wealth, said in an interview with the HPR that Putin simply “reshuffled” the oligarchy and made himself one of the oligarchs. Harding added that Putin also owns shares of major Russian companies, allowing him to acquire vast amounts of wealth in addition to the wealth he gains by siphoning money from these same industries.

Others, such as Princeton history professor Stephen Kotkin, disagree. He argued in an interview with the HPR that just because “Putin’s cronies siphon money” does not mean Putin him-

AT ALL COSTS

self does. Further, Kotkin added that Putin’s money “would have to be banked somewhere,” and given the increased transparency in the international banking system, it would not make any sense for Putin to open himself up to that kind of “vulnerability.”

But what Kotkin’s argument is missing is that Putin may not necessarily siphon money; he may acquire it through perfectly legitimate means, like owning shares in major companies and working with his friends. In addition, Putin hides his wealth through intermediaries in offshore accounts, where there is still little transparency.

As Harding noted, Putin is the head of a “syndicate” of Russian billionaires, former KGB associates, and friends from Putin’s time in the Ozero Dacha cooperative, a housing community. This “syndicate” of billionaires emerged through opaque mechanisms during Putin’s crackdown on the original oligarchs. In 2010, U.S. diplomatic cables suggested that Putin “held his wealth via proxies,” allowing him to “formally own nothing” and “draw on the wealth of his friends,” enabling him to easily conceal both his wealth and its sources.

A LABYRINTH OF INTERMEDIARIES The story of Rossiya Bank is the best example of how Putin and his friends operate. At first glance, this bank seems perfectly ordinary and unconnected to Putin. Upon closer inspection, however, Putin’s links to the bank begin to emerge. Putin’s close personal friends control the bank, and it quickly gained access to Russian state assets after Putin took power.

Yury Kovalchuk, who owns the largest share of Rossiya Bank, has close ties to Putin. Both lived in the Ozero Dacha cooperative, and Kovalchuk is known as Putin’s personal banker, meaning he has extensive knowledge of Putin’s fortune. Two of Putin’s other friends from his stint at Ozero, Nikolai Shamalov and Dmitry Gorelov, own 10.5 percent each of Rossiya Bank — as does Putin. These links cannot be coincidental, and it is highly likely that Putin himself controls a large portion of Rossiya Bank’s assets. In addition, after Putin became president, Rossiya Bank acquired billions of dollars in assets from Gazprom, Russia’s largest natural gas company. So, while Putin enriches himself via his wealthy friends, he rewards them with state assets obtained through his position as president.

The Panama Papers, a trove of documents from a Panamanian law firm, Mossack Fonseca, shed further light on the underbelly of off-shore banking and Putin’s wealth more specifically. “What the Panama Papers gave us,” Harding told the HPR, “were details [and] transactions” that showed how the syndicate works. The revelations spurred by the Panama Papers show how Putin hides his money through intermediaries, specifically one proxy: Sergei Roldugin.

Roldugin, a professional cellist, told the New York Times in 2014 that he was not wealthy, but documents made public through the Panama Papers revelations showed that Roldugin was making the equivalent of approximately $8.1 million a year, and even had another 19 million pounds in Chase Bank due to his share of Video International, a lucrative marketing agency.

As Harding put it, “That is very weird.” How could a cellist make that kind of money? Well, one explanation is that it is not really his money; he is just the person holding it. And given Roldugin’s associations with Putin, the most likely explanation is that Roldugin hides the money for Putin in off-shore accounts,

thus giving Putin plausible deniability.

WEALTH AND POWER Above all, Putin “blurred the interests of the state with the interests” of his billionaires’ syndicate, as Harding put it, to gain the cover needed to acquire his wealth. However, the relationship between money and power also operates the other way around. Since wealth is “liquid power” in Russia, it enabled him to further control the state. As the Swedish economist Anders Aslund wrote in the Washington Post, “Money is power in Russia. Only the richest can rule, so Putin needs to be the richest.”

But despite this intrinsic connection between wealth and power, the Soviet populace believed that “wealth was bad,” said University of Pennsylvania professor Mitchell Orenstein in an interview with the HPR. This sentiment has carried over into Russia today. As a result, Putin “tries to hide [his wealth]” and act as a “man of the people,” as Orenstein put it.

Putin may try to do so, but his taste for luxury items reveals the truth. Even a cursory glance at photos of Putin shows Rolex watches that cost more than his official salary and designer tracksuits with prices in the thousands. So Putin may try to hide his wealth, but his appetite for expensive items contradicts his image as a “man of the people.”

Putin has good reason to conceal his wealth: In a country where the richest 10 percent control 87 percent of the country’s wealth, it would seem tasteless for the president to flaunt his riches. Most Russians fault Putin for the high income inequality, and Putin’s opponents have started calling him a “tsar.” Behind the scenes, Putin needs his wealth in order to maintain his political influence. But in public, that wealth becomes a liability.

Putin’s power feeds on his wealth, except when it does not.

All in all, Putin may try to project modesty towards the Russian people, but the truth is more complicated. The fall of the Soviet Union did not just shift the global balance of power; it may have indirectly led to Putin’s supposed wealth. The fact that Putin is not just a political leader, but an economic one as well, means that the relationship between power and wealth in Russia is symbiotic. However, the enduring legacy of the Soviet Union’s anti-wealth propaganda means that Putin must hide his wealth in order to be seen as a man of the people.

The economic chaos triggered by the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the ensuing shock therapy reforms allowed a small number of Russian individuals to accumulate vast amounts of wealth. These new billionaires, some connected to Putin through shared living arrangements, became Putin’s proxies.

They enrich him, and in return, he gives them state contracts.

Putin is directly using his power to accumulate more wealth.

As a result of his economic dealings, Putin may quietly be one of the richest men on Earth. However, given the lack of evidence directly connecting Putin to vast sums of money, any argument about Putin’s wealth has to rely on a bit of speculation. The truth about Putin’s wealth may never be known. In the case of Putin’s wealth, the truth is not just keeping quiet — its mouth has been sewn shut. n

FALL 2019 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 7

AT ALL COSTS

LILIA VEKSLER

SERGEY KOTELNIKOV

RETURN THE RETURNS

Katharine Heintz

8 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW FALL 2019

AT ALL COSTS

R

ichard Nixon famously declared, “I am not a crook,” despite subsequent events proving the irony in his statement. People who were not alive when Nixon first said it frequently reference the phrase, but the story behind those words carries a more significant legacy than a simple colloquialism: In his efforts to exonerate himself and uphold his record, Richard Nixon started the practice of presidents and presidential candidates releasing their tax returns. This tradition has continued ever since — at least it had, until the 2016 election.

During the 2016 campaign, then-candidate Donald Trump frequently broke from the paradigm of a leading presidential candidate. He refused to release his tax returns, and, in doing so, broke with the precedent set by every president in recent history. This refusal fits in with his unconventional presidency.

Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike have criticized this decision, and they have carried the issue into the 2020 campaign landscape.

But do voters actually care about presidential candidates’ tax returns? Generally, voters in the general election do not care much about the contents of those tax returns; it is the act itself of releasing tax returns that gives voters a mundane connection to leaders who are otherwise viewed as larger-than-life, and Trump is the exception that proves the rule. On the other hand, primary voters, especially Democrats looking at the crowded 2020 primary field, use tax returns as one way among many to distinguish between candidates.

PRESIDENTIAL PRECEDENT Presidential candidates providing their tax returns is largely a matter of precedent. The Nixon administration began a new trend of distrust in government that changed voters’ expectations of their leaders, and Nixon tried to combat this shift by releasing his own tax returns. Since Nixon, various interest groups and oppositional researchers have combed through most major candidates’ released returns, always looking for something to damage their election prospects.

Returns have never seemed to decide an election, but there have been instances wherein they have influenced them.

Bill Clinton, for example, struggled with the Whitewater controversy. George Bush, on the other hand, received a bit of positive media attention for the notable contributions to charity that were reflected in his returns.

Tax returns stood in the background of many recent elections, but 2016 was the first time they became a leading issue.

When Trump declined to release his returns, Democrats at every level of politics got the green light to speculate and assume the worst about his finances. “[Trump] is not going to release his tax returns between now and the time you start voting, and that sort of suggests there must be something really terrible in those tax returns,” Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said during a campaign rally. A report from the New York Times even suggested that then-candidate Trump might have avoided paying his taxes altogether for several years.

LITTLE TO GAIN, MUCH TO LOSE One would assume that a commonplace political practice like this would have a clear purpose. Nearly half of the 2020 Democratic candidates have released their tax returns, and most

major candidates in recent history have released theirs, so it would appear that a significant benefit exists.

As it turns out, that purported benefit really does not exist beyond good optics. First, published tax returns show voters that their leaders do pay the taxes they levy. Second, they offer a gesture of transparency and openness toward the public. While tax returns do provide a true mechanism of transparency, it is largely the optics of integrity that come into play. Giving voters a feeling of connection to and openness from their elected officials is arguably the larger purpose of releasing returns.

However, releasing returns can sometimes backfire; if there are any questions or inconsistencies, someone will certainly find them. Steve Rosenthal of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center explained to the HPR that candidates’ opponents will look for a disparity in the “effective tax rate,” between what the candidate should have paid in taxes and the amount they did pay off the bat.

“Other things you can find on a tax return would be how generous the candidate might be for charities, how aggressive the candidate might be with deductions that relate to how they brought their effective tax rate down, or what type of financial interests they have,” he continued. Average voters will not look through a candidate’s tax returns themselves; they will form their opinions based on details reported by the media, with journalists largely determining whether tax returns will enter the spotlight and become an area of interest for voters.

More surprising, however, is the extent to which general election voters simply seem not to care. As SUNY Plattsburgh political science professor Harvey Schantz, an expert in presidential elections, told the HPR, “Democrats tend to see good in Democratic candidates, and also bad in Republican presidents and Republican candidates. So the question of not issuing your taxes, or Trump not releasing his taxes, seems to reiterate prior political dispositions.” Essentially, undecided voters are not likely to make a decision based on a candidate’s tax record, and decided voters are very good at making excuses for candidates they already like. Issues like tax returns affect the election’s narrative, not its outcome.

A TAXING 2020 CAMPAIGN The story changes when candidates are competing within their own party and not against the other party. Since Democratic primary voters must decide among a crowded field of primary candidates, they are looking for any shred of information that can separate one candidate from the others.

There are no party lines in a primary to make the choice simple; it is hard to stand out in a positive way, but easy to stick out with an obvious flaw. A questionable tax return could sound the death knell for some of the weaker candidates, especially in today’s quick-to-judge social media culture.

Even if there is no glaring problem, candidates may find that the media criticizes them for their returns anyway. For example, both left-wing and right-wing media outlets Sen. Bernie Sanders for preaching socialist rhetoric around economic equality even as his returns placed him in the top 1 percent of earners nationwide. Beto O’Rourke received criticism for not giving enough to charity. From “too rich” to “too stingy,” candidates’ tax returns open them up to a field day of attacks from the media and their opponents. In a world where attack ads rule the

FALL 2019 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 9

AT ALL COSTS

political landscape, it is predictable that opponents have seized tax returns as a free, fruitful source of oppositional research.

It seems that the risk of losing votes strongly outweighs the chance of gaining them, so why do so many candidates release their returns anyway? Already, leading Democratic presidential candidates like Kirsten Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, and Sanders have all released at least one year’s worth of tax returns. Perhaps these candidates really do value transparency and a higher standard for elected officials.

However, another significant impetus behind releasing returns is avoiding the consequences of not releasing them among Democratic voters. Additionally, releasing their returns so early and with such enthusiasm allows the candidates to distinguish themselves even further from Trump, as well as to distinguish themselves from each other in the crowded Democratic primary.

FROM THE WAR ROOM TO THE COURTROOM Trump, of course, still refuses to release his tax returns, and Democrats have pounced on that refusal. As a consequence, a new hybrid legal-political dispute has arisen as Congress looks for avenues to compel the president to release his returns.

Former chief of staff of the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation and University of Virginia tax law professor George Yin sees two viable pathways for Congress to obtain the President’s returns: either through subpoena or by invoking a 1924 statute, which he feels grants this authority to the Ways and Means Committee. Yin pointed out, however, that this is “uncharted territory.” The precedent does not exist in this case, so there is no way to know how a court would rule.

The New York state legislature, meanwhile, has recently attempted to give itself the power to release the president’s state tax returns to the three taxation committees in Congress, a move which would shift power over the returns away from the embattled White House and toward a Democrat-controlled state government. Trump has responded by filing a lawsuit against New York’s attorney general and against the House Ways and Means Committee, arguing that neither entity has the right to his tax returns.

New York Assemblyman Mark Walczyk, a Republican who voted against the bill, said in an interview with the HPR that this legislation is directly targeting the President, and that doing so falls outside of the state legislature’s role. He commented, “Nothing good comes from targeted policy decisions made while emotions are running high.”

Walczyk told the HPR that partisanship has worked its way into the legal arguments over compelling the president’s returns, where it simply does not belong. The lines are blurring between politics, policy, and law — even more so than usual.

SMOKING GUN OR DANGEROUS RECOIL? Ironically, the politicization of the legal battle over Trump’s tax returns — the part that we would have hoped to be the least political — might have the biggest effect on elections of all.

Tax returns are not likely to persuade voters enough to change the course of an election. However, firing up the Trump base through persistent attacks might be enough to turn out his voters in the very swarms that the Democrats are trying to avoid.

One might presume that even if he is free from legal jeopardy,

10 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW FALL 2019

Trump’s lack of released returns would pose a serious threat to his credibility and optics. Actually, the effect appears to go in the opposite direction: Trump’s public persona allows him to withhold his tax returns nearly cost-free. The DNC might care, the media might care, and his outspoken critics might care, but Trump voters do not seem to care much at all.

His outsider status and complete divergence from the status quo are what make Trump’s brand. Withholding his tax returns is actually on message, and fundamental Trump supporters like the fact that he is different from the classic model of a politician.

That Trump is breaking precedent from every other candidate is, if anything, a positive point for them.

THE FUTURE OF PRESIDENTIAL TAX RETURNS After all this controversy surrounding Trump’s unprecedented decision to withhold his tax returns, new proposals requiring candidates to release their tax returns have emerged. Rosenthal agrees with those proposals. “I think it’s relevant to how we look at our officials and their approach to civic duty,” he said.

However, Walczyk pointed out that such a requirement might discourage viable candidates from running for public office. “A lot of well qualified people have been thinking and saying, ‘I don’t want to put my family through this,’” Yin pointed out in a similar vein. We certainly hold our leaders to a higher standard, but does that mean that they should be expected to give up a great deal of their privacy? And if so, are tax returns a part of the privacy that candidates are expected to give up when they run for office? The public seems to think that they are, even though it remains unlikely to actually change its voting behavior based on the returns.

For better or for worse, candidates will generally find it best to release their tax returns to the public. Withholding returns in general is not a partisan issue, and future Republican candidates are unlikely to receive the same exemption from their voters.

Candidates are not likely to gain points in the polls by releasing their returns, but doing so does save them from sticking out like a sore thumb. For most “conventional” candidates, failing to release tax returns will make an already long and painful campaign even longer and more painful.

The exception proves the rule: The Trump campaign does not experience these same barriers because it is not a conventional campaign. For everyone else, releasing returns is an inevitable and compulsory step along the road to victory. For Trump, the controversy has created yet another way to redefine the rules for a successful presidential campaign.

Tax returns will probably remain a prominent topic of debate throughout the 2020 election, regardless of whether or not — and by whom — the president’s returns are released. Democrats will continue to use tax returns as an internal wedge issue, but the decisions candidates make about their tax returns are unlikely to decide the general election. Tax returns will affect the media coverage of the 2020 campaign, and they will affect the Democratic primary, but they will not significantly affect the election’s outcome on November 3. n

CAMPUS

Joseph Winters

GLITZ IN HARVARD SQUARE

O

n April 28, 2019, VO2 Vegan Cafe had its biggest day ever.

More customers than ever before stopped by for Spicy Monkey smoothies, Seitan Slam sandwiches, and meatless taco salads. There was laughter. There was conversation. There was nutritional yeast.

And then the next day, there was nothing. Forever. VO2 Vegan Cafe milked its last nuts on April 29, joining the flurry of closures that has wracked Harvard Square for the past three years. As long-time standbys have bid adieu, new restaurants and fashion outlets have descended upon the Square, leaving plenty of time for two popular narratives to emerge: first, that the Square’s indie businesses are being squeezed out by big corporations; and second, that affordable options have vacated the Square to make way for pricey tourist traps.

To many who have lived or worked in Harvard Square for a long time, the groans about change seem just as constant as the change itself. But the current evolution of Harvard Square may be more complex, or at least different, from changes of the past.

Today’s Harvard Square is changing in the era of online shopping, food delivery, and mobile payment. And many property owners are trying to adapt — in part to keep up with these new trends, for

example, landlords may impose rent hikes or plan renovations. A combination of these factors has affected businesses in the Square as diverse as Crema Cafe and Chipotle.

These forces seem to work for consumers by offering convenience, affordability, and greater selection. But they have also undermined the quirky, independent personality that defines Harvard Square. Change is not inherently bad, but recent trends in the Square feel out of control, driven by changes in technology, shifting consumer loyalties, and perceptive property owners. As consumers and residents interested in preserving the cultural architecture of Harvard Square, we may be unable to draw up neighborhood plans, but our collective actions speak volumes. At the very least, we have a responsibility to understand our own role in sculpting Harvard Square.

PRICE IS NOT THE POINT Although ownership and affordability have influenced openings and closings in Harvard Square, neither factor has broadly defined the neighborhood’s recent turnover. Many independent businesses have indeed closed their doors since 2017,

FALL 2019 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 11

CAMPUS

including Schoenhof’s Foreign Books, John Harvard’s, and Crema Cafe. But the same has been true for chain stores — the past year alone saw closed locations for companies like Chipotle, Au Bon Pain, Urban Outfitters, and Starbucks. In fact, despite fears of corporate takeover, the Square’s business landscape remains roughly 70 percent independently owned or operated, according to Denise Jilson, executive director of the Harvard Square Business Association. That number has remained stable for years, she said in an interview with the HPR. Similarly, changes in the Square run the gamut of affordability.

Since 2017, some more expensive spots like Blue Bottle and the Longfellow Bar have cropped up, but turnover has in some cases increased affordability. For example, a meal at fast-casual West Coast chain Veggie Grill will be generally less expensive than one at 57 JFK Street’s former tenant, Wagamama. Milk Bar and &pizza may not be McDonald’s, but they replaced fine dining destination Tory Row in early 2019. And according to Jilson, the Bluestone Lane coffee shop moving into Crema Cafe’s former location will offer similar cafe options at lower prices. Overall, it appears that affordability cannot explain turnover in the Square.

THE “MALLIFICATION” OF HARVARD SQUARE If there is a common thread to closures in the Square, it is that businesses are being aggressively influenced by entities whose main connection to the neighborhood is financial rather than social. This kind of ownership by third parties is nothing new, but what is different is the way that these properties are being managed. And in many ways, these landlords are merely trying to keep up with changing consumer spending habits.

“You have a very hot and dynamic retail market, and that’s why you see these investment companies coming in,” said Lisa Hemmerle, economic development director for the City of Cambridge, in an interview with the HPR. Recognizing consumer demand for convenience and consistency, some of them are trying to mold Harvard Square to those demands.

When Tealuxe closed in December 2018, news spread quickly that the popular tea shop was yet another victim of big business.

In reality, Tealuxe’s building had been slated for renovation by Regency Centers Corporation for years. Closures of three of the building’s tenants — Tealuxe, Sweet Bakery, and Urban Outfitters — were all planned and expected, according to Jilson.

Similarly, Regency Centers Corporation’s plans for renovating the Abbott Building, also known as the Curious George building, will displace the eyeglass store Vision House, as well as the World’s Only Curious George Store itself. Adam Hirsch, the toy store’s owner, announced in early May that he would be relocating to nearby Central Square after closing on June 30, 2019.

Many of these disturbances are a response to a changing vision of consumerism in the Square. Landlords see untapped potential in some of the area’s prime real estate. They believe customers are willing to pay more for a set of modern amenities that their current tenants don’t offer — like an updated food menu, Apple Pay capability, and online ordering infrastructure. In part, rent hikes are the natural response, encouraging tenants to make these changes or risk being replaced.

By 2017, assessed property values in Harvard Square had roughly doubled from 2012 values, and the result for many tenants was a sharp increase in rent prices. This was the case for O2 Yoga and its attached VO2 Vegan Cafe, whose landlord decided

12 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW FALL 2019

to increase rent from $11,000 to $44,000 virtually overnight.

“It’ll have to be the University that buys it,” VO2’s founder Mimi Loureiro said in an interview with the HPR. “Who else could afford to pay that?”

Crema Cafe similarly buckled under a threefold rent increase, according to Cambridge Day. When the cafe’s lease ended in 2018, it was clear that Crema would be unable to negotiate a renewal agreement with their new landlord, Asana Partners. Co-owner Lisa Shirazi said she had no choice but to close.

Flat Patties, another tenant operating under the landlord Asana Partners, has said that rent troubles will likely force it, too, to leave the Square. With a lease expiring at the end of 2019, the burger joint’s co-owner Tom Brush said he would probably close the business rather than try to relocate.

Cambridge Mayor Marc McGovern has told the Boston Globe that he is afraid of the “mallification of Harvard Square,” and rightly so. Regency Centers Corporation Vice President Sam Stiebels has said that renovations would update the buildings’ infrastructure so they could survive “another 100 years,” but his corporation’s simpler directive is to install a “pedestrian shopping center” in Harvard Square.

Dwindling consumer loyalty has also universally plagued the Square’s businesses. Chipotle, which leased a space at Brattle Square owned by Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc., closed its doors in January 2019, having been outrivaled by nearby Mexican options like El Jefe’s and Felipe’s. Dwindling consumer loyalty also contributed to the 2019 closures of Au Bon Pain and fashion retailers LF and Free People.

Property owners seeking to “revitalize” Harvard Square are just trying to get people — and their wallets — back into the neighborhood. Shuttered windows and “blighted storefronts,” as Hemmerle put it, are worse for a business district than a corporate chain store, especially in Harvard Square, where business vacancy is significantly higher than the city-wide average. And if consumer choices encourage convenience, proximity, and relatively affordable price points, then maybe a mall is exactly what consumers are calling for, albeit unknowingly.

This solves property owners’ concerns, too, if the bottom line priority is, literally, the bottom line.

NEW TECH AND DWINDLING LOYALTY In Harvard Square and elsewhere, online commerce has taught consumers to value convenience over nearly all other factors. The digital world has created plenty of new avenues for physical businesses, but some may actually end up harming the businesses that adopt them. When Groupon arrived in Boston, for example, Mimi Loureiro thought it could attract new visitors to her yoga studio. She was right, but only partly; Groupon attracted first-time visitors and shoppers who were looking to redeem a 50 percent coupon for a yoga class rather than monthly members who would return time and again.

“People become shoppers, not customers,” Loureiro said. “The level of loyalty diminishes drastically.”

In fact, we as consumers may have a stronger influence than we realize when it comes to shaping the brick-and-mortar business environment. Online shopping in particular has had an outsized effect on retail across the country. Purchases from Amazon can replace visits to any number of physical stores, including gift shops, bookstores, hardware stores, and even

CAMPUS

grocery stores. And when consumers shop online, they are less likely to buy on impulse, or socially. Without walking through the neighborhood to a physical destination, one does not pass any other shops, and cannot stop to pick up that notebook for class or postcard for the family, undermining the integrity of the brickand-mortar business community.

Technology has also often harmed brick-and-mortar businesses in the food industry, especially with the rise of food delivery. When a restaurant adopts a food delivery service, it often must give 20 to 40 percent of its delivery revenue to third-party platforms and their couriers — a disaster for some restaurants, especially since delivery has a way of replacing in-store purchases rather than complementing them. On top of that, delivery discourages splurge spending on extras like cocktails, appetizers, and desserts. But even with these harms, which can add up to a one-third reduction in overall profit margin, delivery is addictive.

One retailer described delivery services as “crack cocaine” because it is so easy to rely on them even while profits become so paltry as to ultimately kill the business.

In all areas of commerce, there seems to be a tension — between what consumers say they want and how they actually behave. Mayor McGovern’s dreaded malls, for example, are the antithesis of everything consumers claim they value. In a 2016 customer intercept survey conducted by the Cambridge Community Development Department, residents and visitors overwhelmingly reported that their vision of Harvard Square was defined by two factors: its businesses and its distinctive “atmosphere/look.” Some people specifically mentioned words like “funky,” “personality,” and “unique,” and when asked to choose a single word for their vision of the Square, they wrote things like “lively, “vibrant,” “quaint,” and “diverse.”

But as consumers, we also want speed and convenience. This is the frustration of business owners like Mimi Loureiro. “I don’t think people understand,” Loureiro said. “They want it both ways; they want to have their little mom-and-pop places, but they also want the convenience to go and buy whatever whenever.” That is, people want to be able to walk through quaint business districts without patronizing them. They want the greater options, better deals, and faster delivery offered by merchants and services outside the community. “If people really want a business to stay open, they have to make the decision to go there exclusively, as opposed to whenever they feel like it,” Loureiro said.

Fostering a vibrant brick-and-mortar business district requires a concerted effort between government officials, business owners, and community members. Community action could not have saved VO2 or Crema, but our purchasing power can either help “traditional” businesses get by without catering to the whims of the online world, or — if convenience really is king — it can help cleanse the Square of those businesses who refuse to adapt. Over time, we have the power to unintentionally create an outdoor mall in Harvard Square.

Everyone interested in preserving the quirkiness of Harvard Square would have the greatest impact by appealing to city and state government. But policies that support funky, independent businesses must be founded on community support — even the smallest consumer decision serves as a sort of vote for the kind of neighborhood we want to live in. Walking a couple blocks, whether for a meal, a book, or a pencil pouch, helps keep Harvard Square vibrant. And we could all use the exercise, too. n

FALL 2019 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 13

CAMPUS

For Divestment, the Future Mimics the Past Clay Oxford

“D

isclose, divest, or this movement will not rest!

Disclose, divest, or this movement will not rest!

Disclose, divest, or this movement will not rest!”

The chants continued for several minutes, even as Harvard Kennedy School Dean Douglas Elmendorf and later Harvard President Lawrence Bacow attempted to quiet the shouts. Holding signs and dropping banners from the upper levels of the venue, the roughly 30 protesters from Harvard’s fossil fuel and private prison divestment campaigns ignored the administrators’ pleas for decorum and kept up their calls. Six of the protesters sat down on the stage, blocking the audience’s view of the event and refusing to move when asked to leave.

Eventually, Bacow was forced to abandon his scheduled presentation in the Kennedy School’s JFK Jr. Forum and retreat to an upstairs classroom, where his discussion about higher education continued in front of a smaller audience.

As word of the incident spread, campus reactions were predictably varied. Some wholeheartedly supported the prodivestment students, while others agreed with their goals but believed that they should not have infringed upon the speakers’ right to free speech. The administration firmly condemned the protesters.

Shutting down Bacow’s talk is just one of a string of incidents that have brought divestment back to the forefront of political discussion on Harvard’s campus. The most prominent campaign is Divest Harvard, which calls for the University to divest from the fossil fuel industry. Its movement echoes the demands and

14 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW FALL 2019

even strategies of earlier generations of divestment activists and reflects the calls for divestment that are becoming more and more commonplace around the country. In response, Harvard’s administration has stood firm, employing many of the same arguments against divestment that have been used to push back against previous campus divestment movements.

The specific impetus for each divestment movement may be different, but ultimately the arguments for and against divestment have changed little over the almost 40 years since Harvard’s first divestment campaign. Though student movements have successfully pushed Harvard to divest in the past, oftentimes those hard-won victories have arrived too little, too late, and only once the issues became unavoidably reprehensible even to reluctant administrators. With Harvard’s current administration showing few signs of relaxing its historic policies against political divestment, activists will need to ratchet up their pressure to unprecedented heights — particularly if they hope to see Harvard divest in time to make a difference.

“POLITICAL ACTOR” VERSUS “ACADEMIC INSTITUTION” The Harvard administration has always been defined by a lack of transparency, and divestment is no exception. Unlike the Divest Harvard organizers, who aim to spread their message as widely as possible, Harvard’s governing bodies rarely comment on the issue — reporters are usually referred back to previous

CAMPUS

statements — and when they do, the comments stick closely to oft-cited arguments against the practice.

The reason most often cited by the administration for opposing divestment is an aversion to politicizing the endowment.

This was made clear in former Harvard President Drew Faust’s 2013 letter about fossil fuel divestment; she stated that Harvard should “be very wary of steps intended to instrumentalize our endowment in ways that would appear to position the university as a political actor rather than an academic institution.” According to an email to the HPR from university spokesperson Jonathan Swain, to this day Harvard maintains the policy “that it should not use the endowment to achieve political ends, or particular policy ends.”

The administration has also questioned the effectiveness of divestment as a tactic to undermine specific industries. During the 1980s, when protestors were demanding that Harvard divest from apartheid South Africa, former Harvard President Derek Bok wrote open letters to the Harvard community arguing that the odds that divestment would achieve its stated goals were extremely low and that the University could exert more influence through shareholder engagement — a process by which Harvard uses its shares in a company to try to influence it to act in a socially responsible way.

Activists then and now have responded that Harvard’s individual divestment is not important solely for its direct economic impact; rather, the University can help spur wider social change through its role as a leader in the higher education community.

Furthermore, they argue that Harvard’s preferred course of action, shareholder engagement, is ineffective and that there is little to no evidence that corporations are influenced by shareholder resolutions and similar actions.

GO ASK THE PRESIDENT “On my first day as a freshman at Harvard, I was going to tea with the president,” David Goodman recalled to the HPR. “An activist confronted me on the steps of the Fogg Museum and said, ‘Did you know that Harvard [is] invested in Apartheid South Africa?’” After responding candidly that he did not, Goodman was told by the activist to “go ask the president about it.”

“Barely a freshman, I walked into the Fogg and walked over to President Bok, who had a clutch of students around him, and I asked him, ‘Is it true that Harvard is invested in apartheid South Africa?’ ... My activism began that day.”

Goodman was one of the many student activists who participated in movements throughout the 1980s that sought to force Harvard to divest from companies that did business in apartheid South Africa. The success of the anti-apartheid divestment campaign marked the first time the University deviated from its generalized stance against divestment, which has given it a special importance among subsequent Harvard divestment campaigns.

According to Goodman, it “serves as the model for all these other [movements].”

With limited information about when and how Harvard decides to divest, scrutinizing past campaigns is one of the only ways to evaluate the current anti-fossil fuel campaign and to understand how current activists may be able to convince Harvard to take action. Beyond the anti-apartheid divestment campaign, two other instances in which the university chose to divest its endowment for political or ethical reasons might provide insight

into what circumstances precipitate Harvard divestment.

Though the anti-apartheid divestment movement attracted much of the focus in the late 1980s, Harvard also quietly divested from the tobacco industry in 1989 and 1990. In a letter to three students at the School of Public Health at the time, Bok cited the University’s “desire not to be associated as a shareholder with companies engaged in significant sales of products that create a substantial and unjustified risk of harm to other human beings.”

In 2005, Harvard again decided that some investments were not appropriate for the University. The University used to hold stock in PetroChina, a subsidiary of the China National Petroleum Corporation. PetroChina was accused of providing revenue to the Sudanese government — a regime that was “complicit in what the U.S. Congress and U.S. State Department have termed ‘genocide’ in Darfur.” In this instance, though the Harvard Corporation reiterated “the strong institutional presumption against divesting stock for reasons unrelated to investment purposes,” it ultimately determined that “the extraordinary combination of circumstances presented in the case of PetroChina warrant[ed] the rare step of divestment.”

The Harvard Management Company — the group responsible for investing the University’s endowment — has offered no guidelines about when it considers itself morally bound to divest.

According to recently removed guidelines previously published on its website, Harvard may “on very rare occasions” divest from “deeply repugnant and ethically unjustifiable” activities.

Nonetheless, Harvard has never publicly commented on how it defines those terms. For Divest Harvard activists, the devastation that is being caused and will be caused by fossil fuel-driven anthropogenic climate change, is a moral — not merely political — issue which clearly rises to the level of “deeply repugnant and ethically unjustifiable.” The Harvard administration has given no sign that it sees things the same way.

Given these three past examples, Harvard’s blanket stance against divestment appears to be inconsistently applied. While the Harvard Corporation is clearly reluctant to divest the endowment for what it sees as political reasons, it is willing to do so in cases where the companies in question are engaging in or supporting unconscionable conduct. What constitutes that, however, is unclear.

LEARNING FROM THE PAST In many ways, the Divest Harvard campaign is similar to the successful divestment campaigns that preceded it, which gives it a hopeful prognosis for success. One of those similarities comes from its embrace of movements beyond Cambridge.

Divestment advocates see Harvard’s divestment as one step in a larger movement that they are working with other divestment movements around the country and world to build. In the anti-apartheid divestment campaign, universities, states, and municipalities around the world all divested from South African companies. That sort of collaboration is also a key feature of Harvard’s fossil fuel divestment campaign, and organizers have worked with other schools to launch a broader movement. Some student fossil fuel divestment campaigns, like the one at Middlebury College, have successfully pressured their universities to divest fossil fuel holdings.

Since that pledge, Middlebury’s activists have been working with other schools on their own movements. Zoe Grodsky,

FALL 2019 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 15

CAMPUS

a divestment student activist at Middlebury, said that they had “done a lot of calls with other schools asking us for advice” in an interview with the HPR. She also pointed towards the importance of building a wider movement, saying, “The divestment movement has removed $8 trillion from the fossil fuel industry, and by making that industry a little less stable, every time an institution divests, it forces this transition away from fossil fuels.”

Previous successful divestment campaigns have also relied heavily on support from alumni and other outside groups to maintain continuity, as the student population turns over every four years. Goodman credited the anti-apartheid divestment movement’s success to the fact that the protestors “weren’t going away.” That decade-long pressure was made possible through the relationships the group formed with Harvard faculty and alumni clubs.

Similarly, the current fossil fuel divestment campaign has support from prominent Harvard alumni and faculty, as demonstrated by the attendance and speeches of Gina McCarthy and Tim Wirth at a press conference held during Harvard Heat Week, a week-long divestment protest. McCarthy was the EPA administrator under President Obama and is now a professor at Harvard’s School of Public Health. Wirth is a former U.S. senator, the current President of the U.N. Foundation, and a Harvard alumnus. Furthermore, alumni clubs around the country that previously supported Goodman’s divestment campaign have again supported the current fossil fuel divestment movement.

However, the fossil fuel divestment movement also faces a major challenge that did not plague prior divestment campaigns: Harvard is reliant on fossil fuels to do its work. University administrators, therefore, view it as hypocritical for Harvard to declare fossil fuel companies immoral while maintaining a campus that relies on fossil fuels to conduct its everyday business. Faust presented this new argument against fossil fuel divestment in her 2013 letter, writing that she “find[s] a troubling inconsistency in the notion that, as an investor, we should boycott a whole class of companies at the same time that, as individuals and as a community, we are extensively relying on those companies’ products and services for so much of what we do every day.”

A RACE AGAINST TIME Divest Harvard is up against the clock. Their inspiration for divestment — the fight for climate justice — requires timely action to prevent tragic consequences for the planet, not just from Harvard but on a global scale. At the same time, their desire to put Harvard on the leading edge of the divestment movement needs quick breakthroughs with the administration and the Harvard Management Company. Ultimately, Harvard will almost certainly divest from the fossil fuel industry eventually — if only out of financial prudence, as the industry is in a structural decline, albeit a long-term one. The question is when the University will make its move.

The past does not look promising. Many divestment campaigns came too late, including the anti-apartheid divestment campaign — the movement with which the current Divest Harvard movement arguably shares the most similarities. That campaign eventually culminated in Harvard’s partial divestment from South Africa in the late 1980s, but only “long after other universities and, at that point, municipalities and states were divesting,” Goodman said. “Harvard was one of the last [institu-

16 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW FALL 2019

tions] to do anything.” Fossil fuel divestment could follow the same pattern.

However, there is some hope for the Divest Harvard activists.

They have learned from the strengths of previous divestment campaigns, and this new generation is digging in for a longterm fight against the administration. The past year has seen a resurgence in discourse around divestment, and it seems the momentum to divest is only growing. The campus movements are led by passionate students and have attracted support from many underclassmen, giving them a continuity for the next three to four years, as well as from hundreds of faculty and almost 1700 alumni. Furthermore, social media can turn a moment into a viral story, and Harvard cares for nothing if not protecting its reputation.

If previous movements are any guide, divestment from fossil fuels is probably in Harvard’s future, but not until it is riding a wave of widespread institutional divestment instead of leading it to shore. To reverse this trend and have Harvard lead a movement would require a sustained and forceful pressure campaign on an unprecedented scale. But, with momentum growing and more and more people losing livelihoods and lives to a warming Earth and rising sea levels, it will not be a shock if Divest Harvard beats the odds and pushes Harvard to the forefront of the issue. Who knows — as the clock continues to count down to climate disaster, perhaps the administration will decide that climate change is “deeply repugnant and morally unjustifiable” after all. n

The Remnants of Federalism Lawrence Jia

J

ust a two-hour drive and a ferry ride away from Harvard Square is Martha’s Vineyard, a bustling vacation island for prominent politicians, businesspeople, and celebrities.

Summer residents find a different pace of life, exchanging hectic ports for picturesque bike paths and glass high-rises for charming beach houses. However, among its peculiar distinctions comes another trade-off: Unlike their mainland counterparts, vineyard beach-goers are not able to purchase legal recreational marijuana.

Why is it so difficult to use marijuana on Martha’s Vineyard?

Do they simply hate fun? The answer, in short, is federalism.

On November 8, 2016, Massachusetts voters passed ballot question four, effectively legalizing the recreational use of marijuana in the state. However, the decriminalization of marijuana stands in direct contrast to federal law, which still classifies cannabinoids as a Schedule I drug with “no currently accepted medical use in treatment.”

This poses a novel problem for Martha’s Vineyard because the island is surrounded by federal waters over which the state of Massachusetts has no jurisdiction. Although Massachusetts state and local law enforcement would have no problem with cannabis on Martha’s Vineyard, the transportation of the drug from the mainland to the island would put the industry in the crosshairs of federal agencies. Numerous federal agencies have the ability to seize and prosecute offenders under federal law regardless of Massachusetts law.

This tangle of drug policy, enforcement, and jurisdiction exemplifies the complicated and oftentimes quarrelsome

interactions between federal and state governments. The implications of these interactions not only keep Martha’s Vineyard residents grounded but also raise broader questions about the appropriate relationship between state and federal governments.

In the 20th century, the federal government expanded its influence over state governments by overinterpreting the commerce clause, growing the national regulatory state, and using fiscal measures to change state policy. It is now time to recalibrate that balance, affirming states’ powers and supporting policy diversity — but not at the expense of individual rights.

COURT INTERPRETATIONS Until the Rehnquist Court of the 1990s, the Supreme Court claimed near-total deference to the commerce clause, allowing it to expand federal power and promote minority rights. However, the Supreme Court only tenuously expanded federal power when it based its decisions on the commerce clause alone, which may not have the constitutional basis to pass muster. Instead, interpretations of the commerce clause should be restrained unless a stronger case can be made through the lens of other clauses, such as the supremacy, necessary and proper, and equal protection clauses.

In an interview with the HPR, Virginia Supreme Court Justice Steven McCullough cited Wickard v. Filburn, in which the Court decided that individual wheat production could be regulated by the federal government. This marked the beginning

FALL 2019 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 17

UNITED STATES

of commerce clause overextension. Although the court conceded that individual farmers had miniscule effects on interstate commerce, it ruled that the aggregate production of these farms could be considered under the commerce clause. McCullough posited that although Congress has interstate commerce powers, “growing wheat for your own animals in your ‘back 40’ under any conception of the term is not commerce.”

However, expansions of federal power are not always so problematic. When 14th Amendment equal rights are involved, expansions of federal power have a stronger textual basis. For instance, in Katzenbach v. McClung, which ultimately forbade racial discrimination in restaurants, the Court conceded that the federal government could not regulate the business of restaurants doing intrastate commerce. The Court instead used Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which derives its authority from the 14th Amendment, to justify its decision. McCullough stated, “At least on civil rights and racial segregation, you can point to specific constitutional provisions that give both certain rights and allow Congress to legislate.” Specifically, Justice William O. Douglas’ concurring opinion in Katzenbach was correct in that equal protection provided a stronger constitutional basis for accepting the majority opinion than the commerce clause.

From employment conditions in United States v. Darby Lumber Co. to marijuana regulation in Gonzales v. Raich, the modern Court has used the commerce clause to regulate countless aspects of American life. McCullough has “no particular objection to Congress regulating interstate commerce as it is specifically authorized to do … [however] the commerce clause provides a sickly justification for intervention in all these other areas.”

With federal institutions setting these standards, state governments can be left powerless to tailor legislation according to their regional characteristics without defying federal law.

A potential fix to allow state-level voices on national decisions is a new judiciary act allowing two-thirds of state legislatures to force the Supreme Court to hear a certain case, essentially giving a supermajority of states plenary review power.

Such an external limit maintains the court’s insulation from the political process but reaffirms the principle of federalism. For example, South Dakota v. Wayfair, which overturned a federal prohibition on states’ abilities to tax internet sales, would have been heard earlier. A less severe and more plausible recommendation is to give oral argument time to a specified number of state attorneys or solicitors general during court hearings.

GROWTH OF NATIONAL REGULATORY STATE As McCullough remarked, “It is really quite amazing how federal regulation is pervasive in your life. Nearly everything that is sold is fairly extensively regulated at the federal level.”

Thus another way federal power has expanded is through the growth of the national regulatory state.

Sometimes, federal regulation is an efficient method to streamline policy or business with inconsequential reductions in state power. For instance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration releases national guidelines on automobile door latch specifications. If each state were to set different standards for latch safety, carmakers would face extraordinarily high compliance costs. Therefore, if the federal government sets regulatory standards that improve economic efficiency or promote a common interest, such as protecting

18 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW FALL 2019

the environment, then they are a sensible expansion of federal power.

However, the federal government is oftentimes hindered by a slow-moving or inflexible bureaucracy. McCullough describes the states as “more nimble,” while the federal government “gets some sort of sclerosis with bad legislation that won’t be revisited. It does make sense to have uniformity in interstate commerce. But when it comes to other policies, it has been damaging to innovation and local autonomy.” More flexibility among states to fill in policy gaps is an avenue to promote innovative legislation. California has demonstrated this by passing regulation regarding self-driving cars which can serve as an example for federal legislation in the future.

The regulatory state also has implications for the individual rights of citizens. For instance, the federal government streamlined civic participation standards in the Voting Rights Act of 1965. As Jenna Bednar, a professor of political science at the University of Michigan and preeminent researcher on federalism, told the HPR, “Voting rights is an interesting one because we had this centralization, but now states are exploring other ways of regulating who is able to participate politically that is either not in violation of the Voting Rights Act or through the Supreme Court which has minimized the effect of the Voting Rights Act.” The court also has internal doctrines that favor the growth of federal regulatory power. For instance, Chevron and Auer give preferential treatment to the federal government and federal bureaucracies respectively to interpret Congressional statutes. In a highly complex policy arena such as environmental regulation, these interpretative and enforcement advantages can significantly impact state sovereignty in the judicial system. If an industry-heavy state were to stray from the Environmental Protection Agency’s internal CO2 standards, for example, the Court would be unlikely to support a state legal challenge.

UNBALANCED SPENDING POWERS The third and final reason for the expansion in federal power is simple: money. Before the federal income tax, the national government was starved for revenue, primarily relying on land sales to fund itself. With the passage of the 16th Amendment, McCullough asserts “any fiscal constraints on the expansion of federal power were removed.” This means that many of the modern comforts of life are dictated by federal prerogatives — often with strings attached, such as the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act, as decided by NFIB v. Sebelius.

This imbalance in spending power can force states to adopt new policies in order to keep old programs alive. As McCullough put it, “States, which were meant to function sovereignly and autonomously within their own sphere, are slowly morphing to become atrophies of the federal government because of the spending power. In the long run, it has a destructive effect on policymaking because they have a need to use federal money to balance their budget. You can see that in Virginia, which was originally a holdout on the Affordable Care Act before caving to the siren song of the federal purse.”

In an interview with the HPR, Delegate Schuyler VanValkenburg, a Democrat from Virginia’s 72nd District, supported Medicaid expansion but also noted the fiscal incentive of adopting a federal program. He said, “I was for Medicaid expansion

UNITED STATES

for the coverage piece, but also it was insane to not expand just financially. Because once you expanded, you got federal dollars.

We saved hundreds of millions of dollars … Once we expanded Medicaid, it allowed us to spend more on education and restore our reserve funds ... If you can get that money [for programs] without taxing your citizenry, why wouldn’t you do that? That’s the incentive structure.”

Other crosscutting requirements, such as a minimum drinking age when funding state highways, are often attached to promote federal interests. Or, federal funding for state education budgets is only renewed if schools meet national testing standards. Without this federal funding, states could not practically provide the services and responsibilities expected of them by both the Constitution and their constituents. Bednar added, “If you can attach strings to your spending, then you can shape state policy environments … [and] the court [has] left open the use of spending authority to shape policy.”

Many government programs available today are only available through federal grants. The education and Medicare/ Medicaid systems are often the largest items on a state budget, and federal funding has undoubtedly improved these programs for almost all state citizens. However, the Court must protect state governments from being unnecessarily or unfairly coerced by the federal government through its spending power.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE? With renewed attention on the federal government’s increase in power, the question becomes: Should states be empowered again? The answer is yes, but only when the federal government fails in its duties or oversteps its bounds.

McCullough mentioned the important check states place on potential federal abuses of power. He said, “When you diffuse power, it is more inefficient, but it makes it harder for that power to be abused. One of the consequences in centralizing power is there is a greater opportunity to abuse that power because barriers that used to stop the flow of that power in bad

— or good — directions has been removed.”

State legislatures can sometimes be the only places to pass new policy, especially in hyperpolarized national climates like ours. Bednar asserted that “the rise of divisions between the parties is paralyzing Congress. Congress cannot pass anything, so we have a policy vacuum that the states can step in.” If Congress, the Court, and the president fail to innovate on policy, protect rights, or enforce law, the states have a responsibility to act within their constitutional bounds.

Federalism is a two-way street to make laws specific to a state, not a wholly partisan issue. Conservatives have already applied federalism to abortion while liberals have used it to protect transgender rights. Politicians from both sides of the aisle can find use in concentrating policy interests to individual states. As VanValkenburg would say, “We are all fair-weather federalists.”

Simply put, our nation is too large to uniformly expect agreement from all states. Instead, the federal government should focus on issues that are either clearly national or are delegated to them in the Constitution. Other policies should be left to state and local governments, which can cater laws to their specific constituents. McCullough’s view is simple: “Just give the states the flexibility to enact legislation appropriate to the citizens of their states. Give them the latitude to experiment with different policy proposals and I think that would work to everyone’s benefit.”

The discrepancy faced by marijuana users on the drive from Boston to Martha’s Vineyard is not just a novel problem caused by happenstance geography. Instead, it reflects a classic point of contention between the different layers of government. A few things are clear: The Supreme Court must evaluate federalism claims from a rights-based perspective, the national regulatory state is necessary for uniform standards, and spending powers must not be coercive. With a more balanced power structure between national and state governments, citizens will have a government that is more representative, more robust, and more equal. n

FALL 2019 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 19

UNITED STATES

Birthday Cakes, not Wedding Cakes

J.D. Deal

P

icture this: You have finally worked up the courage to tell your parents that you are gay. Today is the day and despite all the homophobic side comments and dodged questions about dating, you are finally going to do it. You are shaking, tears well up in your eyes, and your throat starts to close as you force out two words: “I’m gay.”’

It does not go well. Your parents kick you out of the house and say you are no child of theirs. Disowned, beaten down, and broken, you call up a friend and ask to stay over for the night, and they have a couch for you. You were lucky enough to keep the keys to your car, and you drive over to spend the night. You keep doing this for a month, different friends each time, until you finally end up just living in your car.

This is a recognizable picture for 640,000 LGBTQ youth in the United States, or approximately 40 percent of the 1.6 million young Americans who experience homelessness. It is perhaps the most daunting of the many issues that confront LGBTQ youth today; others include forced conversion therapy and high rates of suicide.

But these are not the issues that contemporary politics focuses on. Instead, marriage equality and the fight against religious exemptions have recently captured the public eye. Today, causes like the Equality Act are addressing some of the real challenges within the adult LGBTQ community, but youth are left to fend for themselves, whether on a friend’s couch or in a session of conversion therapy.

Instead of receiving help from Washington, LGBTQ youth are forced to rely on other institutions to support them. Nonprofit organizations like the Ali Forney Center, Iowa Safe Schools, and The Trevor Project are helping to reduce the impact and prevalence of youth homelessness, as well as of inequality in schools and disproportionately high suicide rates. But they get little assistance from political parties, presidential candidates, and lawmakers.

20 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW FALL 2019

The LGBTQ youth community needs action, not just allyship.

Political leaders need to put in the work at the top of our system, just as grassroots groups have been doing at the bottom. Direct services mean nothing if these issues are not being addressed systemically. Many Democratic political leaders pay only lip service to LGBTQ issues; rather than constantly referring to their voting records, the Equality Act, and token shows of support, they should work to be strong advocates for new policies that can save the lives of LGBTQ youth.

DIGGING DEEPER INTO THE ISSUES “Kedarie Johnson, a 16-year-old black, genderqueer youth in Burlington, Iowa was murdered in the middle of a school week,” recounted Nate Monson, executive director of Iowa Safe Schools, in an interview with the HPR. “And the kid was shot multiple times, tortured, had bleach poured on them, and left for dead because of their gender identity. And you know what happened?

Nothing. Nothing happened.”

Beyond high rates of homelessness, LGBTQ youth are also at greater risk for hate crimes and suicide. Furthermore, they also face unique challenges like conversion therapy because of their sexuality. While LGBTQ Americans have made great strides over the past decade, more needs to be done, and LGBTQ youth are especially in need of active allies.

“I am so tired of us talking about wedding cakes when we have to get kids to their next birthday cakes,” said Monson. “We talk about people being able to get married and wedding cakes in these religious exemption bills. There are LGBTQ students still comtemplating suicide because they are being bullied, discriminated against, and treated like shit. And that’s it. We are really talking about someone getting married when we have kids that are dying?”

UNITED STATES

Monson’s frustration is well-founded. While the data for LGBTQ-related hate crimes is often unreliable and underestimate the prevalence of anti-LGBTQ crimes, a report from the FBI notes that overall, hate crimes increased by 17 percent from 2016 to 2017. Monson also mentioned teen suicide: A report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirms that “suicide was higher among gay, lesbian, and bisexual students [at 42.8 percent] than heterosexual students [at 14.8 percent].”

These numbers back up Monson’s anecdotes and reinforce the message that most politicians have not acknowledged: Despite the gains made by LGBTQ Americans, LGBTQ youth are still at risk.

POLITICIANS In 2011, ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ was repealed. In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. In 2019, the House of Representatives voted to block President Trump’s discriminatory transgender military ban. In the past, politicians have been an active force for progress for LGBTQ Americans.

Today, politicians — and especially the 2020 Democratic candidates — must step up to the plate again.

Too often, politicians take the safe road on LGBTQ issues to the detriment of LGBTQ youth. The hot-button issue of the day is the Equality Act, which would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in places of public accommodation. While important for LGBTQ rights across the board, supporting this bill seemingly gives Congresspeople an excuse not to co-sponsor other bills which pertain directly to the safety of youth.

Consider the “Protecting LGBTQ Youth Act,” introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.). The Act would add language to the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act specifically protecting LGBTQ youth from abuse. It also calls for more research on how to protect LGBTQ youth from abuse, trains personnel to meet the needs of LGBTQ youth, and adds categories on sexual orientation and gender identity to child abuse reports. While the Equality Act is supported by all Democratic members of the Senate, Kaine’s bill is co-sponsored by only one other senator. Similarly, 240 House Democrats co-sponsor the Equality Act, while only 88 co-sponsor an act to essentially ban conversion therapy across the country.

These numbers are not meant to criticize the Equality Act, but they do point out that this allyship only extends so far. Legal protections are incredibly important, but youth need extra attention, and there are simple, common-sense solutions available to Congress — should it choose to consider them.

For many queer youth, school does not provide the support systems they need. According to a 2015 report from the CDC, “LGB students were 140 percent more likely to not go to school … because of safety concerns, compared with heterosexual students,” and “nearly one third of LGB youth had attempted suicide at least once in the prior year compared to six percent of heterosexual youth.” The Student Non-Discrimination Act would provide legal protections specifically for LGBTQ students in an effort to curb these haunting statistics. However, the bill was only introduced in 2018, with no additional actions taken. It has yet to be introduced to the 116th Congress.

Now consider homeless LGBTQ youth. Six hundred and forty thousand homeless LGBTQ youth is far too high a number. In response, Congress could include queer youth in the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. This would mean incorporating

nondiscrimination language, recording better data on queer youth, and changing the grant applicants to include queer youth in their planning documents. When queer youth make up 40 percent of the homeless population, it should be expected that legislation on youth homelessness specificially mentions them.

Currently, it does not.

Waiting for legislators to pass laws is unreliable, and queer youth need support systems now. Nonprofit organizations are forced to fill this void, providing services to homeless LGBTQ students or support for LGBTQ affinity groups in schools. These organizations will always be necessary, but there is no denying that new laws could lessen the burden on them. The ball is clearly in Congress’s court.

THE ASK A rapid increase in American acceptance of the LGBTQ community has masked the challenges that the queer community faces, and sexuality and gender identity are oftentimes still taboo.

As Harvard professor of studies in women, gender and sexuality Michael Bronski explained, “[Queer youth] are experiencing the same problems as in the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s. We live in a country that still has the debate about whether sex education is okay for public schools … [or where] a children’s book in which someone has two mommies is seen as being controversial to read to thirdgraders.”

For queer youth, the legislative strides taken toward acceptance of marriage equality for LGBTQ adults have not translated into improvements in their everday lives. Today, reliable support comes from nonprofit organizations while Congress and the DNC continue to provide allyship rather than action. Democratic candidates, Congresspeople, and other political leaders need to do two things: listen to queer youth and take action on their issues.

Why the need to focus on queer youth specifically? Monson put it perfectly: “Youth overall take a backseat in America, primarily because of not being able to vote. Youth don’t have a lobbyist up there like the oil industry and other corporations.”

When political leaders do take action for the LGBTQ community, it is often just for people within their voter — or donor — pools.

Queer youth do not receive the same kind of attention from political leaders that queer adults do.

Joshua Dantzler, director of social media at Student Voice, a student-run nonprofit that empowers students to take action on issues that impact them, told the HPR in an interview that political leaders should “listen to queer youth not just once, but multiple times over multiple conversations.” However, oftentimes “queer youth are afraid to speak up, afraid to be the ones to start up a conversation.” This creates a cycle that is hard to escape: LGBTQ youth want to be heard, but are afraid to reach out.

For a demographic that often experiences some of the greatest hardships in the LGBTQ community — homelessness, suicide, hate crimes, and conversion therapy — queer youth are far too often ignored. It is dangerous and reckless to cater to voter and donor pools when youth experience greater risk. If the government does not protect queer youth today, they may never reap the benefits progressive policy has achieved for LGBTQ adults. n

FALL 2019 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 21

UNITED STATES

Where the Workers Are

Jay Garg

F

or decades, Germany was the strongest and largest economy in Europe; it was often called the “engine of growth” for the European Union. Today, that engine is beginning to sputter. Businesses in Germany are finding it increasingly hard to hire qualified employees, preventing further expansion.

The reason is simple but massive: The German population has, for a long time, been shrinking and getting older, creating a severe shortage of skilled workers in the workforce. Right now, there are more than a million vacancies across the German economy; in the areas with the lowest unemployment, 60 percent of businesses report that their biggest problem is finding enough skilled workers. Many economists are beginning to wonder if the shortage of skilled workers will plunge Germany into another recession.

The problem is worsening. Researchers at the Bertelsmann Foundation found that by 2060, Germany will experience a 36 percent decline in the size of its labor market, resulting in massive labor shortages for firms all around the country.

In an attempt to forestall this growing crisis and stave off the collapse of the industrial sector, the German cabinet is drafting legislation to encourage skilled immigration from other countries within the European Union and around the world.

Like many developed nations, Germany has realized that highskilled immigration is essential to fulfilling its labor needs. It is time for the United States to do the same.

IS THE UNITED STATES ON THE SAME PATH? Although the American situation is not nearly as severe as that of Germany, there is evidence to suggest that the United States is also suffering from a shortage of skilled workers.

In 2016, there were 13 STEM jobs posted online for every unemployed STEM worker, leaving nearly three million more jobs than professionals capable of filling them. In the computing and IT sectors alone, the Economist reported that there will be more than a million unfillable vacancies by 2020, and in manufacturing the number of skilled vacancies is projected to top 2.4 million, costing $2.5 trillion over the next decade.

William Kerr, a professor at the Harvard Business School, concluded from this shortage that “if we want to grow our economy and expand and pursue all of the opportunities that we have in front of us, then we need to be thinking about how to leverage immigration.” In order to respond to the growing deficit of skilled workers in the American workforce, the H-1B visa program should be expanded and improved.

EXISTING PATHWAYS: THE H-1B PROGRAM The H-1B program is America’s largest guest-worker visa program. It is firm-led; companies find skilled workers that they are interested in employing and then file visa applications

Anirudh Suresh 22 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW FALL 2019

UNITED STATES

for them. If the application is approved, those selected for the program may come live and work in the United States for three years, or six if a visa extension is obtained.

However, the program is currently capped at 85,000 visas — despite receiving more than three times that number of requests within the first week of applications being open. Once that first week is over, a random lottery is used to select the winners from the pool, leaving more than 150,000 skilled workers without the ability to immigrate.

This cap on H-1Bs is problematic because the majority of the available evidence suggests that skilled immigration strengthens the American economy.

Research has shown that college-educated immigrants increase innovation, as measured by patenting activity, within the host country. In fact, skilled immigrants produce twice as many patents as their native counterparts. The H-1B process self-selects for ambitious individuals who are unafraid of taking risks. It thus makes sense that these immigrants would engage in more innovative activity than the average domestic worker.

Patent activity alone can be misleading, though, and Kerr cautioned that immigrants are not simply smarter than native workers; rather, “If you control for a person’s field of study and the level of degree that they have attained, what you find is that you can explain most of the difference between immigrants and natives.” He continued that a higher percentage of H-1B workers are in STEM fields where patenting activity is higher, which is why the effect on patenting seems higher for immigrants than for natives when examined in aggregate. However, despite these caveats, it cannot be denied that immigrants do contribute to productivity and innovation within the United States.

Those increases in productivity and innovation benefit everyone. Professor Giovanni Peri of U.C. Davis suggests that a one percentage point increase in skilled immigration as a share of total employment boosts wages for both skilled and unskilled native workers by seven and three percentage points respectively.

As Peri explained in an interview with the HPR, “Because [high-skilled immigrants] increase the size of the pie by creating higher productivity in companies, they increase the opportunities for American workers to be hired in other types of functions and jobs created by those companies.” Essentially, foreign skilled laborers increase the demand for American workers.

And the effect is larger than one may initially think. In an interview with the HPR, professor Volker Grossman of the University of Fribourg in Switzerland remarked that “higher income per capita can be related to the immigration of highskilled workers, and the effect is actually greater than that from free trade. Usually economists promote free trade, but it seems that if you control for immigration, the effect actually vanishes, so the benefits can be attributed to the immigration of highskilled workers.”

WHERE IS THE CATCH? Although most evidence suggests that H-1B workers benefit the American economy, not all of the implications of expanding the program are positive. Perhaps the most common reason to be wary of the H-1B program is the fear that immigrants will take American jobs or depress wages for American workers.

However, that fear is largely unfounded.

Peri explained that, on average, H-1B workers have higher wages than natives because they are hired for jobs where there is high demand for and low supply of qualified individuals. In conjunction with his research about the positive spillover effect on wages from hiring skilled immigrants, this suggests that skilled immigration complements rather than undermines the American labor force.

This is not to suggest that there is no harm to American workers, at least in the short term. Kerr conceded that “there are certainly some places where pain is felt.” He explained that “if the Boston area was to suddenly receive an influx of highskilled migrants, there would be some people who are in the local workforce, skilled natives, who might not have as strong job opportunities in the immediate future.” Some people could lose their jobs or not get a job because a higher-skilled H-1B employee takes their place.

Kerr concluded, however, that “high-skilled immigration unlocks more opportunities than it takes away. The economy as a whole is going to grow and be stronger, and most of the skilled workforce will find its overall position improved, not diminished, by high-skilled immigration, even if there are some early bumps.”

Another issue that arises in tandem with high-skilled immigration is rising housing costs in urban environments.

Grossmann indicated that cities are subject to land constraints, so “when there are more people moving into cities, house prices rise, because you cannot always build as quickly as you would need. Immigrants contribute to that a lot because immigrants usually immigrate into cities, and highly skilled immigrants are those who earn well and can afford housing better, perhaps, than some natives.”

This could create a significant burden for American workers.

More than half of urban renter households are currently affected by housing insecurity, a term that encapsulates overcrowding, poor physical home condition, affordability, and recent experience of eviction. Adding to this rent burden would likely push more families out of their homes or drain dollars from the wallets of impoverished families that would otherwise have been going to other necessities.

However, this is not necessarily a reason to avoid giving out skilled worker visas. Grossmann elaborated that these housing problems exist because there is not enough housing already in urban environments and because land ownership and wealth distributions are so unequal in the status quo. He concluded that “this unequal wealth distribution becomes bigger because of immigration, but the problem is the high inequality to begin with, not the immigrants.”

REFINING THE PROCESS Although most literature suggests that the H-1B workers have had a significant positive effect on the economy already, there are still steps that can be taken to improve the program.

The most obvious solution is simply to expand the program.

Burdened right now by a cap of 85,000 visas, the H-1B program cannot reach its full potential, and many businesses are unable to gain the skilled labor they need. If the program is expanded, all of the benefits that H-1B employees have brought thus far will only grow as more firms get the workers they need.

Another problem comes with the selection process itself.

FALL 2019 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 23

UNITED STATES

Randomly selecting one-third of the applicants to receive the visa means that an entry level programmer has the same chance of being selected as the unique person who would be able to lead Google’s artificial intelligence department.

To combat this, Kerr believes that a procedure called wageranking could help. Wage-ranking means giving visas to the applicants with the highest wages and then working down the list until the visas run out. In this way, Kerr argued that we would be “using a signal that is coming from the labor market, about how much somebody is being paid, in order to prioritize the usage,” thus giving the visas to the workers who are most needed and wanted.

There are also ideas to prevent companies from being able to undercut American salaries with H-1B employees. Kerr believes that a minimum salary for H-1B workers, arbitrarily set to around $100,000, would “make a floor under which we would not let somebody come in who would be just for cost minimization purposes.”

In a similar vein, Peri suggested that making the visas more portable between companies, so that workers are not tied to the firm that supplied their visa, would increase the market power of the workers themselves and decrease the exploitative power of the firms. Similar to the wage floor offered by Kerr, this would hopefully prevent H-1Bs from being used solely to undercut American workers.

Perhaps the most impactful change to the program would come from changes in the way green cards, which allow workers to reside permanently in the United States, are allocated. U.S. law states that no country may receive more than 7 percent of all green cards in a given fiscal year, creating backlogs and bottlenecks for countries like India and China from which many

24 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW FALL 2019

of our visa holders originate. As a result, many of the workers who come to America on H-1B visas are sent home, unable to obtain a green card. After resources have been invested into training an employee who has integrated into the workflow of the office, the loss of those workers actually presents an economic loss for this country.

Furthermore, it is these three factors — that not everybody can get a visa or an extension on their visa, that the visas are tied to a given company, and that green cards are incredibly hard to obtain — that turn the H-1B system from simply an inefficient process into an inhumane one in which immigrants are forced to live in fear. Dependent on their employers and uncertain about their futures in the United States, workers do not purchase cars or houses and do not advocate for themselves at work.

The solution, according to Peri, is simple. “One [visa], if people stay, if they are employed, and if the company continues to sponsor them, should result in one permanent resident application, instead of competing for permanent residency,” he writes. “This will preserve the productivity gain that these people have generated.”

The H-1B program provides a unique opportunity for Americans. Immigrants want to come here, want to join our workforce, and want to help our companies to grow and expand.

And the data suggest that they are good at it. By expanding the supply of H-1B visas, changing how they are allocated, establishing rules to prevent their misuse, and making the path to a green card easier, the American economy will be able to benefit even more fully from the presence of the greatest minds the world has to offer. n

UNITED STATES

Swathi Kella

J

ust over six years ago, a wave of orange flooded the Texas State Capitol. Over 2,000 pro-choice demonstrators displayed signs that read “Shame” and “Abort Patriarchy, Reproduce Dignity” in response to the passage of Texas House Bill 2, which restricted abortion access in the state by imposing harsher standards on abortion clinics. During the three years that this law was in place, Texas saw the number of operational abortion clinics drop from 42 to 19, while the total abortion rate in the state dropped by 28 percent.

This decline in abortion accessibility was not incidental.

Before HB2 found its way into the legislative chambers of Texas’ 150-member statehouse, it was conceived by a 12-person team known as Americans United for Life, a policy advocacy organization that works to ban abortion at any stage of pregnancy.

AUL is one of many advocacy groups that draft model legislation for state governments, creating copy-and-paste bills that have appeared across the country as part of a coordinated effort to change national policy.

Collectively, groups like AUL have become the ghostwriters of the government, scripting legislation to further their own ends.

Their copycat campaigns have proven very successful, enacting 2,100 bills into law over the past eight years, largely by exploiting the lack of public awareness around state politics and the lack of accountability for state lawmakers. This copy-and-paste phenomenon reflects a broader strategy, in which model legislation groups pursue state-by-state policy change in order to advance a particular national legislative agenda. The strategy’s success calls into question whether special interests have taken precedence over public ones in American policy-making.

A CULTURE OF COPYCATS Model legislation is much more pervasive than it might initially appear to many Americans. Earlier this year, a study by U.S. News, The Arizona Republic, and the Center for Public Integrity found that copies of legislation were introduced more than 10,000

FALL 2019 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 25

UNITED STATES

times over the course of the last eight years. Of these 10,000 bills, 4,000 supported industry and 4,000 supported conservative interests, while 1,600 supported liberal interests. Together, model legislation groups have advanced some of the largest special interest campaigns in American politics, almost always through the veiled politics of the statehouse.

Since it tends to be less central in Americans’ minds than the federal government, the statehouse provides the ideal cover for special interest politics. A survey by John Hopkins University found that fewer than 20 percent of Americans could name their state legislators, and about one-third could not name their governor. Further still, only half of state residents could accurately name which policy issue received the most state funds. Coupled with this lack of public awareness about state government is a shocking lack of oversight, which further enables the proliferation of special interest politics. Although 41 states have government bodies to oversee state ethics laws, many of these bodies fail to adequately do their jobs: Only three states in the union received grades higher than a D+ from the State Integrity Investigation for their transparency and accountability.

Despite their lack of public attention and regulatory scrutiny, state governments can be pivotal in national policy change. “State governments control important social and economic policies — taxes, regulation, social welfare programs, and labor rights, for instance,” political scientist Alexander Hertel-Fernandez explained to the HPR. For these reasons, Hertel added, state politics have historically granted opportunities for partisan lawmakers — particularly conservative lawmakers — to advance policy goals that they could not achieve at the federal level.

As special interest groups seek to exploit the shrouded politics of the statehouse, much of the legislation ushered through state governments reflects the interests of big corporations and advocacy groups more than those of the public. For example, the American Legislative Exchange Council, whose models have been adapted into nearly 2,900 model bills in all 50 states and whose membership includes nearly one-third of all lawmakers, openly advocates for pro-corporate legislation counter to many Americans’ expressed interests. For instance, ALEC drafted the Living Wage Mandate Preemption Act in 2002, which repeals any local laws attempting to set a “living wage,” and has supplied the language for legislation against increasing the minimum wage in 12 states. Yet public surveys show that most Americans may not stand to benefit from such legislation: Eighty percent of Americans in 2015 did not believe they could support themselves or their families on the minimum wage, and 66 percent of Americans in 2013 favored increasing the minimum wage.

For these model legislation groups, changing state policy is an incremental approach to changing national policy. AUL, for instance, has introduced pro-life legislation across various states with the ultimate goal of overturning Roe v. Wade, according to AUL Senior Counsel Clarke Forsythe, who spoke with the HPR about the group’s strategy and vision. AUL has been largely successful in its efforts: In 2018, they provided the language for or helped enact 19 new pro-life laws and two pro-life resolutions.

While Forsythe recognized that the path to federal change would be slow, he remained confident that AUL’s efforts at the state level would ultimately produce national pro-life policy change.

26 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW FALL 2019

THE COPYCAT UNDERGROUND In mid-August 2019, legislators, lobbyists, and corporations converged at the Marriott Hotel in Austin, Texas for the annual ALEC conference. While conferences like these showcase the legislative efforts of model legislation groups, much of the work continues year-round in task forces that aim to deliver potential legislation, ALEC spokesperson Dan Reynolds told the HPR. There are currently 11 different task forces working on topics such as criminal justice, homeland security, and health and human services. These task forces connect legislators with interest groups and corporate sponsors in order to develop legislation suitable to all parties present. Reynolds described this as an open process: “Anyone can come in and join, if you meet our criteria of [being] a legislative member or stakeholding partner … really what [participants] end up doing is helping each other out. You end up making true models for all the interested parties.” However, these task force meetings exclude ALEC non-members and the press, effectively cutting the broader public out of the conversation.

ALEC has also drawn criticism over its secrecy regarding membership and communications. The group does not post a list of paying members or corporate sponsors, and it drafts model policy in sessions where minutes are not made public. Reynolds described this lack of publicity as a matter of “respecting the privacy of our members,” who do not want these conversations shared. Furthermore, when the model policies developed by groups like ALEC are actually presented as bills, there is no attribution to the groups involved.

For Hertel-Fernandez, this lack of transparency in the legislative process is concerning: “[It is] worrisome that citizens don’t know where their legislators are getting their ideas and bill help.” This secrecy fuels a public incognizance that allows special interests to easily capture major issues and enact policies that Hertel-Fernandez claims are actually opposed by a majority of Americans.

Meanwhile, other model legislation groups are looking beyond written laws in attempting to set policy goals in motion. Forsythe, for example, identified three main strategies that AUL uses to promote its pro-life agenda: legal advocacy, legislation, and education. In the courts, AUL’s team of legal experts and medical consultants submit amicus briefs in favor of policies that restrict abortion. In the legislatures, AUL drafts model policies for states.

Its annual publication Defending Life celebrates the group’s yearly legislative victories and gives policy recommendations for the coming year. And in terms of education, the group publishes opeds on a range of issues, from Supreme Court decisions to instrumental leaders in the pro-life movement. Together, these tactics form a comprehensive strategy to dominate state politics.

In order for such multi-pronged efforts to succeed, model policy groups must secure adequate funding. “To build crossstate power, you need years of sustained infrastructure-building,” stated Hertel-Fernandez, “with generous donors willing to fund organizations even when those groups weren’t achieving policy successes.” ALEC has been highly successful in this area, acquiring $21 million in donations and dues from its private sector members between 2008 and 2011. Many of its fundraising and financial management practices, however, have come under public scrutiny, with critics filing a formal complaint to the IRS

UNITED STATES

charging that ALEC misuses charity tax-exemption policies by covering up activities that could be considered lobbying efforts.

CHANGING THE MODEL In recent years, advocacy organizations have brought greater attention to model legislation groups and the influence of special interests in state governments. One of these organizations is ALEC Exposed, a six-person team based in Madison, Wisconsin and a subset of The Center for Media and Democracy. The team works to publicize ALEC’s activities, which involves tracking the undisclosed ALEC membership list and uncovering the corporations behind specific model bills.

“Our previous executive director used to say that before the ALEC Exposed investigation was launched, if you typed ALEC into Google, you would just see tons of posts of the actor Alec Baldwin. Now you get Amerlican Legislative Exchange Council more often than that,” David Armiak, the research director at ALEC Exposed, told the HPR. For decades after its founding, knowledge of ALEC remained largely confined to the political circles of conservative politicians. This secrecy changed in 2011 following the publication of a groundbreaking report by ALEC Exposed and The Nation. After investigating an archive of over 800 leaked model policies, the two groups revealed ALEC’s outsized impact on the legislative process and the influence of its multiple corporate donors, including Koch Industries and AT&T, which invested millions of dollars to pass pro-business state legislation. To date, ALEC Exposed has convinced over 115 organizations to stop supporting ALEC, according to Armiak, and the group hopes to see this number increase.

While ALEC Exposed targets the model legislation pipeline through exposure and public accountability, other organizations are working to combat the proliferation of model legislation by engaging directly with state politics. The past decade has seen the rise of many liberal counterparts to conservative advocacy groups, including Flippable, Forward Majority, and Sister District.

Currently, these counterparts are doubling down on their efforts to secure liberal majorities for 2020 statehouses.

Future Now is one group that has managed to construct its own stronghold of liberal model legislation, largely by developing a network of progressive state legislators. In only two years, Future Now has gained the support of over 600 legislators in working to counter the influence of conservative model legislation groups in the statehouse. The organization is primarily concerned with transparency, which it sees as imperative for ensuring that conservative copy-and-paste legislation, like that produced by ALEC, does not capture state politics.

In an interview with the HPR, Daniel Squadron, the cofounder and executive director of Future Now, argued that when the source and purpose of a bill are hidden from the public, as is typically the case with model legislation, special interests can easily gain control of the lawmaking process. Future Now aims to change this. For Squadron, “sharing best practices across states and building networks of state lawmakers who have common goals,” which advocacy groups across the political aisle seek to do, can encourage policy-making informed by public interest, even allowing for the positive use of model legislation — so long as it remains transparent. To this end, Future Now has published its

set of aims, which it calls America’s Goals, and openly discloses its partners.

To some, however, Future Now may not seem so different from ALEC. In Armiak’s opinion, groups like Future Now only create more problematic special interests in state governments.

“Just adding ... groups that write and create model legislation is not what our democracy needs,” Armiak stated. “Our democracy needs politicians to sit down more with their constituents more and they should be writing legislation based on input from their constituents — not some corporation [or] special interest group.”

Meanwhile, Hertel-Fernandez supports diminishing the power of special interest politics by bolstering the independence of state legislatures. Strengthening staff support, increasing pay, and lengthening legislative sessions could grant lawmakers the time and resources they need to properly deliberate over policy decisions, as opposed to relying on template legislation.

“Even with greater resources, of course, some legislators may well decide to rely on ALEC or other similar groups,” HertelFernandez conceded, “but the difference is that at least they will have a choice.”

While Americans may find themselves focused on the upcoming 2020 presidential election, state legislatures remain a largely invisible hotbed for battles over national policy and political ideology. Copy-and-paste campaigns have allowed special interest groups to advance national legislative agendas by influencing statehouses across the country. And without greater public attention, it may prove difficult to achieve a policy-making process that is more representative of the people’s interests than of third parties’. n

FALL 2019 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 27

WORLD

The Invisible Deluge Ava Salzman

T

his March, Cyclone Idai swirled toward the Mozambican coast from the Indian Ocean, an alarming boil of colors crossing weather channel screens. When it touched land, it reached levels of intensity that solidified its place in recent history as the worst weather-related disaster to strike the Southern Hemisphere.

The damage left in the storm’s wake — millions displaced and billions of dollars in infrastructure costs — indicated a looming problem. Due to climate change, weather-related natural disasters have been expected to increase drastically in frequency and intensity worldwide. Just weeks after Idai, a second record-breaking cyclone, Cyclone Kenneth, further devastated Mozambique, confirming this projection.

And yet, coverage and aid for Cyclone Idai took several days to arrive and waned within weeks. Cyclone Kenneth barely made a news blip. The result was an overwhelmed country, pressed beyond its ability to transport resources, communicate information, and assist endangered families.

These cyclones are no isolated incident. A 2013 study on natural disaster coverage from 2000 to 2010 found that while news topics typically have a life of about 18.5 months, natural disasters — in the United States alone — get about 12 months of coverage, with almost two thirds of that coverage coming in the first 30 days after the disaster. Additionally, disparities in coverage and subsequent aid across different regions of the world are stark to say the least. So why do these disastrous events fizzle so quickly in the media cycle?

28 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW FALL 2019

OFF THE GRID Any news story involves a reciprocal relationship between the reporter and those being reported on. The Irish Times pointed out that although the coverage of Cyclones Idai and Kenneth was inadequate, this lack of content resulted largely from low internet penetration within the areas hit the hardest, making it difficult for survivors to communicate information about the disasters.

According to the International Telecommunications Union, in 2017 sub-Saharan Africa contained more countries with under 9 percent of the population able to access the internet than any other region worldwide. This perpetuates a broader separation between these vulnerable areas and the more economically developed ones. Social media has emerged as the modern medium of coordinating relief efforts. The more limited the communication from the site itself, the less thorough the analysis and response the disaster receives.

THE WAITING GAME Another consistent pattern is equally troubling: Countries with a lack of local journalists and first responders have no one available to actually coordinate a response immediately after a disaster strikes. Countries like Mozambique, without the independent resources to invest in local journalism or robust emergency services, must wait for both journalism and aid to come from abroad.

WORLD

Gregory C. Carr, the president of Gorongosa National Park in Mozambique, identified this as a central problem in an interview with the HPR. “This is normal, not unusual to Mozambique or Cyclone Idai,” he explained. “When a disaster hits … the professional disaster responders could be anywhere in the world. They are going to need a number of days or weeks to mobilize.” The wait for influential foreign journalists and aid agencies to arrive happens during the crucial period in which most people are left in critical danger and during which most damage occurs.

And Carr has taken on this problem, at least where he can control it, by training his park teams to act as immediate first responders after cyclones.

FINDING THE BIG PICTURE Even after Mozambique started receiving that attention from foreign journalists and aid, it was insufficient for the country’s rebuilding needs. Carr partially attributed this to a broader trend in journalism: Investigative journalism budgets are stalling or declining precisely as the frequency of these disasters is increasing, creating a concerning gap. “Climate change is upon us. There will be more disasters, needing more quality journalism to cover them. However, in the age of the internet, a lot of the ‘traditional media’ is seeing their budgets decline.” The result? Coverage is abandoned quickly as journalists are forced to pursue the next headline.

Constraints on budget and time also skew the media’s focus towards the most dramatic elements of a disaster, often inaccurately reflecting the larger picture. Mainstream news outlets courting viewership sometimes offer extreme angles without context, making assessment of — and response to — the situation difficult and weak.

WHAT IS A “DISASTER” ANYWAY? This July, Mami Mizutori, the U.N. assistant secretarygeneral for disaster risk reduction, pointed out that while largescale climate-related natural disasters receive coverage and aid, more small-scale climate crises with the potential to damage communities do not. What is more, Mizutori reported, is that that these small-scale climate disasters are now occurring at a rate of approximately one per week worldwide.

In an interview with the HPR, Mizutori expanded: “What we have noticed is that [these] disasters have been always affecting all countries, but the trend we’ve been seeing in the past 30 years is that 90 percent of all disasters are related in one way or another to what we believe is climate change.” The consequences of low-intensity or “slow-onset” disasters such as droughts, heat waves, flash floods, and landslides — events which would not normally receive major news coverage — are growing more serious in terms of loss of life, economic damage, and geographical spread, Mizutori confirmed.

One example of a “slow-onset” and often overlooked disaster is groundwater depletion. Former NASA hydrologist and science communicator James Famiglietti said in an interview with the HPR that of the world’s 37 major aquifers, about 20 are past the “sustainability tipping point”: “About 50 percent of the water we use for irrigation comes from groundwater. As that groundwater disappears, the sustainability of our food supply begins to erode.”

While an issue like groundwater depletion amounts to a potential “crisis of epic proportions,” it is hard to communicate, he noted, as groundwater is not visible. This is troubling, especially given its implications for climate change and population growth. “As there is more drought, we’re going to use more groundwater; but if there’s more drought, there’s no rain, so there’s less replenishment of the groundwater …

Throw in a little population growth, and it’s a perfect storm.”

Indeed, drought has been acknowledged as one of the major propellants of civil war in Syria, where drought-based resource scarcity sparked a mass migration from rural to urban areas that escalated social tensions.

Such an alarming conclusion suggests the danger of maintaining such a narrow view of what constitutes a newsworthy disaster while so many threats to humanity fester and interconnect beyond the public view. And it confirms that leading publications and governments are more preoccupied with relief aid and short-term mitigation than analysis of, and adaptation to, trends. “The problem is that because of the increasing frequency and severity of these disasters … there simply isn’t enough money for relief,” Mizutori concluded — the amount of money pledged at the donor conference for Cyclone Idai relief was less than half of what was necessary, he said. The result of all these dynamics is a vicious cycle, in which disaster relief falls short and disaster preparation does not follow.

Many stakeholders involved in climate science, disaster management, and journalism have concluded that the conventional 24-hour news cycle fails to capture the sustained attention the issues require, and have sought to develop some alternatives.

STRENGTHENING THE HOME FRONT To ensure that more frequent disasters in more vulnerable places are better reported — and subsequently managed — going forward, people like Carr and Mizutori have focused their energy on emboldening capacity at the local level through two key initiatives: cultivating local journalism and investing in infrastructure. With less reliance on foreign training and money, informed local journalists can provide accurate and contextualized information, and relief institutions can immediately begin helping the most vulnerable. “Local journalists will not only be there when the disaster happens ... they could stay [permanently] after the international media has gone on to the next disaster,” Carr explained, underscoring the importance of supporting strong local journalism.

Journalism also plays a crucial role in ensuring the accountability of aid programs and government programs during the relief and rebuilding process. After a major disaster, wealthy donors pledge money or services at major donor conferences.

Journalists ensure that the public pressure stays on these donors to follow through on their pledges; they also monitor the integrity of the organizations designated to handle the funds.

But infrastructure is also at the heart of the issue. Improving housing, reducing social inequality, and investing in disaster risk mitigation, Mizutori thinks, are key to escaping the cycle of insufficient short-term donations and minimizing unnecessary damage. Carr highlighted the importance of empowering the world’s poorest communities, who, in Mozambique, had their unstable houses completely swept away by storm: “We all know

FALL 2019 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 29

WORLD

Left: A helicopter prepares to drop food and supplies to a family stranded by Cyclone Idai. Right: Two women walk through flooded land after the cyclone.

that poor people suffer in storms more than wealthy people, who tend to live on higher ground and have more stable housing. This is a long-term issue for this century.”

STICKING WITH THE NARRATIVES For Natalia Antelava, “there are two things blatantly missing from the way the mainstream media covers crisis in general … one is context, another is continuity.” She is an investigative journalist and the editor-in-chief at Coda Story; she spoke with the HPR while in her previous role as a foreign correspondent at the BBC. Understanding the complex relationships between different factors during a disaster is crucial, but not easy. Antelava has been struck by the lack of context surrounding disaster coverage; during the 2008 Burma cyclone, for instance, the key links between the disaster and Burma’s subsequent political turnover were completely overlooked. This lack of context makes it harder to extract broader trends from the news, which “really affects our ability as journalists to explain the world … and, as consumers of news, to understand the world,” Antelava explained.

“Mainstream media is terrible at staying on stories,” she expanded. “By definition, the newspaper and broadcast [were] always created for disposable platforms … The format we’re used to creating still carries that legacy of those disposable formats, even though current platforms are no longer disposable.” The answer to the flaws in the news cycle, then, may not come from reforming existing update-oriented systems; it may instead lie in creating new, depth-oriented platforms.

Antelava’s response was to found Coda Story, an independent journalism outlet whose mission statement reads: “Coda takes one crisis at a time and deploys a team of local and international reporters, video journalists, artists and designers to think through what themes and stories fuel each crisis.” By providing continuous investigation into a few complex issues, it informs consumers about the nuanced nature of the issues from the perspective of those who are experiencing them.

30 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW FALL 2019

THE NEW MAINSTREAM However, even in the field of traditional journalism, adaptations are underway. Journalist Carol Davenport has reported on the fight in Washington over climate change policy for the New York Times since 2006. In an interview with the HPR, she attributed changes in climate change reporting to growing levels of concern among career government employees.

“In this administration, a lot of career employees who historically would never have wanted to or wouldn’t be allowed to talk to reporters are so stressed by some of the policies they see happening … that they talk to reporters in a way that they haven’t before.” She added that many officials seek reporters through encrypted technologies to maintain anonymity.

What is more, Davenport said, the scientific evidence is now clear enough that journalists can immediately link a weather event to climate change. Coverage of natural disasters can explicitly and certainly draw the connection to the larger phenomenon of climate change.

Drawing upon her experience as a former small-town reporter, Davenport also emphasized the importance of connecting environmental news and policy to individual lives in meaningful ways: “One thing I try to do is to get real people in my stories,” she said.

While Davenport does not explicitly advocate for particular policies, she reports on the general consensus of scientific experts, subsequent policy proposals, and questions of their political tenability. Despite the world’s deep political divides, she identified a current of hope for the future of climate change reporting — for her, the fact that climate change is now universally considered major news is a major achievement.

These interconnected, invisible deluges are beginning to show themselves. What we need is a coordinated and informed response to climate change as a global crisis, instead of isolated and insufficient attention for a handful of disasters. It will be up to the media and its consumers to demand this shift, and creative solutions are on the way — but there is no time to waste. n

WORLD

GROWING PAINS Jamal Nimer

FALL 2019 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 31

B

uilt on seemingly endless resources, Saudi Arabia’s economy has grown alongside the global energy market until now. But as a clean energy shift threatens the oil market, Saudi Arabia must transition or be left behind.

Streamlined diversification of government revenue sources, investment in key industries, and cultivation of human capital will benefit Saudi Arabia in a new international energy market.

“ENERGY IS THE BACKBONE” Oil has long served as the foundation of Saudi Arabia’s economic development, fiscal policy, and international standing.

Prior to drilling, the state was poor, nearly declaring bankruptcy in 1932. Exploration and development facilitated by foreign capital rapidly changed the country’s economic prospects.

The nationalization of the oil sector under Saudi Aramco in 1988 allowed the state to make great use of its natural reserves.

The Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency reports that by 1991, oil generated 77.8 percent of government revenue, encompassed 35.1 percent of GDP, and represented an overwhelming 90.9 percent of total exports.

The nationalization of the Saudi oil sector has since helped facilitate diplomatic interests. To ensure an uninterrupted supply of cheap Middle Eastern oil, the United States maintains an alliance with Saudi Arabia. The resulting military trade deals, as well as the United States’ support for maintaining the Saudidominated regional balance of power, ensure Saudi cooperation.

The same holds true for other partners. For China, “energy is the backbone of the relationship,” while the 2006 Delhi Declaration with India ensures a “reliable, stable and increased volume of crude oil supplies, through ‘evergreen’ long-term contracts.”

Oil nationalization is also a critical component of the relationship between the Kingdom and its subjects. As a state-driven economy, nearly two-fifths of the workforce is employed in the public sector. The state’s wealth relative to the size of its population allows for robust welfare benefits, particularly for public employees. During the Arab Spring, King Abdullah was able to generate loyalty by increasing salaries and pledging $130 billion to infrastructure investment. Citizens expect services and subsidies while enjoying a miniscule tax burden relative to GDP. In this political economy, Saudi Arabians are recipients rather than producers of state wealth. Export revenues underwrite the social contract between the Saudi government, its citizens, and strategic international partners.

BLOWN AWAY As the international energy market shifts away from crude oil, Gulf states and other major oil producers will lose substantial revenue. While they will still export substantial gas to Europe and Asia, as well as take advantage of the remaining oil market, their economies may suffer a significant blow.

The international energy market is poised for dramatic shifts in the coming decades. Bloomberg New Energy Foundation predicts world power generation will transition from two-thirds fossil fuels in 2017 to two-thirds renewable energy by 2050. The International Energy Agency expects oil use in cars will peak in the mid-2020s as electric vehicles penetrate the market. In 2018, Tesla sold more of its electric Model 3s than Audi, BMW, and Mercedes sold of their entry-level luxury vehicles — combined.

32 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW FALL 2019

Although electric vehicles have displaced only a small part of the oil market so far, Bloomberg NEF is certain this cultural shift will continue, affecting oil demand at a faster rate than oil companies might expect.

Germany, China, and the United States stand to benefit the most from these developments. Infrastructure investment, leadership in development, and market size position them to lead the clean energy push, which are advantages Saudi Arabia does not share.

For Saudi Arabia, this global demand shift will necessitate a transition away from the country’s reliance on exporting crude oil. Although Saudi Aramco is the world’s largest oil producing company, the government cannot rely on stable market demand to fund state expenditures. Saudi Arabia may be able to become a major solar power producer in an altered global energy landscape, but renewable sources are unlikely to generate the same profits, at least in the short term.

Saudi Arabia may therefore also face a threat in the geopolitical realm. In contrast to natural resources, with their limited reservoirs, no single state has control over the world’s renewable resources. Countries do not necessarily require reserves to become significant producers of renewable energy.

Therefore Saudi Arabia, and the Middle East at large, will no longer occupy the same regional pedestal in the energy market.

Both international partnerships and domestic state expenditures have grown to rely on continued Saudi Aramco revenues. While this may have been a feasible governance model during the 20th century, a shift in the international energy market is shaking the ground on which the state’s relationships have been built, both at home and abroad.

ENVISIONING THE FUTURE Petrostates have recognized the transition away from fossil fuels and are responding accordingly. Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia have all developed diversification initiatives to overhaul their economies.

For Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, economic development is only one of three program pillars. “A vibrant society,” “a thriving economy,” and “an ambitious nation” are all components of the Saudi Arabian government’s blueprint for social, political, and economic development.

Designed by McKinsey and Company, Vision 2030’s 12 programs work in tandem to realize a wide range of national interests. With 96 strategic objectives, the plan includes a number of initiatives to support social development, diplomatic relations, and economic growth.

Although proactive in responding to international trends, Saudi Arabia’s plan casts too broad a net. Rather than attempting to grow the economy from a number of underdeveloped fronts all at once, Vision 2030 would be more productive if it placed particular emphasis on areas where the government already has industry expertise.

While potentially useful for developing “national character” as the plan proposes, investing in community service and sports participation will not quickly transition the country towards a more sustainable economic path. In an interview with the HPR, Jean François Seznec, non-resident senior fellow at the Global Energy Center for the Atlantic Council and adjunct professor at the Georgetown McDonough School of Business and John

WORLD

Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, explained that other objectives like transforming Saudi Arabia into a technological center, while seemingly viable, are not cost-efficient strategies given the pressing timeline. “They’re not going to make iPhones in Saudi Arabia,” he said.

Seznec noted that “to do real diversification, you have to go from where you have a natural advantage.” Aramco’s recent acquisition of 70 percent of Saudi Basic Industries Corporation’s shares is one successful example of Vision 2030’s efforts. This new relationship with SABIC, a petrochemical producer, has been described as a “strategic fit” by Saudi Aramco’s senior vice president of downstream, Abdulaziz Al-Judaimi. Seznec elaborated that, by building upon the SABIC-Aramco partnership, the country will be able to move towards highly advanced chemical production and create a lucrative downstream product that is not reliant on oil revenue. “You need very little oil to develop a downstream market, but it creates a whole slew of in-depth industry knowledge which is true growth. Just putting cinemas up is not going to change society. It’s not going to make the country into a big powerhouse.”

Saudi Aramco’s partnership with other companies such as Sadara, a joint venture specializing in biochemical production, can further strengthen and diversify a new base for the Saudi economy. By utilizing the knowhow and resources of the existing oil industry, Saudi Arabia can unlock opportunities for small- and medium-sized enterprises as well as foreign investment.

Vision 2030 can mirror this strategy domestically by capitalizing on key industries. Emphasizing the “Hajj and Umrah Experience” objective would be a more profitable and reliable approach to expanding the tourism industry than investing in Neom, the smart city project. The surrounding hospitality industry would be positively impacted, moving the economy towards new sectors.

In an interview with the HPR, Michele Dunne, director of the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, described additional domestic opportunities that come with Vision 2030. Beyond diversifying its economy and increasing opportunities for foreign investment, Dunne explained that Saudi Arabia must create a productive economy where citizens go from being recipients of state welfare to being “productive, working, earning, tax-paying citizens.” The government must generate revenue from its citizens while simultaneously reevaluating which benefits it can afford to provide.

Vision 2030’s focus on investment in human capital may be as important as its economic diversification efforts, especially as implementation of the program coincides with an advantageous population distribution in Saudi Arabia. Dunne said that the region may be entering into a “demographic sweet spot,” benefiting from a large population of young, able-bodied individuals ready to work while avoiding the heavy state burden posed by very young or old citizens. Relatively unencumbered by dependents, the region will be able to “shoot forward in economic terms.” Human capital development can be facilitated by further integrating women into the workforce, increasing vocational training, and bolstering educational access.

Vision 2030 has enacted objectives to accomplish these goals, but without streamlining the efforts of the program, it will be difficult to produce change at the necessary rate. Utilizing downstream oil byproducts, targeting select industries, and

highlighting human capital development can contribute to an effective long-term strategy for the Saudi economy. The program may eventually evolve to emphasize the country’s comparative advantages and diversify around Riyadh’s areas of expertise.

ROADBLOCKS Despite the detailed blueprints, there are several causes for concern. Dunne pointed to corruption and bureaucracy, which threaten to stall or derail initiatives before they begin paying dividends. A government-sanctioned transition towards the private sector in a state-run economy brings many complications.

Government officials occupy critical stakeholder positions in the political economy, resulting in deep-rooted hostility towards the private sector. Attempting to increase foreign investment and promote small- and medium-sized enterprises would require a reduction in the state’s control of the economy, which would weaken the public sector benefactors.

Saudi Arabia also lacks the funds necessary for the programs proposed. The initiative relies on significant foreign investment and private sector activity. In an interview with the HPR, Samer Mosis, a senior analyst at S&P Global Platts Analytics, asserted that domestic regulatory obstacles are among the greatest factors impeding investor confidence.

Mosis explained that without demonstrating its stability, the ruling government cannot be trusted to be a part of international systems or to secure foreign capital. Saudi Arabia has gripped headlines in multiple recent scandals including the imprisonment of Saudi elites at the Riyadh Ritz-Carlton and the effective kidnapping of the Lebanese prime minister. Most egregious was the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the country’s consulate in Turkey. A range of international business stakeholders quickly pulled out of a Saudi invetsment conference following the incident, citing concerns over Khasoggi’s statesanctioned murder. Far from inspiring confidence, the country has reminded potential investors of its volatility precisely as Vision 2030 is in its infancy.

Looking to the future of Vision 2030, Saudi Arabia must confront issues of corruption, heavy bureaucratic control over state enterprise, and hostility to the private sector. The government must balance an affordable budget while capitalizing on its comparative advantages. If successful, Saudi Arabia will prime itself for successful integration into the global economy.

A balance between downstream oil byproduct development, key domestic industry investments, and increased human capital would position Saudi Arabia best for its upcoming challenges. n

FALL 2019 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 33

WORLD

RunLin Wang

C

utthroat politics, government scandals, and attack ads dominating the airwaves. These problems are not unique to the United Kingdom facing Brexit, or the United States with its current partisan split. Indeed, these characteristics are beginning to plague a nation that few would expect: Canada.

On the international stage, Canada has developed a reputation for moderate and tranquil politics. Many emerging nations have looked to Canada’s parliamentary system as a template, seeking to emulate its ability to ensure harmony and cooperation in both the House of Commons and broader society.

However, recent developments, such as the popularization of attack ads targeting candidates’ personal traits and the public’s reaction to the SNC-Lavalin scandal, indicate that reality has started to deviate from this ideal. Canadian media tends to overlook this domestic shift, instead focusing on the divisiveness south of the border and allowing political tension to quietly grow in Canada. As a result, political polarization in Canada is rapidly increasing, and this rise poses a fundamental threat to the pillars of Canadian democracy.

PRELUDE TO POLARIZATION The origin of Canada’s political unity can be traced back to the administrations of Lester B. Pearson and Pierre Trudeau.

Under these two prime ministers in the 1960s and 1970s, values of tolerance and diversity were heavily emphasized, contributing to the rise of the “brokerage” model of politics in Canada. Under this political philosophy, Canadian political parties framed themselves as negotiators, each with the responsibility to consider different perspectives on various

34 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW FALL 2019

issues. In an interview with HPR, Christopher Cochrane, a professor of political science at the University of Toronto, emphasized that Canadian politicians have historically focused on cooperation, not competition. “Once upon a time, people were involved in politics not because they hated one side or the other side, but because they felt that they had a civic duty to get involved,” he said. This brokerage system embedded values of acceptance and compromise within the Canadian parliamentary system — and social ethos — during the Pearson and Trudeau years. Voters, in turn, mostly abandoned politically extreme ideologies for more moderate ones, leading the international community to see Canada as a democratic role model for collaborative politics and a calm, stable government.

The warning signs that this delicate equilibrium was in danger appeared at the beginning of the 21st century. During a 2004 debate, Stephen Harper of the Conservative Party explicitly listed a number of suburbs that he claimed had been neglected by the previous government, promising to give them more attention under his administration. At the same time, the left-wing New Democratic Party adopted a platform promising specific benefits for the working class in urban areas, including hiring incentives and pension benefits. In an interview with the HPR, Graham Fox, president and CEO of the non-partisan think tank Institute for Research on Public Policy, likened these strategies to “electoral candy — the micro-policies that you can offer to specific subsets of voters” in order to win key constituencies.

This political pandering, aimed at winning more seats, in fact exacerbated a growing divide along undrawn socioeconomic lines in Canada. One study showed that after 1980, the political viewpoints of suburban residents shifted sharply to the right while those of city-dwellers moved to the left. As parties became more polarized through attempts to appease their voter bases,

WORLD

legislative compromises became increasingly difficult for politicians to negotiate.

TRICKLE-DOWN TENSIONS This deviation from the cooperative “brokerage” model led to a greater sense of competition between partisan rivals. As Maxwell Cameron, a professor of comparative politics at the University of British Columbia, noted in an interview with the HPR, “Politics is becoming more adversarial, as we are gradually losing the ability to find common ground between our political parties.” This trend is exemplified by the “Just Not Ready” campaign, a series of attack ads that targeted Canada’s current prime minister, Justin Trudeau, during the 2015 federal election.

The minute-long video departed from traditional Canadian political discourse by explicitly criticizing a single politician rather than his party as a whole, and proved highly effective in influencing Canadian voters. With opposition parties now airing similar “Never Ready” advertisements for the 2019 election, campaigns’ increasing focus on discrediting party leaders continues to actively contribute to an atmosphere of animosity, undermining attempts to reach substantive compromises.

“It’s not really that Tories and Liberals are farther apart than they once were, but the person who used to be an opponent is increasingly an enemy,” Fox summarized.

In the past, weak party solidarity kept the polarizing tendencies of party leadership in check, as elected officials answered more eagerly to their constituents than to party leaders. In an interview with the HPR, Prasad Panda, a minister in the Alberta Provincial Legislature, explained that “regular citizens just want their leaders to behave in a civil manner, be respectful to each other, listen to each other, and collaborate with each other.” This conventional wisdom incentivized politicians to maintain relatively moderate ideologies, as voters tended to support less extreme representatives who could negotiate and pass legislation in the local community’s interests.

However, party solidarity has grown stronger in recent years. In 2018, NDP M.P. David Christopherson voted against

his party’s caucus on an amendment to the Canada Summer Jobs Program. The NDP promptly removed him from his role on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs as punishment. This was not an anomalous event; rather, it reflected a broader trend of leaders demanding that legislators support the party line. In a report released by the Samara Centre, 54 former members of Parliament — who served from 2011 to 2015 — agreed that the political party that they belonged to had influenced their voting records more than their constituents’ interests. Many also reported that they felt pressure from above as well as peer pressure to stay in line with party policy. As major political parties pandered to their respective demographics and launched personal attack ads on opposition leaders, party solidarity was firmly enforced and the individual voices that attempted to preserve a more centrist stance were gradually stifled.

While this polarization may have originated in the political class, its influence has trickled down into the lives of everyday Canadians. “Supporters of the different parties dislike each other a lot more than they used to, and they have increasingly disliked each other with every election since the late 1960s,” Cochrane highlighted. And in addition to this climate of generalized animosity towards supporters of other parties, Canadians are growing more divided on the issues as well. In a 2019 poll, 40 percent of Canadian citizens stated that they believed that there were too many visible minorities in their country. However, this view was shared by only 15 percent of Liberal Party voters, down from 34 percent in 2013. On the other hand, 69 percent of Conservative Party supporters believed this was an issue, up from 47 percent in 2013. But despite these developments, in general Canadians had initially ignored this widening divide, preferring to continue to believe in the image of a perfectly moderate Canada.

CONFLICT ERUPTS Widespread polarization in Canadian politics erupted,

FALL 2019 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 35

WORLD

though, with the SNC-Lavalin scandal — startling many Canadians. In early 2019, The Globe and Mail reported that Prime Minister Trudeau’s office had attempted to force the attorney general to drop a case against the Canadian company SNC-Lavalin. The varying reactions of Canada’s political parties and media organizations exposed the country’s growing political divide.

Whether it was the publicly owned Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or the privately operated CTV, pundits and journalists dominated the airwaves with their one-sided arguments about the SNC-Lavalin affair for the next month. In Parliament, opposition politicians viciously attacked Trudeau and accused him of covering up evidence of collusion with SNC-Lavalin executives.

While some politicians may have been genuinely disturbed by the alleged threat to judicial independence, opposition parties’ excessive responses demonstrate the way in which this scandal quickly became exploited for political gain. At the same time, some Liberal members of Parliament hurled insults at the attorney general in an attempt to discredit her testimony, affirming that politicians on both sides were focused on defending and supporting their own parties above all else.

Subsequent controversy surrounding Vice-Admiral Mark Norman shattered illusions that the SNC-Lavalin scandal had been an anomaly, and illuminated longer-term shifts in Canadian politics. In 2018, Norman was charged with breach-of-trust relating to the leaking of confidential naval contract information.

In Canada’s newly polarized political atmosphere, the Norman affair, which might have otherwise been considered a standard legal case, was thrust into the political limelight. Shortly after the SNC-Lavalin controversy, Conservative Party members disclosed new evidence related to the Norman case that they claimed had been purposefully hidden from investigators by the Liberal government. The prosecution then stayed its charges against Norman, explaining that the new evidence had undermined its chances of conviction. Opposition politicians reacted by accusing the government of obstruction of justice, spearheading an investigation attempt into the handling of the Norman affair. Liberal M.P.s again vehemently denied the accusations and blamed a number of military officials and civil servants for

36 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW FALL 2019

preventing the disclosure of the evidence. Across the political spectrum, responses to the Norman case underscore each party’s willingness to vilify others for political gain, a trend which threatens to cement Canada’s newly adversarial climate.

The SNC-Lavalin affair may have set a dangerous precedent for the handling of political scandals, the effects of which became clear during the Norman controversy, with both government and opposition politicians attempting to push blame onto rival parties regardless of the facts of the controversy.

“Some of the ways that [the recent scandals] have been talked about reflect a lack of basic civility between the leaders of different parties,” Cochrane concluded. “A lot of this visceral anger and incrimination ... that we see in politics can be related to polarization.”

REVERSING THE BREAKDOWN The political class’s aggressive reactions to this recent set of government scandals threaten to damage voter engagement in Canada. “For the average voter, the partisan tone of politics is a real turnoff,” Cameron said. “The high degree of polarization in political parties suppresses [and] discourages people from voting, because people just don’t identify with the antagonism that they see in politics.” In order to preserve Canadian democracy’s traditional civility and moderate values, this partisan takeover must be reversed.

On an encouraging note, some political leaders do recognize the problems surrounding political animosity and the importance of decreasing polarization. “Political leaders should all practice decorum and civility,” Panda emphasized. “Then the general public will pay attention and contribute to our debates.”

It is imperative that Canada’s politicians and citizens attempt to reverse the trend of increasing partisanship and disagreement; in a world where few moderate democracies remain, the reaffirmation of Canada’s democratic values would not only benefit domestic society, but also serve as a symbol against the spread of political extremism for developing democracies worldwide. n

CULTURE

Kendrick Foster

“S

pace. The final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its continuing mission … to boldly go where no one has gone before.” “Star Trek’s” opening words have a dual meaning: While the Enterprise explores new planets, “Star Trek” as an overall show explored new plot lines, tackling pressing social and political issues such as racism, LGBTQ rights, the impact of automation, and many others.

“Star Trek” won millions of fans precisely because it looked into the future only to shine a light on the present. However, this perspective is hardly limited to “Star Trek,” or even this century.

One Lucian of Samosata wrote a work called “A True History” in the 2nd century that was anything but. Much ink has been spilled trying to parse the science fiction from the satire in the book, but it clearly commented on contemporary themes by looking into the future, like so many other works since then.

Helen Marshall’s “The Migration,” Audrey Schulman’s “Theory of Bastards,” and Ben Winters’ “Golden State,” all published within the last year, do the same. Each fills a certain niche in the corpus of modern science fiction: “The Migration” combines young adult fiction, horror, and sci-fi, “Theory of Bastards” actually spends a significant page count discussing science, and “Golden State” gives the classic detective novel a futuristic twist.

Above all, each represents the modern tendency to shift away from ultra-futuristic scenes to instead explore time periods closer to our own.

Like fiction more generally, these books and other recently published science fiction works reflect the cultural and political context of their time period. Authors and creators use the innovations and technologies imagined in works of science fiction as tools to comment on contemporary angst and worries, not to predict technology for accuracy’s sake.

DEFINITIONS, NOVUMS, AND METAPHORS Defining science fiction is often tricky. Britannica defines the genre as “a form of fiction that deals principally with the impact of actual or imagined science upon society or individuals,” while

prominent Canadian sci-fi critic Darko Suvin defined science fiction by its use of “cognitive estrangement” created by what he called a book’s “novum.” The average reader probably would recognize a novel’s novum as its premise, the realistic change that the author imagines and the “what if?” questions that emerge from that change.

“The Migration,” “Theory of Bastards,” and “Golden State” all have novums, but the science part of science fiction in these three is iffy at best. It might be wiser to call these three novels examples of speculative fiction, which more broadly deals with things that have not happened but that could be. However, to make things more confusing, Britannica calls speculative fiction another name for science fiction; turning to the Oxford Encyclopedia for Literature does not make things much clearer. Perhaps the best solution to this definitional quibble is to ignore it: Each novum, let’s say, in speculative fiction reflects the political and cultural context of the time in which it was written, whether that novum is a specific innovation or a broader premise.

Essayist Tim Kreider agrees, declaring in The New Yorker that “science fiction is an inherently political genre, in that any future or alternate history it imagines is a wish about How Things Should Be (even if it’s reflected darkly in a warning about how they might turn out).” Particularly as science fiction writers have turned away from distant fantasy worlds, instead writing about a near-future Earth, it has become harder to see science fiction as anything but metaphorical or allegorical, or at least as some form of premonition or warning about dystopian futures.

Their respective authors set “The Migration,” “Golden State,” and “Theory of Bastards” in this near-future time period, with easily recognizable settings like Oxford, California, and Missouri, respectively, not Mars, Endor, or Romulus. Each novel addresses a different political or cultural anxiety: “The Migration” deals with climate change’s impending upheaval, “Theory of Bastards” criticizes society’s overwhelming reliance on technology, and “Golden State,” the most explicitly political of the three, tackles society’s complicated relationship with objective reality in an era of fake news and “alternative facts.”

FALL 2019 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 37

CULTURE

CLIMATE CHANGE, DISEASE, AND PROTEST In “The Migration’s” near-future world, climate change has caused massive storms, and the world worries constantly about rising seas and rivers overflowing their banks and inundating cities. Amidst this world wracked by change, a mysterious disease emerges, echoing the Black Death and AIDS. The cause of Juvenile Idiopathic Immunodeficiency Syndrome — “JI2” — is unknown, and may be unknowable. As such, the plot unfolds in a world marred by upheaval which, as the book progresses, gets worse and worse, eventually creating “a massive crisis and a massive loss of life,” as the book’s author, Helen Marshall, told the HPR. Marshall thrusts the book’s protagonist, Sophie, into the midst of this chaos. Her younger sister, Kira, has been diagnosed with JI2, and later dies of complications from the disease. Later on, though, Sophie realizes that JI2 does not kill its victims but rather transforms them into otherworldly nymphs, forcing Sophie to come “to a decision to embrace ... radical change that initially seems terrifying to her and to everyone around her,” Marshall said.

As such, an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the system permeates the novel. Sophie and her friend-turned-love interest Brian realize by the end of the book that the government and the medical authorities are making things worse rather than better through their responses to JI2. Riots break out, and the protagonists discuss how to take things into their own hands.

Doctors and medical experts on the disease have lost trust even though they disseminate fundamentally correct information, echoing expertise’s loss of status in our own society. Faith in the system has collapsed.

This lack of faith mirrors recent youth climate protests. In both the book and the real world, a largely young population feels like world governments are not doing enough to fight a problem or are actively mismanaging a crisis, thrusting scientific issues to the political forefront. Youth climate activism has peaked, and many of Sophie’s thoughts echo the perspectives of these young climate leaders: The government simply does not have the willpower to deal with the impacts of radical change.

Despite this, Marshall does not consider the novel an antiestablishment novel, merely a warning against the dangers of inaction.

Indeed, the importance of tackling climate change lies at the center of the novel’s key takeaways, and was Marshall’s purpose in writing the novel. “We really need to figure out how to take action” on climate change, Marshall said. “It’s my hope that speculative fiction can help us do that by at least familiarizing ourselves with the discourse around climate change and these problems.” By raising awareness of climate change’s potential impact and linking that impact to recent outbreaks like Ebola and Zika that sparked fear worldwide, Marshall warns the world that it must take action.

TECHNOLOGY, BONOBOS, AND SEX Theory of Bastards, which won the 2018 Philip K. Dick Award, also takes place in a world racked by climate change.

Heat waves plague the world, and asthma has become an increasingly serious problem. But it is dust, not water, that forms the protagonists’ climatic enemy. Schulman notes the

38 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW FALL 2019

devastating impact of climate change, but she does not use it as a tool to discuss climate change in itself — instead, it functions to illuminate humanity’s complicated relationship with technology.

Schulman’s novel follows Frankie Burk, a MacArthur Genius Grant-winning researcher who posited that women cheated on their husbands to secure an evolutionary benefit for their children. She has now moved on to study mate selection in bonobos at the Missouri-based Foundation. In the middle of her bonobo research, a massive dust storm hits the Foundation, triggering an extensive technological reevaluation.

Frankie and her research assistant, David Stotts, stay behind to help care for the bonobos, but the technology that their society had relied upon fails. Frankie’s BodyWare, with “Lenses” evocative of Google Glass and the Siri-like “Bindi” program, had never really worked in the first place, but the dust storm forces her into survival mode — without technology. Elsewhere in the book, Schulman depicts technology in a negative light, showing adults too preoccupied with their Lenses and “E-musement” to actually pay attention to the world around them.

Schulman sees her novel as a clear indictment against the perils of technology. “We’re supposed to be so smart and capable,” she told the HPR. “We’re able to make iPhones and Google Maps, but at the same time, we’re unable to migrate across town without directions.” This critique appears quite prescient in an age where everyone seems glued to their screens, unable to perceive the world around them, like some of the characters in Schulman’s novel. But Schulman shows how humans can flail and struggle when some exogenous force snaps this link, and how human society can degenerate without it.

This critique parallels broader critiques of technology: A famous article in The Atlantic provocatively asked, “Have smartphones destroyed a generation?” Meanwhile, Schulman subtly critiques the constant presence of tailored advertising by slightly exaggerating it, as the Bindis, planted on everyone’s foreheads, serve as a form of prominent and constant product placement, she told the HPR. Overall, the innovations Schulman imagines serve to critique contemporary society’s reliance on technology, not to provide a model for a society moving forward.

Some broader narrative choices also reflect broader cultural patterns. Of course, Frankie is a strong female protagonist in a literary world dominated by men, placing her in a growing category of female protagonists in literature. Frankie’s research reminds readers that women, too, have agency in sexual relations, that men do not entirely control dating and sex. In this sense, the book reflects trends in fourth-wave feminism, with its focus on women’s empowerment, and the #MeToo movement, which is fundamentally about women reclaiming agency in the face of sexual harassment.

And the chasm between Frankie, who grew up on the East Coast, and the Midwesterners who populate the Foundation is obvious from the beginning of the novel. She is “stuck up about it, too,” Schulman commented, confirming that this plot point reflects the growing chasm between urban and rural in today’s politics.

TRUTH, LIES, AND SPECULATION “Golden State,” finally, takes place in a mostly urbanized world, but one devoted entirely to the truth. In order to protect the “Objectively So,” this world’s commonly accepted reality, the

CULTURE

state has made lying a crime. Novels refer to factual accounts of the deeds of the state’s heroes, and the only people permitted to speculate are, well, Speculators, tasked with rooting out “anomalies” in the Objectively So. Everyday citizens record and archive the minutiae of their daily lives to create a record of this Objectively So. “Imagine if everyone [lied],” the main character, Laszlo Ratesic, explains to his trainee-turned-partner Aysa Paige. “Imagine the danger that would pose, how quickly those lies would metastasize, and the extraordinary threat that would pose to the world.”

This novum is a direct reaction to the untruths of one Donald Trump. “What really kicked off my thinking about this book in particular was, there was a whole incident when the Trump administration had been angrily insisting that the crowd size at the inauguration had been the biggest ever,” Winters told the HPR. All the recording in the novel “is a direct response to the feeling in the air in our age of social media and cable news in constant bickering over not just opinion but reality,” he continued. Laszlo’s statement aims directly at the bull’s-eye of contemporary angst surrounding the president’s constant propagandizing.

Set against this backdrop, a roofer falls to his death, but Laszlo soon discovers that more exists than meets the eye. By the end of the book, he unravels a tangled web of high-placed officials who have distorted the truth, who have started to live their lives off the omnipresent Record. At the end of the book, Laszlo realizes that some things in the “Objectively So” are untrue, and some truths have been hidden from the “Objectively So.” The book’s themes revolve entirely around questions of truth and untruth, with echoes of George Orwell’s classic “1984.” “I do think that ultimately I’m warning people against trusting too much of what they’re told, but also warning them against not trusting enough of what they’re told,” Winters said. The political context of “fake news” and “alternative facts” looms large in this message: The public cannot believe everything the media tells it, but believing nothing creates a climate where a common reality can no longer exist. As such, the novel feels like a condemnation of the Trump administration and its checkered relationship with the truth.

The constant recording in the novel seems, meanwhile, to offer a clear critique of the surveillance state — but it also reflects other political contexts. “A few years ago, there was a widespread call for dash-cams and body-cams on the police as a suggested solution to the rash of police violence against African-American communities,” he said. “It always struck me as a less-than-ideal solution,” he continued, and that came across in the novel: Constant recording could not help to solve the roofer’s mysterious death or the plot against the “Objectively So.”

DYSTOPIAS AND CULTURAL PESSIMISM Undoubtedly, the rise of dystopian near-future literature — books like these three — challenges certain truths previously held in the speculative fiction genre, which seemed to operate on the assumption that writers would imagine utopian worlds with technology they thought would better mankind. As such, contemporary science fiction has lost much of the predictive aura it once had. “At a fundamental level, we hope it’s not predictive,” said Marshall, author of “The Migration.”

Indeed, dystopian literature has previously found popularity in eras with deep-seated political, cultural, or economic resentments, such as during Hitler’s rise to power amidst the Great Depression. Pessimistic literature corresponds with a pessimistic cultural environment. “Star Trek: The Next Generation” proves the inverse: of course it was optimistic, filmed in the 1990s amidst Western jubilation surrounding capitalism’s victory over communism and the generally booming economy. As such, today’s proliferation of dystopias reflects our generally pessimistic cultural atmosphere, filled with doom and gloom about climate change’s impending effects or backsliding political institutions.

Even if some critics believe that science fiction should not be read as metaphorical, they cannot deny that political and cultural trends have influenced the creative process. Themes like truth, climate change, and technology remain ever-present in the current cultural milieu, and one cannot isolate science fiction from the context that surrounds it. n

FALL 2019 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 39

CULTURE

Striking a Balance Lauren Baehr

Y

ou are touring through Europe, going on a weekend vacation, or hitting the hot spots in a new city. Scrolling through Twitter or Instagram, you see that other tourists have flocked to a particular site for their contemplative pictures.

Pleased at the opportunity to add something with a more serious tone to your online image, you make sure to spend some time getting the perfect picture on the defunct train tracks outside of the Auschwitz Memorial before you go inside the museum itself.

When the time comes to post, you quickly pen a vague, semiphilosophical caption to go along with the image. And therein lies the mistake. The lack of meaningful reflection within the post becomes a message in and of itself.

This pattern — of snapping first and thinking later — has led to a number of high-profile gaffes on social media. After Instagram filled up with images of users balancing on the train tracks leading into the Auschwitz memorial and museum, the museum and its curators pointed the photos out as objectionable and insensitive, tweeting, “When you come to @AuschwitzMuseum remember you are at the site where over 1 million people were killed. There are better places to learn how to walk on a balance beam than the site which symbolizes deportation of hundreds of thousands to their deaths.”

Another incident that garnered an unhappy response involved pop star Justin Bieber’s visit to the Anne Frank House, an educational memorial to one of the most recognizable victims of the Holocaust. At the end of his visit, Bieber wrote in the Anne Frank House’s guest book, “Truly inspiring to be able to come here. Anne was a great girl. Hopefully she would have been a Belieber,” one of his fans. Bieber likely meant the comment as a compliment, but critics quickly complained that he had needlessly inserted himself into the narrative of Anne Frank.

THE VACATIONER’S FIELD GUIDE The first thing people usually do before donning their cameras and fanny packs is decide where they want to tour. Fortunately, this is also the first and easiest step in figuring out how to explore a new culture with awareness and respect. Is your location directly linked to memorializing or educating about a tragedy? If not, it is probably acceptable to Instagram away, as long as you are not being especially obnoxious or making fun of your destination. If yes, then you might hesitate before breaking out the selfie stick.

In the context of memorials, the issue of taking that picture is not that social media is inherently harmful. As a ubiquitous part of contemporary tourism — and life more generally — there is nothing fundamentally wrong with sites like Instagram and Facebook. According to the Pew Research Center, “Today around seven-in-10 Americans use social media to connect with

40 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW FALL 2019

one another, engage with news content, share information and entertain themselves.” In a Usable Knowledge article developed through the Harvard Graduate School of Education, Leah Shafer illuminated some of the potential impacts of social media, both positive and negative. Central to its positive potential was that the “ability to raise awareness, connect with people across the world, and share moments of beauty can be empowering and uplifting for some.”

But social media has also managed to create a new platform through which disrespect can be displayed. By empowering users to attach thoughtless or careless messages to images of sensitive destinations like memorials, social media introduces new questions about travel and cultural exchange. The solution to such a problem only comes with proactivity on the part of travelers. And that requires sensitivity and context which can only come from better understanding the victims of the tragedies that memorials remember.

FROM THE LOVED ONES The first important perspective comes from the people actually affected by the tragedy in question. They are the ones with knowledge born from experience, and they are the ones who must be involved in decisions about the process of remembering.

It seems intuitive that they would have an invaluable outlook on the role of memorials.

Certainly in the case of the 9/11 Memorial, the families of the victims of the attack had plenty to say about how the memorial was being treated. That memorial consists of two deep pools which trace the footprints of the original twin towers, with victims’ names engraved around their edges. In an NBC article, families complained that visitors were sitting on the names, laughing and smiling as they took pictures, and generally treating the memorial with what was described as “disrespect” by outraged New Yorkers and first responders. The article expressed the sense of pain provoked by what they saw as the poor treatment of their deceased family members and loved ones.

But not all victims and families see things the same way. In conversation with the HPR, Kathy Bowden, who lost her brother in the 9/11 attacks, was more understanding: “I have always assumed that as time goes by, people will come there for gentle recreation — walking, sitting in the dappled sunshine, even picnicking — so I am rather surprised that anyone thinks this is not acceptable behavior.”

A curator for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Museum Collection spoke with the HPR about how people interact with the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C., highlighting meaningful ways in which both relatives and visitors can interact with monuments. For some, visiting the memorial provides

CULTURE

“a place to go and remember a specific person, somebody that they know, somebody that they have memories of.” Some of these people leave offerings in remembrance of their loved ones, which the curator described as a way of “remembering those people as not historical or particularly famous, but worth remembering for what they did for their country.” These meaningful interactions can only happen because some past loved one dared to leave something behind before it was convention, confirming that non-traditional interactions with a monument can indeed add value.

These interactions and reactions among the directly affected are by no means uniform, so perhaps it becomes a question of what the memorials were meant to become in the first place.

And who better to ask about a memorial’s purpose than its creator?

MONUMENTAL EFFORT When a monument is constructed, the architect’s design is what begins to breathe life into it. Considering that their role is so essential to the eventual edifice, perhaps architects can provide some guidance on how people should interact with their creation.

The HPR spoke with Peter Eisenman, the architect of the Berlin Holocaust Memorial, who shared his thoughts on the the memorial. With concrete slabs sticking out of a city plaza, the memorial creates an immersive space that Eisenman confirmed inspires children to “immediately want to play tag.” Children, Eisenman explained, see the memorial as an active and playful space, “playing, like, hide and seek, because there is this level of change, of up and down in the space itself. So it is a physical and mental experience, as well as a commemorative one.” And he is not upset about this — Eisenman has actually been pleased to watch people interact with the space: “They’re all kind of activities that one would never have thought of that take place.

You know, people do concerts and play and dance on top of the stones, and that’s great.”

The memorial was constructed to commemorate those Jewish Germans that died in the Holocaust. “It was about the victims of Germany,” according to Eisenman. But he never intended for the memorial to simply sit in passive reverence for the dead.

Instead, he wanted it to “attempt to be provocative — to provoke reactions that would allow for the Holocaust to become, let’s say, situated in the everyday.”

This particular memorial’s goal, in the eyes of its architect, was above all to prevent the Holocaust from fading out of public consciousness. And in a sense, when people play on the memorial, Eisenman’s vision for the memorial succeeds. These actions may not be appropriate or respectful to some, but when people interact with the memorial and make it a part of their life, they are also interacting with the history that the memorial represents. However, this sort of active interaction is not appropriate for every memorial. Some may welcome it, but for others, this behavior would appear deeply disrespectful to its creators and caretakers.

and take care of memorials day-to-day. These are the people who ensure that the monument or memorial remains well cared for as time passes and who allow it to endure beyond its historical origins and vision. As such, the viewpoint of the curator must be considered.

The Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial is nothing like Eisenman’s Berlin Holocaust Memorial. At the entrance to one of Nazi Germany’s brutal concentration camps, a long-defunct train track leads into a complex of converted military barracks which, now empty, resemble a small, eery town. Visitors know that they are walking through the spaces where the Holocaust actually happened.

As such, the memorial maintains a distinct set of standards — enforced by the curators. When groups come into the memorial, their leaders are coached on how to handle the subject matter. When people are disrespectful on the site, a curator might quickly step in. And when people are disrespectful on social media, the memorial’s social media manager will privately message the offender, asking them to take down their post. The Auschwitz curators are relentlessly proactive.

In an interview with the HPR, Pawel Sawicki, one of the memorial’s curators and its social media manager, said, “Our job is protecting the legacy and the memory of those who didn’t survive.” To Sawicki and the other curators, Auschwitz has a heavy meaning and many roles. On the one hand, “this place forever should be a cry of despair and a place where people come to commemorate and mourn.” But it also takes on a philosophical import, providing a space “where we can reflect on a lot of important questions and issues about us humans,” Sawicki said.

It is educational, too, with curators playing a role in “making people aware that there are certain universal things that they should be aware about.”

But ultimately, Sawicki stressed that “the Auschwitz memorial is in its symbolic or emotional value very close to a cemetery …

Auschwitz was a site of murder. Where people were murdered, and their ashes spread at the river.” When a memorial is created for society as a whole but also for the individuals who, like in this case, were killed there, it tends to become more sensitive. It is not only a place to remember, but also part of the bloody and tragic history itself. Auschwitz was once a place where people were abused and killed. It became a place where people can learn about that horror in the hopes that something like that will never happen again — but that original history will always be crucial.

Not all memorials share the same purpose, history, design, or cultural context. Some of their creators encourage play and joy, while others envision visitors participating in thoughtful, quiet reflection. And this is why travelers must be aware of and accountable for their behavior. There is no one set of rules to guide these visits. Monuments and museums are places of reflection. We reflect on the past and recall those who were stolen from their loved ones before their rightful time. And as we walk through these sites, even as we lose ourselves in the painful stories and memories, we must also remain reflective about our behavior, always striving above all not to disrespect these spaces with thoughtless or careless actions. n

PROCEED WITH CAUTION Along with those affected by the memorialized history and those who design the monument are the people who manage

FALL 2019 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 41

CULTURE

RENAISSANCE FOR RWANDA’S DOGS Katie Weiner

I

n the late 1990s, Rwanda felt empty. The Rwandan genocide had left approximately one million dead and many more displaced; reminders of death and loss were everywhere.

The violence was brutal, and the human toll was unimaginable — decentralized killing squads used everyday tools like machetes as well as military weapons like grenades to injure and kill innocent civilians. And as the targeted Tutsi population fled, these militias turned to a particularly disturbing weapon: dogs.

After genocidal militias trained them to hunt down Tutsis hiding in the bush, Rwanda’s canines developed a taste for human flesh.

When the Rwandan Patriotic Front, the army led by now-President Paul Kagame, liberated the country, it found dogs eating bodies as they decomposed in the streets. Dogs had never quite been seen as pets in Rwanda, but now they had become a public health threat. The RPF, as well as the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda, decided dogs would be shot on sight. And for years after, Rwanda was a country almost without dogs. This absence allowed Rwandans’ memories of dogs as bloodthirsty and dangerous to fester, and the fear felt by traumatized genocide survivors began to spread throughout Rwandan culture, creating a widespread aversion to dogs that had not existed before. Indeed, in the wake of the genocide, dogs became symbols of trauma and violence in Rwanda. This reaction is largely understandable — few would condemn these survivors and their communities for developing an aversion to the creatures who had served as instruments of their trauma. But unfortunately, as dogs did begin to reappear, they were subjected to neglect, abuse, and torture — often by young children who had not been raised to appreciate the animals as sentient, feeling beings.

42 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW FALL 2019

Today, though, the status of dogs — like so much else in Rwanda — is beginning to transform, at least in Rwanda’s capital. The government has undertaken ambitious development projects, revitalizing Rwanda’s infrastructure and turning Kigali into a modern city. Meanwhile, it has utilized courts, churches, and schools in order to foster a culture of peace and reconciliation and to dissolve the ethnic divisions which played such a central role during the genocide. And as Kigali has become a developed, safe city, it has attracted a growing community of American and European expats — many of whom are dog lovers.

This expanding expat community is initiating a shift in Rwandan society, introducing dogs as companions for the first time.

Now, just 25 years after the genocide, Kigali’s streets are filled with dogs out for walks with their owners — until recently, an almost unimaginable sight.

LEARNING TO LOVE Emmanuel Nshuti is a Rwandan college student and an intern at WAG, a nonprofit focused on finding homes for Kigali’s street dogs. He has one dog: “Her name is Lola — she’s a princess at home,” he said in an interview with the HPR. Nshuti, like most Rwandan kids, was not raised to see dogs as pets. But he loved animals, and when he watched American movies growing up, he saw dogs portrayed as companions and members of the family — not as the killers he had been warned about as a child.

And as he has developed his own love for dogs, the effects have radiated out into his family and community.

“My parents initially didn’t like dogs, but once [Lola] got

CULTURE

home, they started liking her, buying her things. Now she’s like a grandchild. That’s what my mom and dad call her, their granddaughter. Whenever my mom travels, she brings something back for the dog.” And his neighbors have fallen in love, too: “When people come to my home, they meet Lola … and the next time they call, they’re like, ‘I don’t care about you, how is Lola?’”

Nshuti welcomes this cultural shift, and hais been watching it spread throughout Kigali over the last few years. In his view, it is part of a broader process of post-genocide healing: Genocide survivors have “chosen to continue with life, and they’ve allowed themselves to change their attitude.” And this openness to healing is what makes it possible for them to stop viewing dogs as “this thing that is just the root of all evil, this thing that made the killers discover where they were.” The Rwandan government, with its emphasis on recovery and development, has challenged genocide survivors to forgive their attackers and to remember the past without letting it control the future. And this culture of reconciliation has certainly paved the way in providing survivors with the tools to offer a sort of collective forgiveness toward dogs as well as other humans.

But not everyone is convinced. Ndagiro Pacifique, another Rwandan who works with WAG, told the HPR about how Rwandans react when they hear about his job. Some people, he said, do not understand: “They just think, ‘Why do you care about the animals? Those are just things for people like Westerners, who just have everything, who have had the best life.

Who has time for those kind of things?’”

And Pacifique’s critics are not necessarily wrong: This reemerging dog culture has so far been led by expats, who bring with them Western cultural notions around dog ownership that can feel foreign to some Rwandans. It is not just the passage of time and emphasis on reconciliation that have allowed Rwanda’s dogs to make their comeback, but Kigali’s explosion as a hub for Americans and Europeans.

CULTURE CLASH? In fact, WAG, the organization Nshuti and Pacifqiue work for, was founded by a Canadian. “Although it’s changing more and more, right now our adoptions are probably about 60 to 70 percent foreigners, and the rest is Rwandans. And the Rwandans that are adopting are also agreeing to love their animals in a very Western sense where they’re companions, they’re part of the family, they’re not just animals,” WAG’s founder, Frances Klinck, told the HPR. The growing presence of Western culture in Rwanda has played a crucial role in driving this shift: Young Rwandans like Nshuti watch American movies which celebrate dogs and see expats finding joy and companionship through pet ownership, and this messaging contradicts the negative stories they have been told about dogs. Shifting perceptions of dogs in Rwanda, then, reflect broader dynamics around Westernization and development in Rwanda. The “Singapore of Africa,” Rwanda is quickly modernizing, leaving behind its historical reputation as a poor, divided nation. And as the country’s socioeconomic status changes, inevitably so does its culture. Of course, part of the shift is economic: As Rwandans become wealthier, they can afford to keep pets for companionship in a way that may not have been financially viable. But more fundamentally, changing conditions in Rwanda seem to have paved the way for greater

cultural exchange with the West, which is in turn driving this rise in dog ownership.

Particularly given the sensitive role dogs played in Rwanda’s history and the traumatic memories of dogs many Rwandans have, this dynamic can be challenging. Cultural “exchange” between Africa and the West too often takes the form of Western cultural imposition — colonial subjugation relied on and perpetuated a problematic and unfounded hierarchy which privileged Western cultures over African ones, and this dynamic continues to shape Western interactions with Africa today. Ultimately, navigating this tension requires historical perspective, as well as humility and empathy, from Kigali’s expats.

Asked whether he thought Rwandans resented this influx of dog-loving expats or the new cultural perspectives on dog ownership they brought, Nshuti responded that he did not. “It’s not that [Rwandans] in our culture hate hate dogs like in other places … if people do not take good care of their dogs, it’s just because they don’t see it as a pet, but if someone else wants to, it’s not a bad thing — I’d say that’s the attitude here.” Thus while expats are welcome to treat their own dogs as family members or companions — and while some Rwandans, like Nshuti, are adopting these practices too — it is crucial that Western visitors avoid ever judging or condemning Rwandans’ historical lack of pet culture, which is as peculiar and counterintuitive to many Rwandans as Rwandan norms might be to these Westerners.

The key difference here is between cultural exchange and cultural imposition: Organizations like WAG create an avenue for Rwandans interested in Western-style pet ownership, but do not expect Rwanda’s culture to change to accommodate their values.

And this is why Rwandan dog lovers like Nshuti and Pacifique have such an important role to play. They not only act as a bridge between organizations like WAG and Rwandan communities, but challenge the notion that something as pure as love of animals can be unique to a particular culture. And in helping open up space for Rwandans to view dogs as pets — as Nshuti and Lola do with every visitor who comes by — they help create more widespread acceptance for the work WAG does and the values it represents. By relying on and supporting the Rwandans already working to rehabilitate dogs in the minds of their families and communities, WAG demonstrates its commitment to culturally sensitive approaches to animal welfare and dog adoption.

One Sunday in July, WAG hosted an adoption event at a coffee shop in Kigali. The coffee shop, Question, is part of a social enterprise aimed at supporting women coffee farmers; it is a favorite spot for many of Kigali’s residents and a stop on The New York Times’ 36 Hours in Kigali itinerary. That day, prospective adopters and dog owners, Rwandans and expats alike, chatted while rescue dogs played on the grass. Artisans sold homemade dog collars decorated with local kitenge fabrics. It was a relatively unremarkable afternoon, and yet it would have been unimaginable just 20 years ago, before Rwanda’s almost incomparable socioeconomic recovery began. And as Rwanda continues to change in the coming years, it will also continue to navigate the social and cultural questions raised by a growing expat population and a shifting economic situation — though it seems, for now, that the dogs are there to stay. n

FALL 2019 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 43

INTERVIEWS

The Climate Crisis

JAMIE MARGOLIN J

amie Margolin is a teenage climate change activist working in Seattle, Wash. At the age of 15, she founded Zero Hour, a national youth climate action organization, and currently serves as its co-executive director.

Harvard Political Review: Why are you here at Harvard?

Jamie Margolin: I’m joining the Divest Harvard movement. As a high schooler, my future is on the line. Harvard is a school that is supposedly preparing students for their future, but they’re also destroying that future for those students. That’s a big hypocrisy and big irony that I came here to address. To really just call BS and say, look, Harvard, for a very smart institution — supposedly, since you call yourself smart and prestigious — you’re being extremely dumb right now. For now, what people know is that they’re investing millions or billions in the destruction of their students’ future. I would expect Harvard to know better.

HPR: Can you tell me a little bit more about yourself?

JM: My activism is rooted in two things: the Pacific Northwest where I live, and Colombia where my mom emigrated from.

There’s the destruction and deforestation of the Amazon rainforest, which are the lungs of the world. A lot of that is happening in Colombia, and most of my family still lives there. And growing up in the Pacific Northwest, seeing the destruction: the orcas going extinct; the sea life dying, which affects the coastal economy, which affects everything; recently, super high temperatures, which are causing our glaciers to melt; new fossil fuel projects being built to make that worse; wildfires in Canada, which blow over and cause smog and make people sick. Growing up in that climate destruction of the Pacific Northwest, which formerly had and still retains some of its beauty, really impacted me from a very young age.

There’s never been a point in my life when I wasn’t scared about climate change, and the fact that life as we know it is coming to an end, and everything beautiful that I can experience and cherish is temporary and bittersweet. When I look at a beautiful

44 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW FALL 2019

with Winona Guo

place of nature, ever since I was little, it was not like, “oh, I can appreciate it.” It was like, “oh you better appreciate it because that’s going to be gone soon.”

I really started my activism when I was 14, after the 2016 election, where I had been working my local Democratic campaign office. I was the only Spanish speaker in the office, so I was doing a lot of translating work, a lot of training volunteers, turning voters out. It was my first experience with civic engagement, and it went the very wrong way. I already knew that Obama was not that great on climate — he laid more pipeline than any other president in history, even as a Democrat who acknowledged the reality of climate change — but now it just got exponentially worse, where Trump was literally a climate denier.

So I joined a local environmental organization in Olympia, the capital of my state, and started doing a lot of lobbying expeditions, pushing for common sense climate justice bills, community organizing, awareness raising, speaking at rallies, protests, everything. That was my life for about a year.

Then in 2017, I turned 15, and that summer was the first time I experienced super poor air quality in Seattle. For two weeks it was worse than Beijing air quality; it seemed gray — not with cloudiness, but with particles in the air due to these climatecaused wildfires. There were literally warnings to stay inside, it was terrifying … that [and other events] spurred me to take my activism to the next level. I co-founded an organization called Zero Hour which organized the first-ever youth climate marches in July 2018, and which helped spur the climate strike movement.

HPR: What’s the intersection between climate justice and other forms of justice?

JM: Climate change is the grand culmination of the consequences of all these systems of oppression: colonialism, patriarchy, racism, and capitalism. Anyone who is a victim of these systems of oppression feels the effects of the climate crisis more than the tiny one percent who benefit. For example, a company is not going to go build a coal plant in Bel Air or Beverly Hills. They’re

INTERVIEWS

not going to be like, “Oh cool, touristy rich area, let’s mine.”

They’re going to go to a poor community, a community that’s disenfranchised, a community of color, immigrant community, and go in and extract and poison them. That is a form of systematic violence on people of color. Because whether someone is killed with a gunshot or poisoned to death, it’s still death that is institutionalized by corporations and the government. 69 percent of coal plants are built in black communities or low-income communities of color. That’s an attack on black lives.

I’m not picking climate above all other issues, because climate is Black Lives Matter, is the feminist movement, is LGBT rights. If you think about the people who are kicked out of their homes for being LGBT and the large population of queer homeless people, especially queer homeless youth, it’s staggering. If you’re out on the streets when the polar vortex hits because of climate change, when poor air quality hits, when heat waves hit, you’re going to be the one that dies, not someone chilling in an air-conditioned or heated house. Even issues like poverty and homelessness, all of those intersect.

I’m collectively fighting for all of this by fighting for climate justice, but there’s a specific way you have to go about fighting for climate justice because simply addressing climate change doesn’t do that. There are harmful things like cap and trade which are really just meant for corporations to find loopholes to keep polluting — solutions like that are not actually helping. But when you’re committed to climate justice, then you are collectively fighting for liberation for everyone else who is a victim of those systems of oppression.

Climate change is the grand culmination of bad that has been mushed together. It’s the biggest challenge and it could be an opportunity if we step up and address it the right way to address all the other injustices in our world.

HPR: Part of Divest Harvard focuses on the disproportionate impact of climate change on populations across the world. How are U.S. capitalist and colonialist practices currently affecting climate globally?

JM: When it comes to divestment, this fossil fuel industry has this propaganda, like, “Oh, you’re harming these poor communities of color who desperately need our help, and we’re being the white saviors and helping them by providing them jobs in those communities.” When in reality that’s a form of harmful colonialism and slavery — when countries or systems with power go in and extract resources from the local area and to have them under their control and domination as colonies of resources to export for the rich and powerful. You get these developing countries to mine and extract and produce for these richer countries that get to experience the luxuries, without having to feel the harm.

Those communities didn’t survive in their ancestral lands by mining for some other large country; they had their own economies before these companies came in. Now they depend on it, but it’s because those companies made them depend on them.

So by divesting, you’re not taking away from those communities, you’re taking away from those companies that are destroying everything. It then leaves an opening for those local economies to grow again, as well as have new renewable energy.

There’s always something new. Using that logic is like saying, “We can’t expand Netflix because what about all the blockbust-

ers? They will get shut down.” No one is like, “With cars, what’s going to happen to all those horses and buggies, what about all those telegraph people if we get iPhones?” Their logic is skewed, and it’s just them trying to pretend like they’re saving when in reality they’re harming. To anyone who argues that divestment is bad because it’s selfish and you’re hurting these people: no, you have to look farther than that. Why are these companies there in the first place? They’re not there to help. Their one reason for existing is to make money, and they’re using people in developing countries as pawns to make money. They don’t actually care.

HPR: What are some of the other common arguments that you hear? And in terms of your own vision, what is the economic or other restructuring that we as a society need to go through?

JM: Something that I get a lot is, “Oh my god you’re a Communist then.” That is ridiculous and those are Red Scare tactics.

Critiquing capitalism isn’t the same as wanting to impose some sort of terrible regime. Democracy and freedom are very crucial to this. It’s not even about political leanings, it’s like scientifically our Earth just can’t sustain an economic system where it goes like this.

You can’t just dismantle something overnight, what you have to do is center things more in communities, local farming, back to the native jobs that were there in the first place. Commerce, business, and trading have always existed, but not very far back in history, even before the Great Depression, it used to be commendable to be nifty, good at saving and conserving. Then after the boom of consumerism, it was like, “Who can buy the most stuff?” Part of that is we need to shift our culture. Part of it is we need an end to the corporate production of the things that we don’t need. And part of it is localizing things again and putting power into the hands of people. Because people know what’s best for their own communities.

HPR: Much of the work that you do with Zero Hour centers around cultural change, which includes shifting narratives and community mobilizing. Another huge part of your work is political and institutional change — such as lobbying, educational reform, policy work. What is the center of your activism? Which models have worked for you? What, more broadly, does effective activism look like?

JM: Effective activism is tackling this at all angles. There is no one institution to hit this through. You have to educate your community, you have to build power through your community, you also have to call out the BS of our leaders who are doing wrong, you have to work on policy, you have to work in the legal system. With an issue as big as climate change, you have to attack it at every angle. I’d describe my activism as a combination of advocacy and community organizing. I’m advocating for the Green New Deal and suing for a climate recovery plan in Washington state — the “Youth v. Gov” lawsuit — but I also do work going back to my community and talking and building power and educating. n This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

FALL 2019 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 45

INTERVIEWS

Our Independent Judiciary

JUDGE JOHN BATES J

ohn D. Bates is a Senior United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Judge Bates was appointed by George W. Bush in 2001, and from July 2013 to January 2015, Bates served as Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. In August 2018, Judge Bates ruled that the Trump Administration did not justify its decision to eliminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and ordered its reinstatement. The government’s appeal of that decision has been added to the Supreme Court’s docket for the upcoming fall term.

Harvard Political Review: In the over 18 years that you have been a judge, has your judicial attitude changed over the course of your career?

John Bates: I don’t think there has been any fundamental change in my attitude toward being a judge and what I think a judge needs to do and how he or she needs to do it. There have obviously been some changes that have affected my being a judge, and some of those take place from year to year, since this court handles a lot of issues that deal with the federal government. The federal government changes, and that can affect the type of cases we have. But I think for the most part, the approach I have for being judge has stayed the same. I’ve grown, and I’ve learned, as I hope we all do when we’re taking on a task.

I expect that I do it a little better now and maybe a little more efficiently than I did before, but I don’t think there has been a fundamental change in my attitude toward or approach toward judging.

46 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW FALL 2019

with Garrett O’Brien

HPR: Using the NAACP v. Trump case that challenged the Trump Administration’s rescission of DACA as an examwith Garrett O’Brien ple, how do you go about ruling on and enforcing laws that have outcomes that can seriously alter individuals’ lives?

How do you approach these kinds of cases that can have universal outcomes for many people?

JB: Well there are cases that you get as a judge that may have a broader impact, although every case is important. An individual criminal case has a significant impact not only on the defendant but on victims and on the public. An individual discrimination case will have a significant impact on the plaintiff, on the plaintiff’s family, and to some extent also on the defendant charged with discrimination. But there are some cases, and you have identified two of them, that are of broader impact. I think as a judge you need to be careful to bear in mind what your job is.

The job of a judge is not to set the policy, and the job of the judge is not to decide what the best approach is in terms of fairness, in terms of equity, in terms of rational policy. The job in those kinds of cases is to review what the government has done and to make sure that it complies with the rule of law. And the rule of law may in some instances be the Constitution, but more likely it’s going to be compliance with statutory requirements and compliance with procedural requirements. You need to keep your eye on the ball and on your obligation as a judge, which is to look at the facts, ascertain what the law is, and to apply that law to those facts.

HPR: The importance of precedent has been called into question recently with buzz around uncertainties regard-

INTERVIEWS

ing long standing Supreme Court cases on abortion and affirmative action. How do you, as a District Court Judge, perceive stare decisis and precedent in your decisions?

What is its overall importance to you as a District Court Judge?

JB: Well, I think it is very important. Precedent is different sitting as a District judge than it is sitting as a Court of Appeals judge in the federal system, and certainly much different as it is as a sitting Supreme Court Justice. The Supreme Court can change precedent, and that is sometimes what they do. They did that recently, and they might do it again this term. The Court of Appeals can sometimes change its precedent, although sometimes that will require an en banc decision by the entire court.

District judges follow precedent. We do not follow other District Courts because District judge decisions are not precedential on another District judge, but we do follow the decisions of the Circuit we happen to be in and certainly the Supreme Court. So I think precedent is different depending on what judicial title and role you have. For a District Judge, there is much less leeway to avoid or change precedent; that is not to say that we are simple rubber stamps not doing anything challenging because that is not true. We have to interpret the law, and that includes looking at precedent that may not be directly on point. But there is no opportunity to really change Circuit precedent and certainly not to change Supreme Court precedent sitting as a District judge.

Our job is to ascertain and then follow that precedent.

HPR: Back around Thanksgiving, Chief Justice Roberts had a quote that read, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.” He went on to add that an “independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.” What are your thoughts on this quote and the greater topic of an independent judiciary, especially in times when the political climate is especially contentious?

JB: I have expressed my agreement with that quote to many people, and I’ll leave it at that. I have done so publicly in programs dealing with judicial independence; I did a program in Philadelphia at the American Constitutional Center last fall on judicial independence. I think the Chief Justice got it right in saying that there aren’t judges who are tied to the President who happened to appoint them, and I’ll make two observations on that. Number one, I would guess that if people looked at my opinions they wouldn’t be able to determine who the president that appointed me was. I don’t think there is any tracking that can be done for a lot of judges. I feel that judges do their jobs well, generally speaking, and apply the law to the facts and apply the rule of law. Indeed, when I first came on the bench, two appellate judges from different political persuasions (if you can attach a political persuasion to the president who happened to appoint the judge) — two very well known appellate judges — said the same thing to me, and that is that you will know when you are really functioning as a federal judge when you rule against the president who appointed you. I think that does

say a lot. It’s revealing, and I think that to some extent it’s true.

Judicial independence is fundamental to the job that we do, and the time that we are living in challenges judicial independence; however, when challenged, judicial independence actually becomes more important. I will continue to express the view privately and publicly that the independence of the federal judiciary is the fundamental part of our democracy.

HPR: Do you think that the Constitution should be interpreted differently with the passage of time, and why or why not?

JB: Well, this is a question getting at the difference between originalism and the living Constitution. I think it is fair to say that I am not a strict originalist, but I also think that the living Constitution approach needs to be tempered a little bit. So I am not a strict or extreme living Constitutionalist. But I think there is more to be said for that view than for the originalist view. But I am somewhere between the extremes of the two views.

HPR: Why have you committed so much of your life to public service? What words of wisdom would you pass on to those interested in public service today?

JB: I think that public service is an important thing that one can give back to the community. A lot of lawyers, and I include myself in the group, have had a pretty good life with many benefits, and it’s nice to figure out a way to turn the skills that you have back to the benefit of those who have less than you have. Public service is one way to do that — not the only way to do it but one way. Now there are some kinds of public service that people don’t think are public service, but I think it’s all public service. I think it is in the public interest to have very capable and dedicated people working for the government.

Whether it be in the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s offices, in our various police forces, or in some kinds of responsibilities where you’re dealing more directly with benefits for people — be it our healthcare benefits, be it our medicare benefits, our social security benefits, etc. All of that are important aspects of public service.

My particular public service — it was easy to say yes to being a federal judge, yes, that is certainly public service, but it is at a level that many would aspire to. It’s a little bit harder when you are trying to figure out how you can really make a difference in other circumstances, but it is nonetheless important, and I would encourage anyone — in the legal community and young lawyers in particular — to make sure that they do take on some public service during their careers. These days people don’t seem to stay in the same position forever, but it’s important to build into your career whether you’re a lawyer or not. It’s a very rewarding thing to do, and it’s not like you are committing the biggest sacrifice in the world. Some of the best positions in the law are public service positions, and they are both challenging and rewarding in terms of your own development and feeling that you are giving back, even if [they are] not monetarily rewarding. n This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

FALL 2019 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 47

ENDPAPER

FIGHTING FOR SPACE

S

eeing Kamala Harris, Kirstin Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, Tulsi Gabbard, and Marianne Williamson all vying — with different platforms — to be the Democratic nominee for president of the United States; Republican Martha McSally and Democrat Kyrsten Sinema squaring up as the first two women to represent Arizona in the U.S. Senate; and center-left Nancy Pelosi disagreeing with “The Squad” of newly minted progressive female congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and Ayanna Pressley makes me overjoyed that we live in an age so enlightened that women in politics can take multiple shapes and fight for different things.

It was not long ago that one woman running for president — let alone six — was unthinkable, and that culture made it easier to dismiss a female politician as unlikeable, radical, or just plain strange. But today we have female politicians of various ages, ethnicities, backgrounds, and viewpoints. They all exist together and take up space, which makes it that much harder to dismiss female politicians writ large.

I know that increasing women’s representation is no panacea: Just as electing Barack Obama president didn’t catapult us into a post-racial society, elevating more women to positions of power will not suddenly create a world without sexism. But while representation may not be everything, I have come to realize that it truly means something.

I recently spoke on a “Women in STEM” panel at Visitas, Harvard’s program for newly admitted students. During the hour-long discussion, the other panelists and I fielded questions on everything from course selection to women’s affinity groups on campus, and shared our experiences as women in STEM. Toward the end, someone asked whether we felt that, at Harvard, we had ever been treated differently for being women. She went on to explain that she wanted to concentrate in mathematics or engineering, but was concerned by the dearth of women in these fields at Harvard; women make up only 34 percent of undergraduates at the School of Engineering and Applied Science, and the mathematics department currently has just one female senior professor, only the second in its history.

When it was my turn to answer, I struggled to synthesize my thoughts into a cohesive, “panel-worthy” soundbite. I wanted to tell her yes, a thousand times yes — from an uncomfortable incident when a male graduate teaching fellow answered my technical question with an offer to give me a hug if I was worried, to the tangible discomfort I’ve felt at being the only woman in the room at research and extracurricular meetings, to the number of

48 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW FALL 2019

Akshaya Annapragada

times I have been talked over or outright ignored at office hours, my identity as a woman is inextricably linked to my experiences as a Harvard student.

But I also wanted to tell her about the diverse, inspiring, powerful communities I have found at Harvard by joining STEM organizations for women like Harvard Women in Computer Science, and by fighting to cultivate diversity in spaces historically lacking in women through initiatives like the HPR’s Women’s Community Dinner.

I wanted to tell her that none of these problems are uniquely Harvard problems, nor are they uniquely STEM problems. In fact, they are not even uniquely women problems. Women, like people of color, people whose sexual and gender identities sit outside the cisgender, heterosexual assumptions, and fundamentally anyone who does not conform with classical notions of what power looks like, are underrepresented in and have been historically excluded from most positions of power. This reality exists not only in academia but also in politics, industry, and everything in between — but we have the opportunity to change this.

I do not remember my exact answer on the panel, though I hope I covered most of the points above. What I do remember is ending with a sentiment that I myself feel conflicted about: If you don’t pursue your academic dreams because you see a systemic underrepresentation of your identity, then how will that systemic underrepresentation ever change?

If there is one thing that my time at Harvard has shown me, it is that we can change it. In the span of my undergraduate career alone, my fellow students and I have made massive strides in campus groups we care about, and I have seen the national conversation shift in ways I could never have dreamed of.

What was once unimaginable has become reality: The HPR’s executive board, on which I was once the only woman, now has an even gender ratio. The state of Arizona is represented for the first time ever by two women — one of whom is the first openly bisexual person in the Senate. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, recently announced that he would no longer speak on all-male panels. Six women, including two women of color, are running for president.

We are just beginning to see what diverse, representative leadership looks like. This is not to say that these changes were easy, or that the fight is over. It is just the opposite. But I am deeply inspired when I remember that every single one of these changes started with women fighting for space in spaces that were not built for them. n

INTERVIEWS

WANT TO ADVERTISE IN THE HPR?

CONTACT BUSINESS@HARVARDPOLITICS.COM

FALL 2019 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 49

INTERVIEWS

50 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW FALL 2019