The Politics of Schmoozing

THE POLITICAL dust stirred up by David Stockman's kiss-and-tell blockbuster, The Triumph of Politics, has just about settled. A 1000 cc. does of wisdom, too little, too late, Triumph is the first weighty tome in what is sure to be a continuing series of mea culpas and finger pointing organized around the theme, "Where the Reagan Revolution went astray." Despite some of the most successful politicking ever to emerge from the Oval Office, Reagan's ambitious plans to reform America in Ayn Rand's image have stalled in a pool of red ink, victim of the pragmatic wheel-dealing Stockman calls "Politics."

Stockman's 'gee-whiz' admissions about the policy vacuum that has permitted the American economy to career close to the fiscal brink have already received more attention (and shekels from Newsweek), than they deserve. What hasn't gotten so much remark is the character of the man himself. Perhaps people are tired of Stockman, perhaps Michael Deaver's shenanigans have supplied everyone's sleaze fix, but Triumph is not only the tale of history's greatest fiscal fiasco, it's an extraordinary summary of the political degeneration of a generation, a moral and institutional slackness that characterizes politics the Harvard way.

It was at Harvard that Stockman mounted the first rung on the the ladder up to his current, ridiculously well-paid position with the head gnomes of Wall Street, Salomon Brothers. In the late '60s, Stockman, like many WASPs of his time, was in hiding from the Vietnam war. A self-professed leftie, Stockman chose the Harvard Divinity School as his hideout, but he soon fell under the sway of the smell of power.

Harvard was Shangri-la...The steets and classrooms were crowded with people who had just gotten off the Washington-Boston Shuttle. Many had been a part of the Camelot entourage: Richard Neustadt, John Kenneth Galbraith...It did not take long before I was thoroughly infected with the desire to find a place in the world at the other end of the shuttle.

STOCKMAN CRAWLED up to Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then a Nixon cabinet member, becoming first his babysitter and then his intellectual disciple. Stockman read everything Moynihan wrote, including his private files, and used the Moynihans to get into a seminar journalist David Broder was teaching, who in turn connected Stockman to the John Anderson team in Washington.

Stockman's career pattern was simple: find a "rabbi" (mentor in B-school lingo), become his slave until a better mentor comes along, become his slave, etc. The concept of a personal life, or fun, does not seem to part of Stockman's mental vocabulary; only the ceaseless immersion in whichever intellectual orthodoxies seemed most prudent at the time.

Hmmmm. Does this pattern sound familiar? It's merely the road to academic success followed by the wise liberal arts student at Harvard. No need to resort to anything so crude as sleeping with your section leader or depositing large checks in a numbered account at Bay Banks. Sidle up to your most prominents professors and tell them what they want to hear. If you have any wits at all, hitching your wagon to enough academic engines can lead to a summer job, fellowships, and best of all, hot reccomendations for the grad school or job of your choice.

SCHMOOZING IN and of itself can hardly be criticized; it, like the Harvard network, is one of the facts of life. But a well-placed kiss on certain key fundaments in this institution can have truly ridiculous results, rocketing the intellectually and morally supple so far into the social and professional stratosphere that is proves not only that life is unfair, it's unreasonable. The concentration of careerist power in this place is so heavy that in certain key seminars you feel like you're present at Louis XIVth's toilet, a court jester competing for the Great One's favor.

Campus politics more or less follows the intellectual patterns established in the classroom, albeit in a slightly perverse fashion. It seems that those most opposed to Derek Bok & Co. know them the best; after all, what is an administrator without a crisis to administrate? As long as the bounds of acceptable conduct are adhered to, the occasional political protests or marches serve to show the idealism of Harvard youth--and feed the self-importance of University Hall.

The only crime in this style of intellectual prostitution is getting your feet tangled. Stockman's confessions about supply-side economics in the famous Atlantic article, "The Education of David Stockman" was perhaps the best example. At that time, he was lucky. Stockman, despite his indiscretions, knew too much to be fired. Later, Stockman was smart. He jumped into the investment banking boat before the mess the Republican Administration had made of the economy became obvious.

WHAT WAS MISSING in David Stockman, and is missing in most of the budding politicos in this university, Undergraduate Council types especially, is some sense of personal integrity. Integrity not in the sense of sticking blindly to a cause, creed or ideals; that's called stubbornness. Integrity is having enough self-respect not to debase oneself before one's betters, no matter how much one might admire the person or could use his help. Displaying integrity may slow one's course on the fastrack of success, but it's the only defense against the kind of rationalization that can turn an ambitious person into the tool of some fashionable doctrine.

Integrity is the quality that makes Humphrey Bogart's Rick the most admired character in cinema. The impression that Walter Mondale lacked it, that he would kiss any baby shoved into his arms, lost him the election. And it is the absence of that quality that accounts for the nauseating aura surrounding most of Reagan's lapdogs.

Harvard dangles some of the most tempting asses in America in front of some of the smartest and most ambitious students in America. As David Stockman shows, in the world of real politics, such a combination can be the kiss of death.