Colloquy

After decades of increasing inequality and stagnating wages among working and middle-class Americans, many pundits thought that the financial crisis and the wave election of 2008 would usher in a new era of politics in the US. And they were right, only not the way they expected. The passage of the Affordable Care and Inflation Reduction acts notwithstanding, the last eighteen years have generally not yielded a more robust social safety net, higher taxes on the wealthy, or massive public investments in infrastructure or renewable energy. Instead, many working and middle-class voters have moved to the right, resulting most recently in sharp cuts to bedrock social programs that provide healthcare and food assistance to the poor—and equally sharp cuts in taxes, particularly for those at the top of the income and wealth pyramid.

So, why have US politicians been unable to build sustained support for policies of redistribution in the face of skyrocketing inequality? Fair Enough, a new book by the University of Toulouse social scientist Charlotte Cavaille, PhD '14, points to an underexamined cause: the complicated ways people think about fairness. In addition to traditional notions of self-interest, Cavaille says, voters weigh proportionality and reciprocity in deciding whether redistributive policies are fair. As a result, middle- and working-class Americans’ concerns about "free riders" may inspire opposition to policies that would benefit them materially.

“If you buy one self-help book this year, pick this one,” wrote New York Times writer Tara Parker-Pope about How to Change: The Science of Getting from Where You Are to Where You Want to Be, adding the book to the paper's list of eight favorites for healthy living in 2021. What sets How to Change apart is its focus on the internal obstacles that plague efforts to develop healthier habits and move forward in our lives. The author, University of Pennsylvania professor Katie Milkman, PhD ’09, says she organized the book this way in order to enable readers to identify common barriers and the best strategies for overcoming them. This month on Colloquy, Milkman discusses her research and how insights from economics and psychology can be harnessed to change consequential behaviors for good.

Before his death at age 92, the Brown University Professor Gordon Wood, PhD ’64, devoted his long career to making sure we remember the radicalism of the American Revolution. Often referred to as the “dean” of historians of the 18th-century United States, Wood argued that the country represented not only the most liberal and democratic regime in human history, but also a fundamental transformation of society and culture, one that continues to shape popular movements for freedom throughout the world. As the US approached its 250th anniversary, he spoke with Harvard Griffin GSAS about the creation of the American republic in one of the last interviews of his life.

Here in eastern Massachusetts, you can't take more than a few steps without tripping over a marker or a monument to the American Revolution. Middle school students take field trips to where it all happened: the Boston Massacre, Lexington and Concord, and Bunker Hill. Teachers present the war as the struggle of humble farmers and merchants to free themselves from the clutches of the British Empire. 

The University of California Berkeley historian Brian DeLay, PhD ’04, author of the forthcoming book, Aim at Empire: American Revolutions, Arms Trading, and the Birth of US Empire, 1763–1815, says that the great paradox of the Revolution was that the Patriots were fighting not only for their independence, but also for an empire of their own—one that rolled through the lands of indigenous peoples west of the boundary set by the British at the end of the Seven Years War in 1763. Moreover, DeLay says the Revolution was one of many that spread across the Americas over a 50-year period in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The common thread throughout these conflicts—and the determinant of success and failure—was often access to guns and ammunition.

Across the country, judges and justices are making decisions that reach back, sometimes centuries, to define what the Constitution means today. Whether it's gun rights, abortion, or voting laws, the Supreme Court increasingly relies on what it calls history and tradition to interpret the nation's founding documents. But what history, exactly? How reliable is it as a guide for a democracy in the 21st century? And should five justices—the least required for a majority decision—have the power to strike down laws passed by hundreds of legislators, elected by millions of citizens? Explore these questions and what they reveal about the court, originalism, and the future of American democracy with Nikolas Bowie, PhD ’18, the Louis D. Brandeis Professor of Law at Harvard Law School (HLS), a historian of democracy, and a thought leader on how power really works in our constitutional system. His new book with his fellow author Daphna Renan, also an HLS professor, is called Supremacy: How Rule by the Court Replaced Government by the People.