Chrystia Freeland

Conventional wisdom has it that the Internet is dumbing us down and making politics more partisan. Sound bites are more effective than substance. The punditocracy that shapes these truisms is, needless to say, pretty certain they apply most powerfully to people in the hinterland, especially those with a history of voting for the right.

That is why the election of Naheed Nenshi, a 39-year-old former business school professor, as mayor of Calgary, was a watershed event that should be of interest far beyond Canada, where he has already become a political superstar.

When Mr. Nenshi earned his upset victory last October, the first flutter of outside enthusiasm was about the fact that an Ismaili Muslim son of South Asian immigrants who moved to Canada from Tanzania had been chosen to lead the capital of the country’s conservative heartland.

The next wave of excitement was inspired by his campaign’s sophisticated use of social media to overturn Calgary’s old-boy political establishment. This Twitter revolution, with which we are now so familiar thanks to the oil states of North Africa, made a splash in the land of the blue-eyed sheiks thanks to clever tactics like a funny YouTube video of people struggling with Mr. Nenshi’s name.

But when I spoke to Mr. Nenshi recently in the elegant sandstone building that houses the mayor’s office, he told me that outsiders are missing the point. The real significance of his election, he said, is that it proves voters care deeply about big ideas and will elect the leaders who take the trouble to engage them. This is true, he insisted, even outside political and business centers such as New York, London or Toronto.

“We called it politics in full sentences,” said Mr. Nenshi, who has the energy and gregariousness of a born politician. “We called it the ‘better ideas’ campaign.” Those ideas were serious, and against the current of what many had assumed to be the cultural propensities of Calgarians. Mr. Nenshi is an evangelist of high-density living and of public transit, revolutionary notions in a city that is spread across as many acres as New York, but houses just a 10th as many people.

Calgarians love their cars – that’s how more than two-thirds of them get to work – and they are bullish on the oil industry that not only puts gas in their tanks but also is the lifeblood of their economy. Yet these same Calgarians embraced a geeky, Harvard-educated former McKinsey consultant, who loves technocratic solutions to urban problems such as “spot intensification” and containing sprawl by charging developers more to build on the outskirts of town.

Calgary is a “city of ideas,” Mr. Nenshi said. “Calgarians were really interested in having a conversation about the future of their city.” But the province of Alberta is the closest Canada comes to a one-party state, and until Mr. Nenshi and his pals came along, no one had really bothered to bring people in to that discussion.

This engagement with the community is the second important lesson of his win. In 1995, Robert Putnam told us that Americans had started to bowl alone. And many of us worry that the advances in technology in the subsequent 15 years have served mostly to alienate us further from our real-life neighbors as we retreat ever deeper into virtual communities of the like-minded.

What Mr. Nenshi found in Calgary was a passionate desire to be involved in the real, physical life of the city – and one that could be most effectively tapped by using cybertools. He said he adapted the classic marketing and political adage that you have to “go to people where they live” to the Internet Age. “One of the things we discussed is that a lot of people live online,” Mr. Nenshi said, including the 600,000 Calgarians, in a city of 1.3 million, who are on Facebook. “Social media was the tool that enabled our philosophy.”

He said that when he first moved back home to Calgary after professional stints in Toronto and New York, his East Coast friends were baffled: “The New York people and the Harvard people were like, ‘Naheed, why are you in the middle of the Canadian Prairies?’ ” But he thinks the “Four Seasons hotel tribe” of globe-trotting elites may be missing the fact that they inhabit a world that is rather provincial itself.

“This so-called borderless world has become more insular … I am very happy to let the Four Seasons tribe do their work on global prosperity,” Mr. Nenshi said. “I’ll do my work on local prosperity.”

Below are Mohamed El-Erian's responses to questions asked by readers during the March 31 Reuters Newsmaker interview with Global Editor at Large Chrystia Freeland.

Are the current "mixed signals" by the various markets similar to the ones you said were being transmitted before the financial crisis, and do you think that the current stock market trading activity signals caution, confidence or complacency? (from i8emallup)

The most striking aspect of the "mixed signals" is the contrast between corporate (bottom up) indicators and macro (top down) developments.

From a bottom-up perspective, the U.S. economy continues to heal after the cardiac arrest suffered during the global financial crisis. The healing process is most advanced among large multinationals as illustrated by their large profits and profit margins, as well as their significantly strengthened balance sheets. It is also being reflected in higher job creation.

At the macro level, however, the U.S. economy is facing current and future headwinds. The political system is yet to converge on a meaningful medium-term fiscal reform effort. There is uncertainty on what will happen once The Fed completes its QE2 program. And, like other countries around the world, the U.S. is dealing with the negative supply and demand shocks occasioned by the unrest in the Middle East and the tragic triple disasters in Japan.

The result is, therefore, a set of mixed signals that, so far, the markets has resolved decisively in favor of the bottom-up indicators.

In terms of historical comparisons, no this is not the same as those mixed signal that led to the abrupt 2008 market moves. The latter took place within the context of large, multi-year excesses in private sector leverage, credit creation and debt entitlement. As such, the risk and severity of the reversals were much, much higher back in 2008. Today, a meaningful part of this leverage has been shifted to the public balance sheets and, as such, the immediate vulnerability is less both in magnitude and immediate timing. If unaddressed, however, this vulnerability will grow.

Are the markets too complacent about potential risks to growth (disturbance in global production chains, fiscal tightening) and inflation (Japans expected demand for resources, continued strength in China, core EMU)? (From Michael D-R)

At this stage, the markets (and, judging from their last statement, the FOMC) are "looking through the disturbances you cite. The view is that they will be "transitory." Put another way, the markets are signaling that their impact will essentially be "temporary and reversible."

This view has support among some economists that draw a historical parallel with what happened after the 1995 Kobe earthquake. Due to a large reconstruction program (including fiscal outlays of some 2% of GDP), Japanese growth came back rapidly, and the economy experienced a "V" shaped recovery.

We would caution against this analytical short cut.

The recent disasters in Japan are two to three times as big as the Kobe earthquake. Their impact will linger due to the uncertainties with the nuclear reactors and the reduction in electricity generation.

Also, the Japanese economy is in a different place today compared to 1995, as is the world economy.

The country’s debt to GDP is about 205% compared to 85% in 1995. Its credit rating is AA- and not AAA. Plus it is operating in a global economy that is structurally weaker.

All this suggests that we should not rush to simply "look through" the impact of Japan’s tragic calamities. A more thorough analysis is warranted.

What percentage chance exists of default by G20 & G7 governments? (from Mark Melin)

We think that there is a meaningful chance that the most vulnerable economies in the Euro-zone (namely, Greece, Ireland and Portugal) may be forced to restructure their debt.

These countries face a large debt overhang and significant challenges to economic growth and employment promotion. Fiscal austerity on its own is unlikely to be sufficient to deal with the debt overhang and put these countries back on the path of high and sustainable growth.

As Chrystia threatened at the end of her interview with Mohamed El-Erian today, we’ve compiled all the questions our readers submitted via the Newsmaker blog and Twitter and e-mailed them to him. El-Erian will be flying to Europe tonight after he finishes up his business in New York, and while we do hope he gets a little sleep, we also hope he stays up long enough to answer all of your questions.  We’ll post his answers right here once we receive them.

Global Markets

Are the current “mixed signals” by the various markets similar to the ones you said were being transmitted before the financial crisis, and do you think that the current stock market trading activity signals caution, confidence or complacency? (from i8emallup)

Are the markets too complacent about potential risks to growth (disturbance in global production chains, fiscal tightening) and inflation (Japans expected demand for resourses, continued strength in China, core EMU)? (From Michael D-R)

What percentage chance exists of default by G20 & G7 governments? (from Mark Melin)

Middle East

How can the Middle East conquer corruption and power-abuse that has been inherited for generations? is there hope in the new “governments”? (From Lalla Nashta)

Would you give us your views on how Egypt shall grow economically and socially ?? (From mohamedino)

Japan

What do you think about the next steps for BOJ in the near term? (from Murad Halaiqa)

U.S. Economy

The US is approaching the end of QE2. What do you think would have been a better option? (question from GKhalifa)

Do you really feel the full faith and credit of the US Government is at risk? from (amj)

Why should the Fed permit large US banks to return the $1T in cash on their balance sheets to stockholders when several are technically insolvent now? (from triwealth)

Posted by Peter Rudegeair.

To Mohamed El-Erian, the world’s major reserve currencies — the dollar, the euro, and the yen — are a bit like your dirty laundry; every shirt is dirty, but compared to the alternatives, they historically have been the “cleanest dirty shirts.”  El -Erian thinks that arrangement will not last forever.  He tells Chrystia that a long-term trade that PIMCO likes is a long position in the currencies of the successful emerging markets — the clean shirts — funded by the currencies of the U.S., the EU, and Japan.

El-Erian forecasts a medium-term weakening of the yen as Japan will repatriate more funds than the market currently expects in order to finance reconstruction.  Of the three options Japan has for funding reconstruction — borrowing, repatriating funds, or monetizing debt — repatriation has the fewest risks.  With a debt-to-GDP ratio well north of 200% and a diminished credit rating of AA-, borrowing money or monetizing debt could each cause a rise in Japan’s interest rates.

In the near-term, though, before Japan can think about reconstruction it will have to muddle through the immediate aftereffects of the tsunami: a one-off destruction of wealth and a 25% reduction in Japanese energy generation.  El-Erian pointed out that auto companies and tech firms around the world continue to announce production slowdowns due to the tsunami’s of supply chains — just two days ago Ford announced a temporary shutdown of a factory in Belgium in order to preserve car parts.  His biggest worry is the “stagflationary wind” that’s blowing from Japan towards the rest of the global economy.

Posted by Peter Rudegeair.

Reuters finance blogger Felix Salmon has previously written that “if you wanted to put a face to the famous bond vigilantes, it would probably feature that famous moustache” of PIMCO CEO Mohamed El-Erian.  Well, this morning Chrystia sat down with this famous bond vigilante for an hour-long Thomson Reuters Newsmaker interview and asked him why PIMCO decided to dump all of its holdings of U.S. government bonds earlier this month.  Here’s what he had to say:

Everything you buy and hold must have value; it’s that simple…  And our estimation at the time was that there was better value elsewhere…  Now if the valuations of Treasuries change — and it has been changing; they have been getting cheaper — we will revisit that.  But when we looked at what else was available, you have Treasury-like instruments that offer you a lot more value than Treasuries.  You have government instruments in other countries that offer you more value.  We made a portfolio decision that said at these prices we find better value elsewhere in the fixed-income market for this mutual fund, and as it turned out, that was the right decision to make.

El-Erian listed three concerns PIMCO had about the market for U.S. bonds.  First, the Fed, which has been buying 70% of new Treasury issuance in its second round of quantitative easing, will cease it purchases in June, and it is unclear who will step in to buy Treasuries at current prices.  As El Erian said, “when you can’t identify a buyer, you don’t want to hold that instrument.”  Second, El-Erian doubts that Washington can find a political solution to the U.S.’s medium-term fiscal problem in the near future.  Finally, U.S. inflation is a worry for PIMCO.  Though increases in the prices of food and energy have yet to feed back into core inflation, El-Erian’s experience investing in emerging markets has taught him that the convergence point between headline and core inflation will be higher this time around than it has been in recent decades.

In response to questions via Twitter about the Fed’s latest round of quantitative easing, El-Erian said “I would not have done QE2.”  He speculated that the only reason the Fed undertook a second round of asset purchases was because it believed Congress would not pass an additional fiscal stimulus, and that had the Fed known there would be an extension of the Bush tax cuts and a payroll tax cut, it would not have started QE2.  El-Erian also doubted the Fed would embark upon a third round of quantitative easing after the current program ends in June, citing an improving economic outlook at a bleaker political situation:

Posted by Peter Rudegeair.

Fresh off of last week’s announced bid for T-Mobile, AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson sat down with Chrystia following a breakfast this morning at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.  He explained why this deal is good for his shareholders:

Over the last four years, since the mobile broadband era was introduced, the volumes on our network are up 8,000%.  We’re investing an incredible amount of capital, but we look out into the future and we do not believe, that given the growth rates we expect in the future, that there is adequate spectrum in the industry to accommodate this growth.  The infrastructure, the sell-side infrastructure — the build requirements –  are really extensive.  You do this transaction, it gives you an immediate lift of capacity in the neighborhood of about 30% in most of our major metropolitan areas.  That kind of capacity lift is future growth and future opportunity to serve customers, so this good for the shareowners.  The synergies associated with this from a shareowner standpoint represent in excess of $40 billion of synergies.

The AT&T chief was sanguine that the Department of Justice would ultimately bless the T-Mobile acquisition sometime next year, noting that in 18 of the top 20 mobile telecommunications markets in the U.S., consumers have a choice of at least five providers. When asked if he was prepared to offer consumer guarantees like price caps, Stephenson replied that recent history clearly shows consumer prices fall in the wake of this type of big merger.

Moreover, Stephenson said the growth of wireless broadband telecommunications has had a profound effect on U.S. productivity, especially via the acceleration of commercial transactions and via capital investment.  AT&T spends more on capital investment than any other publicly traded U.S. company, he said. The firm plans to invest $19 billion domestically this year.

Head to CFR.org to watch the video from full event.

Posted by Peter Rudegeair.

Shakespeare was wrong. He assured us that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. One reason that is such a beloved line is its comforting message that intrinsic quality, rather than external labels, is what really counts. But recent research from a Harvard Business School professor suggests that, at least when it comes to the written word, labels matter quite a lot.

That is one of the conclusions of not-yet-published work by Bharat Anand, the professor at Harvard, and Alexsander Rosinski, a former visiting researcher there. The two wanted to figure out two things: whether brands influence our perceptions of quality, and whether adjacent advertising does.

It has become conventional wisdom to believe that information has been commodified. Google is the great leveller, with algorithms that can promote content-farm stories ahead of Pulitzer Prize-winning investigations. But it turns out that, to readers, provenance still matters a lot.

The two researchers took a story about Greek public finances that appeared online on the Huffington Post and showed it to a test group of 700 readers in three forms: as an unlabeled piece published online, as an online piece published by the Huffington Post and as an online piece published by The Economist.

The scent of this rose depended very much on its name: When respondents believed they were reading an Economist story, they rated its quality at 6.9 on a scale of 10; when the same piece was attributed to the Huffington Post, it drew a score of 6.1; and when it had no label, it scored just 5.4.

This is a terrific finding for the beleaguered mainstream media, which may not be quite so lame after all in the eyes of their readers.

The researchers’ findings about the relationship between ads and perceptions of quality were equally intriguing. Conventional wisdom is that advertising is a mild annoyance for readers (some websites offer ad-free versions as a perk for paying subscribers). To investigate this, the researchers placed two types of ads alongside the article about Greece, ones they describe as “cheap” and “good.”

The biggest surprise was that “good” ads had almost as powerful an impact on perception of quality as an editorial brand. When the article was viewed beside ads for Jaguar and Credit Suisse, but without a brand, readers rated it a 6, nearly high as the 6.1 it received as an ad-free Huffington Post piece. Even the “cheap” ads (for online card games and astrology) earned a slightly higher rating of 5.6 for the no-brand story.

But if the article appeared under an editorial brand, readers saw advertising as a negative. The impact was greatest for the most lustrous masthead. The “cheap” ads reduced the perceived quality of the Economist story to 6.2, nearly the ranking it earned as a Huffington Post story with no advertising. Even the “good” ads made readers a little more critical.

This finding may not be quite so uplifting for legacy media companies. It is bad enough that even classy ads slightly depress the value that readers see in their content. More worrying, if you are a publisher, is the apparent power of “good” consumer brands to confer a quality halo on editorial content.

The obvious conclusion to draw is that owners of “good” brands may be able to cut out the publisher altogether and produce their own content. Sure enough, that is one of the emerging trends on the Internet. Retail sites such as Groupon, Gilt Groupe and Net-a-Porter publish their own editorial material. One reason it works is that it is good; Groupon’s writing is smarter and sharper than that of many pure publishers. But the Harvard researchers’ findings suggest we may also like the stories on these sites partly because of the borrowed luster of the branded goods sold on them.

The great virtue of Prof. Anand and Mr. Rosinski’s work is that they produced some empirical answers to questions – the value of brand, the impact of advertising – that we often talk about in abstract and emotional terms.

Here are two other big issues I would like to see them tackle in the same way. First, how do personal brands (think Oprah Winfrey) stack up against institutional ones? And second, what is the impact of social networks, such as Facebook? If brands can increase our perceptions of quality, it would be useful to learn whether personal recommendations have the same power.

Americans actually live in Russia, although they think they live in Sweden. And they would like to live on a kibbutz. This isn’t the set-up for some sort of politically incorrect Catskills stand-up joke circa 1960. It is the takeaway from a remarkable study by Michael Norton and Dan Ariely on how Americans think about income inequality.

The right likes to argue that income inequality as an issue doesn’t win elections because Americans don’t begrudge the rich so much as they want to join them. The Norton and Ariely study suggests otherwise. Given a choice, the authors find, Americans would prefer to live in a society more equal than even highly egalitarian Sweden.

Another popular view is that income inequality isn’t experienced as acutely by most Americans as the numbers suggest because of how much can be “consumed” by the lower rungs of the nation’s socioeconomic ladder. No less a figure than Alan Greenspan, the maestro himself, once made this case at the Federal Reserve’s annual Jackson Hole conference, presenting data on the consumption of dishwashers, microwaves and clothes dryers showing that if measured by the possession of these goods – as opposed to the huge and growing income divide — inequality was decreasing.

That interpretation is not without merit. But it turned out that allowing Americans to prosper by using their homes as A.T.M.’s and maxing out on their credit cards was maybe not such a great idea.

Personally, I lean toward two other theories. Americans are mistaken about income inequality because of national self-confidence and the lottery effect.

By national self-confidence, I mean the widespread conviction that the American way is probably right because all those other ways don’t seem to work out so well. This is a wonderful national quality and one of the reasons America has such resilience. But confidence in the American way can make it hard for the country as a whole to recognize when things aren’t working.

Take, for instance, the health care debate, when a politically effective criticism of what has come to be known as Obamacare was to argue that it would destroy the “best” health care system in the world. Mary Meeker, a Silicon Valley guru of impeccably capitalist and American credentials debunked that idea in her recent USA, Inc. presentation, in which she pointed out that “U.S.A. per capita health care spending is 3x OECD average, yet the average life expectancy and a variety of health indicators in the U.S. fall below average. But if you spend way more than everyone else, shouldn’t your results (a.k.a. performance) be better than everyone else’s, or at least near the top?”

Aside from faith in American national excellence, the other main reason Americans seem so unperturbed by the widening chasm between the rich and everyone else is what I like to call the lottery effect. Buying lottery tickets is clearly an irrational act — the odds are hugely stacked against us. But many millions of us do, because we see the powerful evidence that an ordinary person, someone just like us whose only qualifying act was to buy a ticket, wins our favorite lottery every week.

For many Americans, the nation’s rowdy form of capitalism is a lottery that has similarly bestowed fabulous rewards on the Everyman. The current leading exemplar of self-made billions is Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, and he may soon be outstripped by the even more instant cyber-star Andrew Mason, the founder of Groupon.

But the problem with lotteries is that there are only a few winners. That is the story the numbers tell us about American capitalism today — and unless that underlying reality changes, at some point all those folks who think they already live in Sweden will realize they live in a winner-take-all society, and that most of us aren’t winning.

This originally appeared on the New York Times’ Room for Debate on “Rising Wealth Inequality: Should We Care?”

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a dictator who wants to be accepted by polite Western society should look for a charming, glamorous wife. That, at least, is what the world’s autocrats are learning from the example of Bashar al-Assad, the president of Syria.

First, his wife, Asma al-Assad, was the subject of a glowing profile in the March issue of the U.S. edition of Vogue, which described this ‘‘rose in the desert’’ as ‘‘the freshest and most magnetic of first ladies’’ and reported on the ‘‘wildly democratic principles’’ that govern family life chez Assad. Now, the Harvard Arab Alumni Association has organized an event in Damascus, ‘‘under the patronage’’ of Mrs. Assad, who was scheduled to deliver a keynote address on Thursday.

On Wednesday, the day before the planned Harvard alumni event, security officers beat and detained a group of nonviolent demonstrators who gathered to call for the release of the estimated 3,000 to 4,000 political prisoners in the country.

On its Web site earlier this week, the Harvard Arab Alumni Association highlighted its connection with the dictator’s wife: ‘‘We are greatly honored to hold our Arab World Conference under the esteemed patronage of Her Excellency Mrs. Asma al-Assad, The First Lady of Syria, and are privileged that Her Excellency will deliver the conference’s keynote address. A thought-provoking, inspiring and tireless leader and advocate, the First Lady’s address will certainly be the highlight of our event.’’

The Web site was enthusiastic about Mrs. Assad’s role in Syrian national life and the connection between her work and that of her husband’s regime: ‘‘In her role as Syria’s first lady, Her Excellency Asma al-Assad applies her experience, energy and influence to her country’s social and cultural development. Her role reflects the significant economic, political and social change that is happening in Syria today. Asma al-Assad’s work supports that of President Bashar al-Assad by fostering the emergence of a robust, independent and self-sustaining civil society.’’

According to a Human Rights Watch report released in January, the Syrian authorities were among the worst violators of human rights in the world in 2010, torturing their opponents, imprisoning lawyers and violently repressing ethnic Kurds. Human Rights Watch said it had ‘‘credible reports that security agencies arbitrarily detained dissidents and criminal suspects, held them incommunicado.’’ It also said that those detained were subjected to ‘‘ill- treatment and torture.’’

Nadim Houry, the senior researcher on Syria and Lebanon for Human Rights Watch, said the prominent role for Mrs. Assad was ‘‘part of a general charm offensive.’’ He took particular issue with the Harvard Arab Alumni Association Web site’s reference to the first family’s support for independent civil society.

‘‘This is definitely crossing the line,’’ he said. ‘‘There is nothing independent and nothing self-sustaining about what the government is doing with civil society in Syria.’’

Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said he was surprised that Syria — which effectively occupied Lebanon for almost 30 years, allied itself with Iran and aided groups like Hamas — had faced less scrutiny than other local dictatorships. ‘‘It is ironic that it has escaped, for the most part, criticism,’’ Dr. Haass said.

The Harvard Arab Alumni Association’s Web site includes a disclaimer describing itself as an independent, not-for-profit organization and stating: ‘‘Nothing that is published by the HAAA should be taken to represent the opinions or endorsement of Harvard University, the President and Fellows of Harvard College, or the Harvard Alumni Association.’’

According to the program, six people with Harvard affiliations were scheduled to speak at or moderate sessions at the daylong event, including the ‘‘Harvard Guest Address,’’ one of three keynote speeches, to be delivered by Jorge Dominguez, Harvard’s vice provost for international affairs.

In an e-mail, John Longbrake, a Harvard spokesman, said that the Harvard Arab Alumni Association was an independent organization but that ‘‘we are supportive of any alumni group that hosts a conference encouraging open dialogue and the exploration of ideas.’’

‘‘In his talk, Professor Dominguez will be highlighting Harvard’s engagement in the Arab world and discussing the value of freedom of inquiry and why liberty of the mind builds a democratic society,’’ Mr. Longbrake wrote.

The positive references to the Syrian government in a conference with Harvard involvement provoked intense debate among U.S. political scientists this week, with one e-mailing a colleague to say it was ‘‘shocking and disgusting.’’

But others said the event highlighted how hard it was to strike precisely the right balance between engaging authoritarian regimes and appearing to legitimize them.

‘‘To me, the real challenge is to navigate simultaneously working with governments and civil society,’’ said Anne- Marie Slaughter, a professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University.

Dr. Slaughter, who has been a dean and has just completed a stint as director of policy planning for the U.S. State Department, has been a strong advocate of a no-flight zone over Libya. However, she argued: ‘‘It can’t be either/or. You can’t just abandon the government and focus on the protesters. The world doesn’t work that way. The question is on which side of the line does this fall.’’

*****

UPDATE: I had e-mailed Harvard Professor Jorge Dominguez on Wednesday asking for his thoughts on the Harvard Arab Alumni Association event, but my deadline passed before we had an opportunity to connect.  Subsequently Professor Dominguez sent me the following e-mail outlining the subject of his keynote speech.  What follows is not a response to my column since he has not yet had a chance to read it, but rather a bit of supplementary information.

“I spoke this morning on several themes. One is Harvard’s long engagement with the Arab world, which started with the teaching of the Arabic language sporadically since the late 17^th century and regularly since an endowment for that purpose was established 75 years ago. Similarly, Harvard’s library resources in Arabic are approximately 270,000 volumes, which makes it the largest research university library collection in Arabic materials in the world. Moving closer to the present, I noted that we’ve increased the number of students from the Arab world from 47 to 96 over the past decade, and discussed how the University’s admissions and financial aid policies span the world. Harvard is the best university in the world for a poor person.

“I went on to discuss the meaning of education. Some examples are case-based student-focused learning of the type evident in case discussions in our professional schools (business, law, public policy). There is no right or wrong answer to such discussions but, rather, a vigorous analysis of varying approaches.

“Then, I illustrated my own understanding of a “liberal education” in terms of a course I teach, in which in each lecture I present an argument and deliver it as persuasively as I can, only to have it contradicted in subsequent lectures where the lecture is also delivered as persuasively as I can. I noted that in exams and papers I never ask for the “right” answer because each student must be able to formulate two answers. I described how competition between ideas and interpretation is a key to free inquiry in any society, and how the liberty of the mind, open to the world, is both the most effective way to learn about citizenship as well as professional life, and to construct a democratic society. Finally, I turned to research in various endeavors that Harvard faculty and students carry out in various parts of the Arab world.

“I closed by praising the Harvard Arab Alumni Association for bringing the discussion to a city in the Arab world, to build on the value of freedom of inquiry and competition between ideas and interpretations through the manner in which they built the conference program. There were several panelists per panel and a vigorous moderator who kept the dynamics going and prevented ossified speeches. Each session had a good chunk of time for many questions and comments where, of course, the recent developments across the Arab world were raised and addressed. The HAAA deserved praise, therefore, for bringing vigorous debate to a discussion in an Arab city about problems in the Arab world, presumably a value many of your readers may share as well.”

Warning — unashamedly patriotic Canadian content to follow!!! If you are a member of the “Blame Canada” constituency, or if you share Michael Kinsley’s view that the world’s most boring headline is “Worthwhile Canadian Initiative,” then please read no further ….

I, however, am an enthusiastic Canadian, and I was absolutely thrilled earlier this year when Morris Rosenberg, the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, invited me to deliver the annual O.D. Skelton lecture on foreign policy at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in Ottawa.

At the beginning of my talk last week, I asked for feedback and promised to post my lecture online so that anyone who is interested could read it and respond. Here it is. The O.D. Skelton lectures are published online and in pamphlet form by the DFAIT and before mine appears I would love to take advantage of your ideas to improve it.

*****

(more…)