????美國的政治進程還有希望嗎？上周，一群來自哈佛商學院（Harvard Business School）的教師參加了在美國首都華盛頓新聞博物館（Newseum）舉行的研討會。他們討論的結果是，美國政治進程的前景非常渺茫。包括一位現任參議員和美國勞工總會與產業勞工組織（AFL-CIO）的政策主任在內的一些華盛頓要人也出席了該活動，他們也做出了同樣悲觀的判斷。

????如果你問問哈佛商學院畢業生的意見，你很可能也會得到同樣悲觀的回答。根據今年一份對10,000名哈佛商學院畢業生進行的調查，美國的政治體系的得分比其他任何機構都要低。約有80%的受訪者表示，華盛頓正在拖美國的后腿，導致美國在世界舞臺上競爭乏力。

????那么應該怎樣應對這種局面？哈佛商學院的教師們似乎采取了一種迂回戰術。他們最近發起了一個“美國競爭力項目”（the U.S. Competitiveness Project），主要研究在沒有美國政府的幫助下，企業可以自行采取哪些行動來提高美國的競爭力。不過他們也給政府出了一些點子。在上周的活動中，美國競爭力項目的聯合主席邁克爾?波特和簡?里夫金公布了一項計劃，以應對波特所謂的“自二戰乃至更早以來，對美國競爭力的最大威脅”。這個計劃的未來聽起來似乎會碩果累累，不過關鍵還是在于如何讓果實從樹上掉下來。

????在哈佛教師們給出的建議表上，以下幾項首當其沖：首先要放寬對技術工人的移民限制，簡化稅收條例，消除漏洞，改善國家的基礎設施建設。此外還要制定一個具有可持續發展潛力的預算。在這一點上可以學習之前的鮑爾斯-辛普森計劃。該計劃本可以有效削減赤字，可惜最終還是慘遭擱淺。

????人們很難對這些提議表示反對。波特指出：“我們通過研究發現，人們在某些領域上存在廣泛的共識?！痹诤脦讉€議題，勞工和業界的意見甚至存在著很大的重合，這種情況就算在假設的條件下都很難實現。哈佛商學院院長尼丁?諾利亞表示：“我們本來以為勞工和業界會在這些問題上存在重大分歧?！辈贿^，廣泛的共識并不代表就能輕而易舉地催生立法。特拉華州的民主黨參議員克里斯?庫恩斯表示：“雖然一些領域存在共識，但要想在今天的國會推動立法過關依然很困難?！?/p>

????究竟有多難，問問奧巴馬總統或白宮發言人約翰?貝納就明白了。據說他們二人去年7月私下敲定了一個債務方案。不過提案剛一提交到立法程序，就立刻在一片口水聲中被打入了冷宮。此事直接導致了美國信用評級的降級，現在美國國會又將針對提高債務限額發起新一輪投票，國會很可能再次上演一模一樣的劇情。商業界幾乎一致認為，如果美國的主權債務違約，將會對美國經濟造成災難性的影響。不過商業界的共識似乎不會對政界的談判產生太大影響。

????那么商界自己可以做些什么？哈佛的美國競爭力項目正在推動企業界盡可能地承擔起責任。波特表示，這不僅僅是出于慈善的道義，更是由于一個強大的、有競爭力的美國對全球經濟有好處，同樣也對在全球經濟中博弈的企業有好處。不過哈佛的這個工程對那些只想棄船自保的企業來說并不劃算。

????Is there any hope for America's political process? Not much, was the answer from the group of Harvard Business School faculty gathered in Washington D.C.'s Newseum last week. Same thing from a panel of D.C. heavy hitters who also showed up for the event, including a sitting U.S. Senator and the director of policy for the AFL-CIO.

????You'll also likely get the same glum response if you ask Harvard's business grads. In a surveyreleased this year of 10,000 Harvard B-school graduates, the nation's political system received worse marks than any other institution. Some 80% of respondents said D.C. was holding the country back from competing on the world stage.

????What to do about it? Faculty members at the Harvard Business School seem to have taken an end-run approach. Their recent major initiative, the U.S. Competitiveness Project, focuses on what businesses can do to improve the United States' standing without Washington's help. But they have some ideas for government, too. At last week's event, the project's co-chairs, professors Michael Porter and Jan Rivkin, unpacked a plan to address what Porter calls the greatest threat to U.S. competitiveness since World War II or before. The agenda they are putting forward is laden with what sounds like low-hanging fruit -- the trick is getting any of those apples to fall from their trees.

????A few priorities topped Harvard's wish list: Ease immigration regulations for skilled workers. Simplify the tax code and eliminate loopholes. Improve the nation's infrastructure. And enact a sustainable budget, possibly one resembling the widely praised but dead-in-the-water Bowles-Simpson plan that would have slashed the deficit.

????It's hard to argue with these proposals. "We've found through our research that there are areas of wide consensus," Porter said. On several of the issues, there's even substantial overlap between labor and industry, an alliance that's hard to forge even in hypothetical terms. "These are divides that we had thought were important divides," says Harvard Business School Dean Nitin Nohria. But wide agreement does not pave an easy path to legislation. "It's very difficult to move from areas of private consensus to actual passage in today's Congress," said Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware.

????Just ask President Obama or House Speaker John Boehner. The two men were said to have privately hashed out a debt deal last July, but the agreement quickly melted in the spotlight once it came time to legislate. The spectacle, which resulted in a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating, seems likely to repeat itself this year as Congress moves toward another vote on raising the debt ceiling. There is near-universal consensus in the business world that it would be disastrous for the U.S. economy if the country were to default on its sovereign debt. However, agreement within the business world doesn't seem to have had much of an impact on negotiations so far.

????So what's the business community to do? Harvard is pushing for companies to take on as much social responsibility as they can bear. It's not for the sake of charity, Porter says. It's because a strong and competitive U.S. is good for the global economy as well as the businesses that are based there. The HBS project has determined that it's not cost-effective for companies to simply jump ship, either.