The initial set of 400 names submitted to the search committee was a hodgepodge of figures in higher education, business, and even government. National buzz promoted first Bill Clinton and then Al Gore ’69 as potentials. But when the list was narrowed down to 40, neither were included. The most prominent Washington figure remaining was Summers.

The logic that winnowed out Clinton and Gore could have worked in a variety of ways, but one possible and likely concern was that political figures could be polarizing and as a result not the best choice for a university presidency. Summers, of course, was a Clinton appointee, and at the Treasury sometimes had to defend the administration’s interests. But he was also, for a year, a member of the Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers, the research engine that drove many more conservative policies.

The explanation that friends offer, and a partial explanation of what Summers’ Washington experience means to Harvard, is that somehow, Summers has never been rendered a partisan, and has never considered himself an overly political figure.

Today, Summers is seen as a New Democrat, a combination of traditional social liberalism tempered with fiscal moderation. The story of how Summers evolved from the mold of his parents—with their New Deal-inspired faith in governments’ ameliorative power—can be explained in several ways.

The first is to stress, as Summers does, the general development of the progressive movement over the last 30 years. “I think there has been a tendency for progressive thinking to move toward more market-oriented thinking,” Summers says. Summers might have been on the front-edge of these movements—supporting a reduction in the deficit long before it became fashionable for Democrats to do so—but it’s his contention that the general trends underlay his thinking.

A more personal approach highlights a set of experiences that influenced and complicated Summers’ outlook.

Neff remembers his father, a small businessman, as an early influence. “He was able to talk to Larry about the immense transactional costs of government, the impediments to small business,” Neff said. “It was one of the reasons that Larry was less accepting of the traditional, New Deal liberal formulation that government can solve all ills.” It was a subtle counter-argument to Summers’ upbringing to that point.

College and graduate school were crucial points in Summers’ political and philosophical development. Summers’ ingrained convictions and beliefs were challenged. “I think it’s one of the ironies of life that people who actually know more and are wise are less certain in their knowledge,” Summers says. “The set of experiences I had in college—in debate, in class, and working—led me to see the world in somewhat more complicated terms than I had previously.”