Reenvisioning U.S. Citizenship to Save Democracy

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: So, in the spirit of optimism, our next guest is proposing a way to heal internal divisions and safeguard American democracy. A new book, “The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens”, argues for a reimagining what it means to be an American. Its author is the diplomatic and policymaker Richard Haass, who has served under four presidents, Democrat and Republican. He’s now president of the Council on Foreign Relations. And he tells Walter Isaacson why he thinks the greatest threat to America comes from within.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WALTER ISAACSON, HOST: Thank you, Christiane. And Richard Haass, welcome back to the show.

RICHARD HAASS, AUTHOR, “THE BILL OF OBLIGATIONS” AND PRESIDENT, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Good to be with you.

ISAACSON: You and I can remember the old Pogo cartoon, “We Have Met the Enemy and He is Us”. And that’s what your new book, “The Bill of Obligations” is sort of about. Is that one of the great threats we face is not from abroad, but from within. Tell me how you came to write this book as somebody who is such an expert on foreign policy.

HAASS: It wasn’t intentional, and it was exactly the thought process you just laid out, Walter. I’d be giving my normal talks about the state of the world using my favorite word, disarray. I talk about China, or Russia, or North Korea. And then inevitably a question would arise and they would go, Mr. Haass, what keeps you up at night? And Increasingly, my answer surprise me. I said, it’s us. And I was worried about our internal divisions that were getting in the way of our ability to enact necessary legislation. I worried about civil disorder on a significant scale in the United States. And I said, if we could somehow reunify, I thought we could meet all the external challenges, and if we couldn’t, I was worried about our future. Hence this book.

ISAACSON: You know, when you talk about reunifying, it’s partly a sense of obligation to something larger than ourselves, to our nation. Our nation was actually premised on rights, as with John Stuart Mill, that’s what the bill of rights gives us. But your book makes the argument that it’s not just about rights. They have limitations. Tell me about that.

HAASS: Sure. Look, rights are important, don’t get me wrong. And Lincoln’s comment about the unfinished work still pertains. We still have a commitment to — or need to get it right, so to speak. But rights are not enough, because rights always come into conflict. The right of the mother against the right of the unborn. Your right to bear arms. Someone else is right for public safety. My right to health. Your right not to wear a mask or get vaccinated. I can go on and on. If everyone just focuses on rights, we obviously come into conflict. Absolutes don’t lend themselves to compromise. So, I try to think about well, what’s missing here? And here we are, 240 years into this experiment and what I thought was getting lost for our obligations, first of all, Walter, to one another. One citizen to another. And then secondly to the country. Almost in the spirit of JFK, about asking not what our country can do for us, but what we could do for our country. And I thought, in our increasing focus, or even obsession on rights, we’re losing any sense of balance, of obligations to help one another and to make this country successful.

ISAACSON: Well, when you talk about obligations, it’s almost a moral sense. Is that something you can codify? It’s not like the first 10 amendments, et cetera. But let’s go through some of those obligations you talk about. One is to just be informed. That’s pretty difficult in this day and age of social media.

HAASS: It is pretty difficult, but it’s also the most basic. It’s the premise of the foundation for all else to know what the facts are. Without a common acceptance of what the facts are, or how do we possibly have serious debate in this country? But you’ve put your finger on one of the great contradictions of this era. Here we are, we’re awash in information. The problem is, we’re also awash in misinformation and conspiracy theories. And in many cases, people don’t seem to have the skill sets or the ability to discern between, say, facts, opinions, recommendations, predictions. So, one of the things we’ve got to do is focus much more on how to build this kind of literacy in America so people can discern what is a fact and what isn’t. And One of the things I recommend is that people in — to get informed is they don’t single source their information. They multi-source it. So, maybe you listen to several networks, or read several — more than one newspaper, and do not rely on social media. The key word there is social. Social media is not necessarily a place where you get informed. It’s more of a place where you get reinforcement, but that can’t be good if the reinforcement is not based upon facts.

ISAACSON: Let me talk about the conspiracy theories and the misinformation because you say we want to be informed. You’re a part of it and I guess, so am I, what — you know, you speak — called a global elite. You’re a president of the Council on Foreign Relations, a type, people go to Davos. A lot of the conspiracy theories now are deeply involved in saying, we understand that and you don’t. That this global elite is trying somehow to suppress us. How did that happen?

HAASS: It’s a good question. It might be simply because inequality has gotten more entrenched in societies. I also think that our public education system has failed us individually and collectively. The idea that you can graduate from virtually any high school, or even worse, from any two or four-year college or university in this country, and not be armed with the ability in some ways to navigate this world of misinformation. Not to be a — not to have a basic sense of civics, as we used to call it, above the workings of American democracy and what it requires to succeed. I think it makes us much more vulnerable. I think there’s something else also going on than increasingly, Americans are living lives in silos or bubbles. The academic word for it is sorting, S-O-R-T-I-N-G. That increasingly, we live very differentiated lives. When you and I came of age, we used to have big conversations about melting pots or mixing pots. Well, increasingly, we’re a country of 333 million people living in separate pots. We go to our own schools. Our own churches. We live in fairly isolated communities. We watch just one television network whether it’s MSNBC or Fox or what have you. As a result, there is less and less common experience in this country, which is really dangerous when you think about it, because, after all, this was a country founded not on ethnicity. Not on religion. But we were founded on a common idea, of opportunity. And what worries me is we’re losing the commonness that is at the core of this country’s DNA.

ISAACSON: One of the other obligations you talk about is the obligation to be able to compromise. I mean, the constitutional convention, Ben Franklin was the one who tried to pull everyone together on a compromise on quite a few things. And says, you know, compromises may not make great heroes, but they do make great democracies. Why have we lost that art of compromise, and how can we regain it?

HAASS: Yes, the basic point is entirely right. It’s hard to get a lot done if you can’t compromise. You know, it’s interesting, when Kennedy wrote “Profiles in Courage”, some of the people he singled out were people who — were prepared to compromise, to get things done. And I think you’ve got to be able to discern between what our basics and what are things that you can and should be prepared to compromise. I think it’s gotten more difficult simply, again, because of media. The glare. People focus on not what you get, but often on what you have to — had to have to give up. I think our politics tend to award the extremes, the endzones, if you will, who again are opposed to compromise. One of the things, I think, to fix that though is to get more people involved. We just had a historic midterm election in this country. Less than half the eligible voters voted. The people who tend to vote in things like midterm elections, despite the stakes, tend to be often people who are more concerned about political extremes. If we could simply increase by a few million votes, the Americans getting involved, and people were basically going to say, hey, I want to send someone to Washington who is prepared to compromise, to get things done. I’ve learned one thing in my life in Washington, Walter, is that politicians, at the end of the day, they may not always be responsible, but they are always responsive. And we have to set up a penalty and reward system for politicians where they are encouraged to do the right thing. The best way to do that is to go out and vote.

ISAACSON: You talk about setting up a reward system for people being civil. People who compromise. And yet we don’t see that happening. We don’t see a big trend, even though I feel there is a hunger in the nation right now for civility. A hunger for let’s just figure out how to get things done. What is it about our politics, our media, or whatever, that makes it hard for this type of unification to happen?

HAASS: I think it’s the way we fund our politics in part. Parties used to be a moderating mechanism, but now every politician has his or her own party. And they can get money from sources who are fairly absolute on this or that issue. Social media, A.M. radio, again reinforce absolutes. To use an old phrase, what we need is in some ways is a silent majority to get involved, almost a radical center. To go there and say, I want people to go to Washington to get things done. We have so many pressing problems. And I’m not into — I’m not arguing it from a partisan point of view, but we obviously have a problem at the border. We obviously have a problem with inflation. We obviously have a problem with our schools, our health care, inequality. It’s a long list. But these challenges are not being met. So, people, rather than hoping — one of the reasons I wrote this book, rather than turning away from politics, I want people to get more involved in politics. To say, hey, let’s send people to the Statehouse or to Congress who are prepared to compromise, to get things done, because this clearly isn’t working.

ISAACSON: When I look at your career, you represent a certain type of centrist, moderate, pragmatic, very realist person. You are in the Republican Party. You were a protegee of Brent Scowcroft, the great national security adviser who worked in the Bush administrations. What happened to the Republican Party that that strand seems to have disappeared?

HAASS: I don’t recognize this Republican Party, I’ll be straight with you. The Republican Party used to be a conservative party. Conservatives believe in institutions. They believe in norms. I don’t see a lot of that going on. Republicans also used to believe in strong national defense. Well, now, we have a powerful isolationist theme or thread in the Republican Party. Republicans used to believe in getting the government out of the economy, or in many cases now, we see Republicans wanting big government. So, I think it’s a time of great intellectual confusion in the Republican Party. and it’s also a time of great populism. I think what we are seeing is a kind of rejection of compromise of institutions. A lot of the things, you and I, have been talking about, that has gotten rewarded. People who think more like me have been, essentially, forced out. In many cases, I worry that people who put the country first are being forced out. I would put somebody like Liz Cheney on that list. I may disagree with her on many policy issues, but no one can dispute her fundamental commitment to American democracy. So, this Republican Party, I would argue in many cases, seems to have lost its way. I hope it’s something of a phase and that it burns out, and that at some point the Republicans come back. And the way that is most likely to happen is not that some new political figure is going to emerge, who’s going to leave it there. It’s going to be more Republicans and independents bring it there, take it there. I think that the — if we have solutions out there to what ails us, they’re more likely to come from the bottom up, which in some ways is in the great tradition of the — of this country. That we, the people, will get involved.

ISAACSON: You talk about populism, the rise of a sort of an authoritarian populism, almost the denigration of democracy as a concept, but that’s not just happening in America. There is this wave that’s happened all over the world in the past 20, 25 years. Tell me why.

HAASS: You’re exactly right. If you were measuring democracy, clearly the last decade or two decades there has been, to use the phrase, backsliding. Democracies have lost altitude, there’s slightly fewer of them, and those that exist are less robust, less democratic than they were. I think it is because some of the economic problems that we are seeing in the world, and we’ve seen a certain stagnation of incomes. And when people are angry or unhappy, they often turn on the system that is in power at the time. It’s a bit of a throw the bums out sort of thing. Also, democracy is hard. Democracy is just hard to make it work, to deliver. And people often get seduced, I think, by more authoritarian promises. The only good news is we’re seeing the authoritarians struggle — the authoritarian system struggle even more. Look at China, look at Russia, look at Iran, and so forth, they don’t hold out any real hope. So, what I’m hoping is that people see the flaws in the alternatives. And while recognizing the flaws in democracy, don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. I’d say probably one other, Walter, I don’t think we’ve done a very good job educating people about the historical value of democracy. Democracies delivered pretty well in our country. If we look at, you know, how we’ve gotten wealthier most of us, how we’ve gotten healthier as well, how we’ve had the rule of law. It’s a pretty good record. Not a perfect record, but a pretty good record. We have been able to change. More Americans have the right to vote. There is much less discrimination in our society. Again, democracies make mistakes, but they can fix those mistakes much better than authoritarian systems. I don’t think we are very good at telling our own narrative.

ISAACSON: You talk about how democracy has delivered. It’s done very well. And yet in your book, you also say 57 — only 57 percent of young people believe democracy is the best system. I mean it’s surprising to me that we have entered into a period when people actually think, well, maybe democracy is not a good idea. Is it partly because we have lost in the ability to deliver things like upward mobility or opportunity?

HAASS: In part, yes. Upward mobility is really important. We never were a country where we talked about equal outcomes, but we have to have real equal opportunity, and we don’t. Let’s be honest. I think in some cases there is discrimination against some Americans. In other cases, there’s discrimination in favor, say, of wealthy Americans. So, there’s a real disappointment or alienation. I think some people have lost some of their confidence, that they’re going to be better off than their parents or grandparents. Downward mobility. Pessimism has taken hold. And also, I don’t think we do a good job of teaching it. I come back to this civics thing. The absence of civics. The idea that you can come of age in this country and not know it’s basic history, not know how it’s helped the American people, not know how it has changed. I think we do a real disservice to ourselves. And again, my argument is not to whitewash it. Not to basically say, everything is perfect and always has been. But I do think we have a positive story to tell, and we have demonstrated the ability to correct our mistakes and I — by not teaching it, we are losing the thread. So, many Americans don’t see the value of what they have, they either take it for granted or they dismiss it.

ISAACSON: One of the things that struck me about your new book, “The Bill of Obligations”, is that it wasn’t trying to lecture our leaders or politicians on what they should be doing. It’s almost about, OK, what each one of us be doing. Tell me what do you think each of us, people listening, people reading this book, should do?

HAASS: Get involved and hold the people we sent to Washington or the Statehouse to account. We should not allow people, or we should not support people in politics who aren’t prepared to put country first. And that ought to be a pretty basic litmus test. I will tell a personal story, Walter, when I voted this last time in November, I had one of those awkward moments, and they’re on the ballot list, a choice. And I had to choose between an election denier, someone who did not accept the results of the 2020 presidential election, who actually agreed with most of the policy issues. And this person’s opponent, who I disagreed with on almost all the policy issues, but it supported democracy. It was one of those really interesting moments for me. And at the end of the day, I pulled the lever and filled in the little spot supporting the person who believed in democracy. And I think that is what we have to be prepared to do. The — as individuals, as corporations, or what have you, that we need to put democracy first. That needs to be something of a litmus test. If we get that, if we can save American democracy, then we are going to have the luxury of as many policy debates as we want.

ISAACSON: Richard Haass, as always, thank you for joining us.

HAASS: Thank you, sir.