An interview with Dr. Richard Haass

On Oct. 19, 2024, Carrie Click, Colorado Mountain College’s public information manager interviewed Dr. Richard Haass focused on his Oct. 14-17  Rediscovering Common Ground/Common Reader talks about "The Bill Of Obligations: Ten Habits of Good Citizens" at six CMC campuses.

This interview was edited and condensed.

C2: What can attendees expect from your author talks at Colorado Mountain College?

Dr. Richard Haass: These talks [offer a] different way of thinking about being a citizen. So much of our instinctive reaction is to think about rights; it’s to think about what’s good for me. What I want to do is expand people’s perception of citizenship, of thinking about obligations, to get them to think about what’s good for others is good for them. That they need to approach citizenship through a different framing. And if I can get that, that that’s one thing…and the other is that I want to make the case that this democracy of ours is precious, it’s vulnerable and that if it’s going to succeed for another 250 years, it will only do so with the informed involvement and participation of people like them.

What motivated this book is that I am worried that we’ve taken American democracy for granted for too long. So, I’d like people to come out of the room with a sense of urgency.

C2: "Obligation" is a really interesting word. These are principles as opposed to rights. It’s similar to John F. Kennedy’s famous quote – "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." I think we’ve kind of lost that. So we're talking about shifting our perspective, correct?

RH: 100%. I want people to focus on what’s expected of them. It’s different. And my argument is it’s complimentary, it’s the other side of the coin. If you think of citizenship with two sides: I’m not against the right side, it’s essential, it’s just not enough. And so again, my purpose is to get people to reimagine or rethink what it takes….and my guess is that a lot of them will not have thought about it this way before. I haven’t encountered a lot of opposition to the idea. People simply aren’t familiar with it.

C2: I asked some CMC American government students what they’d like to ask you. One thing they want to know is, “Did you order the habits, the obligations in a certain way?”

RH: Short answer – yes and no. The first one about “Being informed.” That comes from Jefferson. And I thought that is the foundation of all else. It’s important that “Being informed” comes before the second obligation, “Being involved.” As much as I welcome people being involved, uninformed involvement is not what I’m after. Yes, I want people to vote but I want people, before they vote, to take time to look at the candidates, look at their stances on various issues. The next seven [of the obligations] could have been in any order. I grouped 3- 7 for individuals to really focus on. Eight and nine are more on public policy and public service – one is about civics. And the 10^th obligation is about putting the country first before party or person; it reflects the first nine. It’s almost a summary of the obligations. That’s why that’s the caboose. So basically, one, two and 10 are purposefully put there; the others could really be in any order.

C2: Regarding “Put country first” – do you mean that literally? For example, if the country goes south for lack of a better term, if there’s a Hitler, how do we “Put country first”?

RH: If people put the country before other things, before Hitler, there won’t be a Hitler. The whole idea of prioritizing the country and democracy means you would rule out certain outcomes. We get in trouble if individual citizens start putting their priorities in support of an individual, or a party – that’s when we get in trouble. If they take a step back and think, “What’s in the best interest of the whole?” for the country, and the society, then we’ll be OK.

C2: Is there a country where democracy is working really well? Is there a model?  

RH: That’s a good question. Democracy is not perfect. There are very different models. I think at the moment probably the ones that have most citizen satisfaction might be some of the Nordic countries. They seem to be doing particularly well. A lot of the others, the democracies are working OK, but the satisfaction….I’m not quite sure what you mean by “doing well;” Canada is doing well, but there’s tremendous popular dissatisfaction with the government. Japan is doing well in some ways. Is it doing well economically? We’re doing better economically than any democracy. We’re growing at 3 to 3-1/2%. But citizen dissatisfaction is pretty high. Two-thirds of Americans think we’re heading in the wrong direction. But objectively, this democracy in this country is less robust than it was. And that’s true for a lot of democracies. This is a hard moment in history to be a thriving democracy because of economic challenges around the world and social media. These are difficult times to govern. But all things being equal, I find the Nordic countries seem to be doing particularly well.

C2: In your lifetime, have you ever seen this much rampant mistruth and division in this country?

RH: No, not even close. This is unprecedented in many ways. And there’s lots of explanations as to why. But the fact is that no, I have not seen anything close to it. And it worries me because managing it, much less “fixing it” quote-unquote is going to be tough.

C2: Yes. I hear you. CMC is an Hispanic Serving Institution, which means that at least 25% of our student body are either Hispanic or Latino. An adjunct political science faculty member asked me to ask you why you used the phrase “good citizen” in the title of “The Bill of Obligations.”

RH: Only because citizens do enjoy different rights than non-citizens, and my argument is with those rights come obligations. A lot of this extends to non-citizens, too – people who live here. I’ve also had many conversations [lately] with members of communities, like college communities. What are your obligations to one another on a campus in terms of non-violence, in terms of being open to compromise, in terms of civility. So, I could have [titled the book] “obligations of good human beings,” but I wanted to focus on the political and this is why I chose citizenship. Again, citizens have special advantages and rights. It’s a valued thing and my view is we too often take it for granted. But a lot of these principles and obligations – whatever word you want to use – apply to non-citizens as well. And not just to American citizens – Ideally, [they apply to] citizens of other democracies.

C2: What are your feelings going into this election? What advice do you give folks? Obviously, vote…

RH: Before [they] vote, get informed. Look, this is a consequential election. Normally the choice between the candidates, the differences shall we say are, or more positively, the similarities between the candidates traditionally outweigh the differences. Arguably, not so this time. This is a consequential election to get informed. Look, we probably have on the order of – I could be off here by a few million – but 250 million Americans who are eligible to vote. I find it rather extraordinary that 75 or 80 million or more of those people will simply not vote, either out of choice or they simply won’t do it for whatever reason. I would like to reduce that number. I would like Americans to get informed. So, there’s that issue. Do I have anxiety? This is going to be a close election. The good news for would-be voters is that your vote will matter. Like any informed and involved voter – it gives you a stake in this country. I also, by the way, have anxiety about the election. I have anxiety about the election aftermath.

C2: Yes. Jan. 6.

RH: Exactly. So, I have anxiety about a close election in which  the outcome is challenged in several states, legally or politically, or potentially, even physically. I worry a little bit about the voting itself,  where certain people who should be able to vote won’t be able to vote. I obviously have anxiety about what comes after Jan. 20, whatever it is, after Inauguration Day, about whether we’ll be able to govern, whether we’ll be able to function. I have a concern over before, during and after the electoral period. And I think it’s warranted. That’s all I can say.

C2: What can you say about our leadership choices?

RH: That’s a longer conversation. One has to look at the leadership choices we have. If one doesn’t like the choices, there’s nothing to do about it this time. One has to look at the process in which leaders are chosen. At the moment, this is not the time to have that conversation. We’ve got choices and not to vote is as much a choice as to vote, for one or the other or some third-party candidate. These are people running for office, and they bring strengths and weaknesses, assets and flaws. There’s never been a time of perfect choices. There’s no such thing as a perfect choice. It’s between the choices we have. And you’ve got to make that judgement.