Open Book with Anthony Scaramucci - America Keeps Me Up At Night with Dr. Richard Haass

Episode Date: April 20, 2023

Anthony sits down with American diplomat and outgoing Council on Foreign Relations president, Dr. Richard Haass, to discuss his New York Times bestseller The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens. Dr. Haass shares his wealth of experience blending politics, civics and history to argue that citizenship must be redefined, and bold change is the only thing that can save American democracy, before it’s too late.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor,

free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario. Hello, I'm Anthony Scaramucci, and this is open. open book where I talk with some of the brightest minds out there about everything surrounding the written word, from authors and historians to figures in entertainment, neuroscientists, political activists, and of course, Wall Street. Sorry, I can't resist. Before we get into today's episode, if you haven't already, please hit follow or subscribe, wherever you get your podcast, and leave us a review. We all love a review, even the bad ones. I want to hear the parts you're enjoying

or how we can do better. You know I can roll with the punches, so let me No. Anyways, let's get to it. Dr. Richard Haas, president of the Council on Foreign Relations since 2003, a veteran U.S. diplomat and great author. Richard's books usually look outwards on foreign policy, but more recently, when asked what keeps him up at night, the answer wasn't Russia or China. What worries him most is the United States itself. Richard tells us why he's worried, how we've got here as a nation and what we can do as

Americans to save our home. So joining us now on Open Book, it's a dear friends, I know a long time, have an enormous amount of respect for a bestselling author, but also the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, a prolific author, has written a number of great books, an experienced diplomat, a policymaker. And Richard, I think it's your best book. I'm going to explain to you why, because smart citizens around the country that love the country, I think this is a book that people are going to teach in classrooms. It's called the Bill of Obligations, the Ten Habits of Good Citizens, and it's almost a template for an American renewal. Back of the 1980s, Time Magazine had an essay series called The American Renewal. I was probably 16 at the time when I was

reading it. This is before Reagan came into office. When I read your book, I thought of that time in America where there was a little bit of a punch to the solar plexus and we needed to start to think about how we're going in a different direction. So tell us why you wrote the book, why you believe that democracy is in peril, and why there's tribalism and why even though the first name of the country is united, we don't feel so much unity anymore, Richard. And welcome to the podcast, by the way. Lots to unpack there. Thank you. Good to be with you again. It's not a book I ever expected to write when people think of me to the extent they do think of me. And it's not critically, they think of me as a foreign policy guy. But this is a book about us. And I kind of

came to this simply because the more I thought about it, what really worried me was us. I figured that if we had sufficient unity and resolve, we would be able to generate the resources and generate the political bandwidth to take on all the challenges we face, from China to Russia to climate change, to pandemics, what have you. But increasingly, I came to the conclusion that the biggest risk was internal. And if you think of national security is two sides of a coin. Our ability to deal with the external side of the coin dependent upon the internal. And increasingly, to me, that was suspect. So I spent a lot of time walking during the pandemic upstate here in New York. And then when I got back to the city around Central Park, just thinking about how we got to this point and read really

widely about things they'd either had never read before, Anthony or hadn't read for 40 or 50 years since I was a kid. I don't know the last time you read the articles of Confederation, but it'd been a while for me. By the way, people should read that. It's stunning. The idea that anybody thought that the articles of confederation ever could have been a blueprint for a government is quite stunning. Well, no, no, no question, but they were all, they were all spirited, enlightened men and women, mostly men, frankly, but I mean, they took a chance on that document. Not to interrupt you, but I think you'll love this story. I'm in the Oval Office. You could ask Paul Ryan, he'll verify the story. I did have many days in the Oval Office,

but this was a particular. It was probably over 10% of your time if you were there for one down. 9.9.1, actually, don't jip me out of my time there. But I think it was a Wednesday, Richard, because I was only there for one Wednesday, but I just got to set the scene for you out. I'm in the Oval office, and Trump is telling Paul Ryan that he works for him. And Paul Ryan says, excuse me? And he says, no, no, no, you work for me. I'm the president of the United States. He says, Mr. President, there are separate but equal branches of the government. And by the way, I don't work for you. There's like three different articles. And by the way, I work for the American people. As do you.

you. But it was a stunning conversation. And so if you ever get a chance to run on a Paul Ryan. Actually, but that's a great anecdote because on so many levels, one, it captures the nature of our government, separate but equal branches, checks and balances, the idea that we all in the government work for the American people, not for an individual. You take an oath to the Constitution, not to the president or anybody else. The fact that this particular president, 45th president, would state what he said, what he did, tells you a lot about him. He does not have an understanding in many ways, I would argue, of the basics of American civics or citizenship. And it's part of a larger problem. I would say the same applies to a lot of Americans. You know, we don't teach this

in our schools. Or if we do teach it, we don't require it. You can graduate from about 95% or more of America's colleges and universities never having been required to take a course in civics. Many of our high schools don't teach it, or what's taught is a couple of classes, and it's terrible. So here we are. This is a holy week. You and I are having this conversation. And Passover is a holiday where Jews around the world, gather around a table, have this ritual meal where everything is symbolic. And what we do is we tell the narrative of the Jewish exodus from Egypt.

And what's so interesting about it, we do it in the home, because for much of their history, Jews couldn't have access to temples or synagogues or holy places. and the whole obligation of every generation of Jews is to transmit the narrative to the next generation. And that is proven to be vital for the ability of Jews to have survived the centuries and the persecution. And we as Americans, here we are in three years, we're going to be marking the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. And one of the things we have essentially stopped doing is transmitting the narrative of Americanness to new generations. We somehow take for granted that we're born knowing it. And what I think the lesson is day in, day out, week in week out, is Americans aren't born understanding the value of democracy or the obligations of citizens to one another or to the

government or to the country if democracy is to thrive. We have got to teach it. We have got to model it. We have got to talk about it. We have got to call out those who violate it. And we're simply not doing any of these things. So you ask me why I wrote this book? That's why.

But you're saying a lot. So let's just go over it. We have this obligation to teach our children about the value of this beautiful vessel that was created for them. And we have this obligation to explain to them that this diffuse power, this separate but equal branches of government is actually empowered the people. And it's led to more meritocracy. It's led to more aspirational opportunity.

It's led to families like yours and mine. Living pieces are parts of the American dream. And what we also know, because you and I are both students of history, when you're in an autocracy or a dictatorship, you're limited in terms of your opportunity because what ends up happening is you don't, there's uncertainty about the rule of law because the dictator is setting the law. You're uncertain about it. corruption sets in. The people at the top of the rim do very well. And everyone else is in a scared panic state. And so America avoided that for 240 plus years. I guess the problem I'm having is the apathy. Richard, you know, we know this and you argue this in the book, that we get the government that we deserve. So what happened? How do we get so out of control? You know, when did the civic teaching stop? When did the people just say, yeah, let's take everything for granted? There's no single event. There's no single date. One is just the gradual erosion of civics. And for what I can tell, Anthony, there wasn't an anti-civics movement. The analogy that comes to mind

is musical chairs. When the music stopped, all the chairs were taken up by STEM or other requirements. And civics was somehow taken for granted that, ah, we don't need that. People get it. Or the Cold War is over. It's no longer priority. So partially it just faded away amidst all the other calls on resources and time. Then we've had the whole change in the media landscape.

We've gone from broadcasting to narrowcasting. And increasingly Americans occupy particular bubbles or ecosystems, which shall we say, do not traffic in facts or the truth. I also think there's been an alienation from government the last 20, 25 years. Think about anybody who's under 35 or 40. What have they seen? They've seen two costly wars. They've seen two now financial crises.

They've seen January 6th. They've seen gridlock at the national level. They've seen a pandemic that totally turned their lives upside down. They've seen crime growing. They've seen borders out of control. You name it. And so for them, they grow up and they say, well, what's so hot about this democracy? What's it giving to me?

what's it delivering to me? So I think that not only have we failed to teach the value of our democracy, but I think a lot of Americans, I fear a lot of Americans are growing up and they simply don't see it. They don't feel it. And so we're seeing the alienation from government, what you call apathy. There's a sense of a plague on both their houses. It's not going to make a difference to me or in my life. I think that's wrong, needless to say. And a lot of this book is a call to get informed and to get involved. Small numbers of Americans can have enormous impact. Look how close a lot of our elections are. Less than 1% of the people voting who didn't vote could turn things around. But a lot of people feel what you're feeling. I accept it, which is, again, the reason I wrote this book is I want

to have something of a national conversation. I want people who preach in churches or synagogues or mosques or mosques. I want teachers. I want parents. I want others to basically remind people of why this, this experiment of ours is valuable and what it takes for it to survive. I mean, it's brilliant stuff and you're right about this stuff. I want to test a few things on you and get your reaction to them. We have 27 amendments to the Constitution. We both know that it's supposed to be this living document. Our last amendment was in 1993. That was, you know, a procedural amendment. So the big amendment that we've had, at least in your or my lifetime, is the 26th Amendment, which was the Voting Rights Act in 1965. So, Richard, we're now 58 years away from that big

amendment. Yet if you look at our amendments, we were amending or on average amending the Constitution every eight to nine years. And so what happened? Like, how did we stop talking to each other? How did we stop reaching a consensus? How did we stop saying, okay, look, you know what? This generation needs to improve this document, increase voter safety and gerrymandering. You know, I'm just giving example of things that may make the democracy fairer. Why did this generation just cynically say, okay, we're done with that, get into our tribal camps and start peeing on each other? As you correctly say, we've had 27 amendments to this Constitution in nearly two and a half centuries. And the first 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights, were done right away. Indeed,

several states said they would only ratify the proposed second constitution of the United States if a Bill of Rights were adopted to limit the sway of the new central governments. We've really only had 17 amendments in nearly two and a half centuries. And the founders made it difficult. The good news is we've been able to change without amendments, that amendments have not been the principal vehicle of political adaptation in the United States. We had in modern times, things like civil rights legislation and gay marriage and so forth. There's lots of things that have changed in our society without amendments. The fact that it's hard to amend the Constitution to me isn't necessarily bad because those who would, if we ever were to have a constitutional convention, it could be a free-for-all.

And I'm not sure what would come of it. So I don't mind. The whole idea of the American government, you go back to Brandeis when he was on the court. He, I thought he insightfully said, the purpose of government is not to be efficient. It's in some way, it's to guard against things. That's what conservatives do. I'm a conservative by instinct, an old-fashioned conservative. So the idea that it's hard to amend the Constitution doesn't bother me. That shouldn't preclude change. And most of our changes that I would judge to be desirable could easily take place under the existing Constitution. So to me, the problem isn't the Constitution. The problem may be what's happening at the state level or with the courts or at the federal level. It's in our politics. I don't think

the Constitution is to blame. I think in a sense, we collectively are. I mean, take the recent midterms. The idea that we just had one of the most critical midterm elections yet over 55% of Americans couldn't be bothered to vote, that's not a constitutional problem. That's an American problem. That's a popular problem if you, that's on, that's on us, not on the, not on the founders. So again, let me be cynical for a second. So if I'm a politician that's been in office for 40, 50, I guess Chuck Grassley's been in office since George Washington left office. I mean, so I mean, you know, we're just talking about where we are. Why would I want these people to vote? So here's what I'll do. I'll gerrymander, my adversaries out of my districts. We'll have polar right,

polar left, I'll lean on those two things so I can get my tribe to vote for me and I can sustain my own power, even though this is not serving the people. So why would one of these politicians, because you do need the politicians to... Sure. Let me give you two answers. I'll give you two answers to that. One is I would hope that some of them, because you're right, right, a lot of them are doing that. We saw in some ways an example of it in Tennessee this week to exclude people literally or effectively from the political process. One is, I would say, that violates the 10th and most fundamental obligation of my book, which is to put country before party or person. And if you really care about this country, you would never do that. You would not allow your commitment to this or that policy outcome to take precedence or pride of place over democracy and over the integrity of the country. But, you know, I'm not naive. There'll always be people who behave badly, who don't show that kind of character or virtue, to use the words of the founders.

When it comes to politics, they have to be defeated that. What we essentially have to do is citizens is more of us have to get informed and involved and essentially reward those who behave well and penalize those who don't. That's politics. And it can happen. We got to where we are today because certain people got more involved in the political process than others. It explains, for example, how a lot of the gerrymandering took place because people got involved at the state level and had outsized impacts.

It has to be undone. And if the courts are going to refuse to do it, if you're not going to get commissions to undo it, because those in power who see themselves advantage will resist it, then the only way I know to do it is to get large numbers to turn out and vote. So the only political, informed political involvement is at the end of the day, the only remedy I know. It's interesting. So let me come from another angle. Where is the entrepreneurial politician? Somebody said, gave me a riddle the other day, Richard. They said, there's one group of people that vote the exact same.

same. Every single election, there's 144 million of them. Who are they? It's the people that don't vote. That was the answer to the riddle, okay? And so who's the entrepreneurial politician that can create that new market for those people and to get those people back in the game? Anybody on the landscape, he or she that you see and what would it take? What would be the elements of the entrepreneurial politician that could create this new market? That's what entrepreneurs do, right? They create demand for their product, and then they get people off of their couches into their stores or into their voting booths to buy the product. You're right. So you can imagine entrepreneurial politicians. I want to create an environment in which an entrepreneurial politician could succeed. And again, it's why I want

to have things like public service. I want Americans to begin to see the value of getting involved. That's why I, again, want to have civics taught in our schools. I want people to come away saying, hey, this democracy has actually delivered. And by the way, there's a lot of close selections where small numbers of voters can make a difference. And by the way, there really is a choice to you, to paraphrase Barry Goldwater, it's not an echo. There really is a choice. Because again, we don't need to get all 150 million Americans who don't vote voting. One or two million would be plenty in terms of having a tremendous impact. No question. That would be a big incremental impact. So that's, my view is to sort of set our goal. And I don't think that's pie in the sky to basically say we want

to increase turnout in midterms or in presidential years by one or two percent. I would think that is well within the scale of feasibility for any political actor. I think it's well said. Let's go to the obligations. I'm going to read them to people. Just it's be informed, get involved, stay open to compromise. Boy, that's a big one today. Remain civil. Reject violence. Support the teaching of civics and put the country first. So I'm going to start with the last one because people in this country, when you say put the country first, and you write brilliantly about what you mean, I'd like you to articulate it here because there are groups of people in the country that say America first. It means a very different thing than putting the country first. So separate the two for me and help our listeners

and viewers understand what you mean in terms of the civic idea and the ideals of putting the country first. Yeah. Putting the country first is nothing to do with the America First Movement, America First Movement, whether the historical in the 1930s analog or the more recent version, is a kind of nationalist, almost at times isolationist political movement. Putting the country first simply means putting questions of American democracy in the United States before what's good for me as an individual or before what's good for my political party. I would think the kinds, some recent examples, Anthony, those secretaries of state in various states where you had close elections in 2020, who basically said, even though I'm a Republican, I'm going to certify these electors for Biden because that's what happened.

It may not serve my partisan instincts or interests, but it happens to have been the truth. And ultimately, that's what you do when you're an American. That is putting your country first. I actually think what Liz Cheney did was putting her country first and her work on the January 6th committee. And she paid a price for it. And that's part of it. I mean, when you go back to Kennedy's book, Profiles and Courage, he chose senators who often made compromises when compromises were controversial or sometimes refused to compromise when there's pressure to do so.

And it's just a willingness to take a step back and say there's more important things than my getting reelected. And I think, again, it's up to us as voters when we see that kind of admirable behavior to say, hey, I may not agree with this individual on every issue, but that's the kind of person I want to have representing me. And when we see people doing just the opposite, I would say, that's not who I want in Washington or in the state capital or in city hall making big decisions. that affect my life. I simply don't trust that person. I don't respect that person. It's interesting. You mentioned profiles and courage. You know, I'm old enough to remember profiles and courage. I have a couple copies of it. Your book looks a lot like it. It has the same shape and some of the same colors. It's short. But Kennedy said that. They asked them, they said, okay, sir, Senator Kennedy, why is your book so short? Jack Kennedy said, I couldn't find a lot of

courage out there. That's basically what he said, right? So, you know, go back for a second. Let's say I made you the Bill of Obligations, Zor, of the United States. And now you've descended upon us, and you are going to start from the ground up. And so one of the things you're writing about is supporting the teaching of civics. Right. So don't you think that's an elemental thing? We'd have to have a restoration of civics teaching. Why did we stop the civics teaching? What caused that and how could we restore it? What would you recommend if you were the Bill of Obligations, Zor? I would do two things on civics. One is I would do what to start. state of New Jersey has begun doing. Governor Murphy just signed into law a bill that requires in

New Jersey schools young people be taught information literacy. Here we are. We're living in a moment where we're flooded with information on the internet and elsewhere. A lot of things are running around calling themselves facts when in reality they're anything but. So what New Jersey is going to start to do is teach young people how to recognize a fact and how to also know when something that purports to be a fact is not. What are good practices? For example, getting checking multiple sources rather than soul sourcing your information, understanding the difference between social media and other forms of media. So I really like that. It doesn't tell people what to think. It teaches people how to become critical consumers of information. That's one part of modern civics,

which is how to navigate the contemporary information flows. Another is to be exposed to some of the basics, the things we're talking about, some of the basic documents. I mean, I find it shocking that a lot of Americans have never read the Constitution. I would like people to be exposed to some of the basic documents, the Declaration of Independence. They have to be exposed to certain history. Again, I understand just how controversial it is, but certain things have happened. People should know about them, and then they can read different interpretations. There's no one historical school for the last 250 years, but they should be exposed to that. They should understand how government works. They should understand, by the way, at multiple levels, the federal level,

the state level, local levels. They should understand ideas like checks and balances, representative government, the certain fundamental ideas to a democracy that they ought to be exposed to. I think people need to have a certain understanding of some of the basic issues. So yeah, I would think that this is what we ought to teach in our schools. Again, I'm not interested in teaching policy outcomes or bottom lines. I'm interested in exposing people to the basics of our political history and culture. And some of the things I write about in this book, I want people to come to appreciate or internalize. What are the behaviors? What are the attitudes we need if democracy is going to work? So I love the idea of students debating and simulating various things and then maybe switching sides at some point

and learning how to disagree that incivility, you know, shouting and interrupting doesn't make an argument stronger or better. I want to see religious leaders standing up in their pulpits and saying, hey, there is no place for political violence in this country. I don't care how strongly you feel about an issue or it's having religious leaders looking out for their, you know, we teach in scripture where our brothers or sisters keeper. Why aren't religious leaders taking that scriptural reference and applying it to American society and say, hey, we have the obligation to look out for one another rather than just ourselves. You used the word apathy before. Another word I'd also use is we become stunningly selfish. This is a society that increasingly only talks about rights and what we're owed.

There's not a lot of conversation in this society of ours about what we owe others and about our obligations. My first assignment in con law, Larry Tried, made us read the Constitution. And then he got us in the class. This is the mid-80s, Socratic Method. What's the most important part of the Constitution? Constitution. That's what he asked. And we went around the class and there was a gentleman there. He went on to clerk for the Supreme Court. He was a friend of mine. He's now working for a big law firm in D.C. He said something so brilliant that I'll share with you. He was 23 at the time when he said it. But he said to Larry Tribe, it was the Commerce Clause. And Tribe was shocked because Tribe's whole thing was the Fourth Amendment, right, the privacy. And he said, why? And he said, well, the commerce cause prevented the taxation

between the states, a result of which we created this amazing free trading block, single currency free trading block, which led to all of this great economic prosperity. And I maintain this gentleman said, Professor Tribe, that our economic prosperity has helped us with our rights, has helped us with our liberties. Sometimes when people are in squalor, they have a tendency to get less obligated to others. What do you think of that? What's your reaction to that? It's really interesting. I wish I thought about it.

And there's a lesson here, a contemporary lesson, which is when governments don't deliver, say, economically. History suggests that people will be much less interested in democracy. Democracies are vulnerable less to an external invasion. I mean, Ukraine's an exception. That's obviously a democracy that's vulnerable to invasion. Most democracies come undone from within. And one of the classic or most famous cases or infamous cases is Weimar, Germany. And the inflation, the devaluing of the currency and essentially desperate populations when the economy goes really badly, frustrated populations, are willing to overturn democracy in the hopes that someone will deliver either economic stability or the rule of law and physical stability. And that's one of the reasons I'm so concerned about the failures of American democracy now and our inability to deliver because it doesn't surprise me in polls. Then we then see people don't value democracy.

And they're more willing to cast it aside when they hear this or that talk economically or someone's going to promise physical safety against crime. And it's, again, it's one of the reasons that it's so important that American government at all levels deliver if we want American government to be supported by the American people. I think it's very well said. I want to step back for a second and talk a little bit about your upbringing. So like me, if I have this correct, you grew up on Long Island. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Where did you grow up?

Small town. Valley stream, Long Island on the South Shore. It's one of the... Valley Stream. So you're South Shore guy. I'm a North Shore guy. We both love Billy Joel definitionally. Okay, so let me...

Roslyn, New York, Billy Joel. That's right. Right. There you go. My father's place. You see, if we're both old enough to remember when he would ride up there on his Harley and he would take a beer out of the refrigerator. behind the bar and start playing the piano. And then there were no cell phones back then. So you were

either there or not there to get to see him do that, which was one of the fun things growing up out here. So that we have in common. What we don't have in common, I am not a road scholar, but you are. You are a road scholar. So tell us about that. Tell us about the influence of a young man. I'm assuming you did this after college, right? That's what happens. Straight on. Yeah. So you leave now and you've been given this prestigious. And back in the day, it was a very hard thing to get, Richard. You and I both know how hard that was to get. President Clinton has it.

Obviously, many of your friends in that community habit, but it's a very hard thing to get. You have now left your Long Island roots, Valley Stream, and you're heading off to Oxford, one of the oldest universities in the country, I mean, in the world. And here you are. Set the scene for us.

What happens to the young Richard asked? I mean, a couple of things. One is, I was, I don't know who was the most surprised I got it. Me, my teachers. Anyhow, I remember the interview one night for the Rhodes Scholarship and you had to have a dinner the night before the interviews with the people who would interview, the former Road Scholars. And I remember being looked up and down by this powerful lawyer. And he said, for a second there, Mr. Haas, I thought you were wearing a suit. But I see you are not. I didn't own a suit. And I had a corduroy jacket and corduro. Roy pants. And one was kind of dark green and one was light green. And that was as close as I could get. And I figured any chances I had had just literally gone out the window. I got lots of stories. The boat ride over, seasick the entire way. Getting to Oxford, I said I wanted to, I was Middle Eastern studies. I had done that as an undergraduate at Oberlin. So they call that Oriental Studies. So I show up at my first day with the professor I'd been assigned. And he was the wrong Orient. He was a Chinese scholar, not a Middle Eastern scholar. So I had a slow start. But I had a great three years, not because of the roads, the title actually, once you get at Oxford, nobody cares. They actually think you're stupid. They think you're basically an American jock. So it doesn't help you at Oxford. What was great about Oxford is I had three years of studying history. And I just got steeped in history. All the history I never read because I wasn't a serious student, particularly when I was here in the United States. And I had a fantastic academic experience, great teachers. And then it was also interesting.

It was the early 70s. So it was the stuff I was reading on the side, you know, reading Solzhenitsyn and others, watching what was going on in British politics, the breakdown of politics because of the rise of the labor union movement. The Labor Party went far left. Ultimately, it sowed the seeds of Thatcherism. It was just a fascinating moment. So it all convinced me to basically, ultimately, I did a postdoc over there, but to come back and get involved in politics. It was just it was so interesting. But it was the greatest education anybody ever could have had.

So the first job, you're coming out of there now. You've got this incredible pedigree. What's the first job? I worked a little bit on the hill during there. I was an aide to a Democratic senator, Claiborne Pella from Rhode Island. Sure. Fent about a year there. I'm a beneficiary of some Pell grants just to really date myself, right?

I had to get some of those to help me get through walls. Really decent, man. Old school. I did a postdoc at a think tank in London, but my first real job was I came to the Pentagon in the late 70s. And I was offered a chance to work there. And I got to the Pentagon in mid-I guess it was earlier in mid-79. And later that year, two big things happened. You had the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and you had the

revolution in Iran. And I had spent time in both Afghanistan and Iran. I had just written my doctoral thesis on that part of the world. So I suddenly found myself still in my 20s having unbelievable opportunities to get involved in serious policy things. Indeed, one of the projects I was involved in was creating an American military capability to intervene in the greater Middle East, what we now call Central Command, had its roots going back to 1979 on a project I worked on with a few other people in the Pentagon back then. Very, very cool. You then, I guess, discover the council formerly. I don't know, tell me the, tell me the Odyssey into the council. The council was much later. I worked at the Pentagon. I worked at the State Department for five years under Reagan. You work for President Bush one, right?

All four years for President Bush won at the White House. I was the Middle East, South Asia guy, Persian Gulf guy. So when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, that was my area of responsibility. So I had four great years working with that president, with Brent Skowcroft, with Secretary Baker. I actually think it was the most talented national security team we've had. Wonderful people. And really, I thought major talents. Colin Powell was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense. Bob Gates was there. It was really an all-star team. I thought, I thought, I thought, I thought, major talents. Colin Powell was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense. Bob Gates was there. It was really an all-stop team. I thought, I thought, I thought, I thought, I thought, I thought, I thought, I didn't come to my current job, the council, till 20 years ago. After I had worked for Bush 43, I was at the State Department working with Powell when he was secretary. And I ran the policy planning staff and I was also a roving envoy, did the Northern Ireland, peace talks and other things. So I came here, though, 20 years ago to the Council on Foreign Relations. And about coming to the end, 20 years seems like a long time. But it's been a great opportunity. If you could remake the world, if you could create a post-war.

World War II architecture. I'm going to hold something up here, which you'll appreciate. It's a brand new biography of George Kennan. Now, my viewers, I get a lot of young viewers, so they probably don't remember Mr. Kennan, but he was the father, basically, of the policy of containment to help push back the Soviet Union and the potential aggression of the Soviet Union. He got wind of this, basically, when he was in Moscow, he sent a very famous cable back to the United States. He signed it with an ex, suggesting that Stalin had very aggressive ambitions. This policy was put in place for 40 years, maybe longer. You correct me if I've got it wrong, but it was a time in American history where there was some bipartisan commitment. The Republican majority leader in the Senate understood what we needed

to do alongside of Harry Truman. The Truman Doctrine came into place. And then we had a bipartisan 40-year commitment to the containment and eventually the breakdown of the Soviet Union. So three things, things I want to ask. Number one, is there a George Kennan out there now that has this kind of great ideas for America? Number two, you know, how do we get back to this long-term thinking? Because the Chinese have long-term thinking. The United States has sort of a three-minute cable news cycle thinking. How do we get back to this long-term thinking and do the great things that our grandparents did or our great uncles did? There really isn't any Canon out there now that I see it. The analogous situation would be, you know, Kennan came up with this doctrine, what we call containment,

which essentially provided something of a blueprint, had to be filled in, for navigating us through the Cold War, worked for four decades, as you correctly said. The problem was it, then the wall came down just over 30 years ago in 89, and the question was what then? And I think for the last 30-plus years, the United States has gone about the world without anything like a blueprint, without a doctrine. We've had various ones, different presidents had different priorities. And so the problem was one, inconsistency. And second of all, as you suggest, a lack of often bipartisan support. So I don't think we have a lot to show for the last 30 years. We had all these advantages when the Cold War ended and 30 years on. What do we have now? We've got

war once again in Europe with a truly alienated Russia. We've got a looming Cold War or something like it with China. We've got Iran on the threshold of nuclear weapons. We've got climate change far outpacing global responses. We just suffered nearly 20 million people worldwide lost their lives in a pandemic. We've got new technologies from cyber to AI that no one can figure out what to do with or control. So I feel we're navigating this really dynamic, dangerous world without a compass, without an intellectual compass and without much in the way of political consensus. So my cliche line is if you're not worried, you're not paying attention. And it kind of in some way circles back, Anthony, to the book. I don't mean to keep raising it.

but the idea that what makes it so hard is the inbox, the farm policy inbox is tough by any set of measures given geopolitics, global issues, technology, what have you. But what makes it super tough is we have to then figure it all out, given our domestic problems. And that's a lot on our plate at one time. It's why I think this is arguably the most difficult moment in modern history. Yeah, it's going to require a cultural reset. I think what you say in the book of obligations, if I have it right, we have all the base elements, all the ingredients on the organic table to reset this. And if we sort of follow these principles, this bill of obligations, we can get there. I guess what I worry about is the apathy that's out there now.

I worry about the phone is taking up a lot of people's time. They're not as focused on these grand ideas, these big visionary things. We don't have these aspirational soaring rhetoric politicians anymore. And then when we do get them, they get blunted by the, And they get destroyed by the woodchipping of the establishment. But let's go there. I ask all of our authors, they come on. I come up with five different topics, ask them to, in a rapid fire way, give us their feelings

about it. Let's go there. So let's start with Iran. Iran is anything but a status quo power. I'd love there to be systemic change there. I'm not convinced that it's going to happen. But the economy is in serious free fall. But Iran's dangerous.

It's supporting these, a nuclear program that's parked just short of nuclear weapons, but they have a lot of the prerequisites in place. They won't need a lot of time to go there if they ever decided to. And they've got all these militias there. They're supporting. So Iran is a handful for us at a time. We want to focus on other parts of the world. And that's a, you know, that's a difficult combination. China.

China's a very different kind of challenge. Unlike the Soviet Union, China is everywhere economically, as well as growing military. I don't think we've figured out how to meet the China challenge, and it's going to take a combination of domestic renewal. The one area I think we're doing better and, you know, foreign policy, building up militarily more in that part of the world. The partnerships we have in that part of the world could be important. Indeed, the single most important ally in the future for the next couple of decades, maybe Japan if we want to in some ways manage China's rise and how China uses its power. But I also think we need more of a dimension of diplomacy there. Containment won't work with China, given that China's

economically so involved in the world and just and given it's a we can't do it ourselves given that we also have obligations in in in Europe and and and elsewhere. Russia. Russia's the most alienated country in the world with the end of the. I think it's an interesting story about how we got to this point. Was it inevitable given Putin and Russian political culture to what extent did we help engineer it through NATO enlargement? That's a debate for historians.

But the fact is now Russia's the most anti-status quo country. out there with the capability to alter the status quo. So Russia's a handful. In the long run, I'm not as worried about Russia as I am potentially about China. I think China is a more defining challenge for American foreign policy. But in the short run, what Russia is doing in Ukraine and could do elsewhere is the biggest immediate challenge to this country. North Korea. You know, it's the most closed country in the world still. It's got a growing nuclear missile arsenal. China could play a constructive role if it chose to. It is not chosen to. So North Korea opposes a conventional military threat to the region and opposes increasingly a nuclear threat, not just to the region, to the world.

So, you know, everything we've tried, whether it's negotiations or anything else, hasn't worked. So I don't know. There are certain things in life that are problems to which there are solutions. North Korea may simply be a situation to manage. I don't see a solution in the works. America. Still the most important country in the world. again, the real question to me is whether we will sort ourselves out. And I hope so because the world

can't sort itself out without us. But I think the jury is out on whether we will be able to find our way again, to put ourselves back onto tracks. Again, we're three years away from the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Now would be a pretty good time to begin that process because I actually think, you know, our own future and the world's future literally hang in that balance. Well, you've been very generous with your time, Richard. I really, really appreciate it. I think it's so well said. I'm just going to not interrupt you. The book is the Bill of Obligations, the Ten Habits of Good Citizens. Before I let you go, is there another book out there that you're allowed to talk about? Are you working on something? Is there something coming? Well, I'm still, you know. I'm trying to get you back on open book. That's why I'm asking. I appreciate it. Oh, there'll always be more books. I'm thinking of two. One will be, we talked about it before. What actually should American study when it comes to civics? So I may actually write a

curriculum, what I think we ought to be teaching in our high schools and colleges. And then I might end up writing a book about what you and I just talked about a few minutes ago. How did we go from where we stood at the end of the Cold War, that remarkable moment of American primacy in the world, of a possibility to today? What explains how things have turned out? Because it wasn't, there's very little about history that's inevitable. Yeah. So why did this happen the way it happened? How did we get here? What, to what extent was it baked into the cake? To what extent did we make big mistakes that we need to recognize and learn from? Yeah, I'm going to recommend something to you on the way out. And you probably read it already, but David Frumkin wrote a couple of very interesting books. One was about the Middle East,

but he wrote one wasn't well picked up called In the Time of the Americans. And it was basically, how did these neo-Victorian men, born between 1885 and 1900, set the American system up in post-World War II architecture alongside of our allies create this great economic prosperity and what they did and what their values were. And in many ways, they were a collect, you know, I know, I know we both believe in the great man theory of history or the great woman theory of history, but there's also like a great group theory. You know, our founding fathers were a great group. And then there's a bad group theory, right? That's the Nazis that were taking over Germany, you know. And we had a great group of people in the post-war II era that were really was. Yeah, the book by

Walter Isaacson and others. Another example, another rendition of that, right? Absolutely. So the question is now, do we have them, wise men and women? And also, I think the times are tough. I think this environment politically, given what's going on with social media and the rest, just given the sheer number of problems coming out, I think this is a difficult time. It's a difficult time, if you will, to be wise, and then it's a difficult time to sell, to market that wisdom. Exactly. You're an interesting time where you have to entertain these people. while you also have to be co-temporaneously a policy wonk. Okay, that's a rough, that's a rough ask. But thank you. I really enjoyed this. Hopefully we'll get a drink at some point.

So I love Richard's book. I have to say that we have an obligation as citizens of the United States to save our democracy. But one of the real tells in Richard's book was why. Ultimately, what we know from our several thousand years of history, that democracy, while it's an imperfect form of government, it is still our best force. And the main reason for that is the flatness that a democracy creates in a society. What we learn from autocracies and dictatorships and centralized authority is that the laws can change in very unpredictable ways. And people that are near the top or currying favor from the leadership get benefited and treated in a more fair way, if you will, than the regular people. And so what's happened here in the United States is nothing short of a miracle. We took people from all different ethnic backgrounds.

We put them together in one nation and we gave them a very flat, decentralized system because of our democracy and because of the checks and balances in the system and a result of which many of these people, my family included, went on to flourish. And I think what Richard is saying with this book is that we sort of have to renew our commitments and our obligations to the state and our civic virtue and to reconsider the things that tie us together. And so it's an incredibly thoughtful book. I don't want to be overly cynical because I'm worried about people really not understanding why or how this is so important. And remember, the first couple moves into fascism, businesses do better and people do get richer in the

beginning. But then the second, third, and fourth moves are way more malevolent because what happens is as the power centralizes, the leaders get very corrupt and they start doing very nefarious things. All right. You ready to join the show? Let's see when you're going to ask me. Oh, we've got to lower the TV, though. It's too loud. I know you're going deaf. You got to lower the TV.

Okay. All right. Lower the TV. Come on. All right. It's tough. All right. Today I spoke with Dr. Richard Haas.

He's a great diplomat. And he's the former head of the Council of Foreign Relations. He just retired from that post. He said something to me that I want to get your reaction to. You ready? He said that we get the government and the country that we deserve. And so what he means is that if we're not careful and we vote for moron, Well, then we end up with morons inside the leadership.

What do you think of that? I agree with them 100%. If you vote for people that are sleeperous and outspoken and doesn't think when he speaks, you're going to have a disaster that's not to be believed. There's got to be someone that's very strong that can put the country together like you. All right, Ma, you've got to stop with it like me.

You're going to give me divorced. Okay, come on. I'm trying to keep a healthy family together. I mean, you know, you don't want me getting blown to pieces. What's one thing that you're going to be. you think we can all do to be good citizens, Ma. What's missing in America right now? Helping one another, the real way. And the prices of the food and stuff is very, very high, and it's not even the middle class can afford it. It's only the upper class can really afford it easy.

So the problems now with the inflation, the lower middle class people are struggling. There's food and security in the country. Right. And you got people stealing, and some of them are stealing because they need the food. You know, it's sort of crazy that we're not smart enough to create enough flat opportunity in the country so we don't have to have people doing that to each other, right? Absolutely. And another thing that I think is major is the homeless is very sad to me to see homeless people. I don't look at them like they're rejects. I look at them like they need help. Rockefeller close mental institutions and at the mental institutions were open again and they could be in there and have the right people take care of them where they're not abused.

I think that that's another thing that would help our country. We look like we're totally nuts when we see all these homeless people all over. And they're very frightful because they look like it mentally ill some of them. And I think that they belong in a safe place and we're not doing it. And I think Eric Adams is trying to do it, but he has conflict. And I think Eric Adams has the right thoughts of doing it. He gets it more than anyone else ever has. Right.

I agree with you on that. I think Eric is trying to do the right job, but he's, got a lot of people that are trying to stop it, but we also have to build up these communities and give these people more education. They'll get more opportunity. They won't need to bring a cause towards crime. Are you a good citizen, ma? Yes, I believe I am. Okay, tell me why. Tell me why you're a good citizen. Well, I think I'm very caring for the underdog, and I have been into mental institutions to see how people are treated, and it breaks my heart to know that they're like are despondent and the people are not nice to them.

All right. So there's a lot of indifference to the poor and the sick and you try to be more compassionate. So that's good citizenship. How about breaking my bottle, my glass bottle when I was four and a half years old and depriving me of the bottle. Do you think that was good citizenship, ma? Yes, because you couldn't go to school with a bottle in your hand.

Yes, I do. Okay. Do you think you did a good job toilet training me or you think I'm a train wreck as a result of the way you trained me? I think that I'm pretty neat. You tell you how I feel, right? I think that you, like you're a perfect citizen of the United States, and you have life put together, and you treat everyone equal. Right.

Well, I appreciate you saying that, Mike. You taught me all that stuff. So, all right, so you get a letter A for good citizenship. I am Anthony Scaramucci, and that was open book. Thank you for listening. If you like what you hear, tell your friends, and make sure you hit follow or subscribe wherever you listen to your podcast. While you're there, please leave us a rating or review. If you want to connect with me or chat more about the discussions, it's at Scaramucci on Twitter or Instagram.

You can also text me at plus 1, 917, 909-29-996. I'd love to hear from you. I'll see you back here next week.