new world
interview

The First Order  of Politics  is Living
She recently spoke at the Meeting of Rimini on the topic, “Desire and Politics.”  Now, in a lively exchange with Traces, Mary Ann Glendon shares her views on issues at the heart of American social life–including presidential hopefuls and the November elections, and the “wider definition of politics.”

by Barbara Gagliotti

“If I did not believe it is possible for persons of character and competence to succeed in politics, I would not keep trying,” affirms Mary Ann Glendon, who has devoted a lifetime to building up a more just and humane society.  In addition to her distinguished teaching career at the Harvard Law School, she has written and spoken widely on the subject of human rights and has served in a host of diplomatic and political positions, including United States Ambassador to the Holy See (2008–2009).  At age 74, this sought-after advisor to presidents and popes seems hardly ready to quit working for a better society.  This past June, Professor Glendon was appointed to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, an independent, bipartisan federal body responsible for making policy recommendations to the President, Secretary of State, and the Congress.  At a time when many are tired of the business of politics, she urges us with the graceful and persistent example of her own life to be “witnesses and agents of peace and justice.” 

In your recent book The Forum and the Tower, you consider historical figures like Plato and Edmund Burke who tried to bridge the gap, with varying degrees of success, between academia and public service. Part of the inspiration for your book was the experience you have with students who often enter law school because they wish to get involved in public life and then change their minds out of cautionary reconsiderations. Is it possible in America today for public officials to rise beyond partisanship and to make the necessary compromises without compromising their principles?
That is a hard question to answer under current circumstances, but if I did not believe it is possible for persons of character and competence to succeed in politics, I would not keep trying to use whatever talents I have to shift probabilities in a better direction!

You write of Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a shining example of world leaders acting on behalf of the common good. Yet many know that document as a watershed, such that now people claim rights which are not necessarily what the drafters would have regarded as “human rights.” Can you speak to this concern?
The more that human rights ideas showed their moral force in the movements that led to the end of segregation in the U.S., the collapse of totalitarian regimes in Eastern Europe, and the fall of apartheid in South Africa, the more special interest groups have sought to present their agenda items as “new human rights.”  The drafters of the UDHR did not view the rights in that document as a closed catalog, but it has to be recognized that the more the catalog is expanded, the greater are the risks of trivializing basic rights and of increasing clashes among rights.

In your own–albeit brief–time in public office, can you point to any moments where you really had to forge a compromise with others for the greater good?
Nearly everyone is engaged in that sort of activity all the time in the home, in the workplace, and in the various social groups to which we belong–compromise is part of the ordinary give-and-take that enables human beings to live together in relative harmony. In the give-and-take of politics, however, it is important to distinguish between political compromise and moral compromise. In my own experience, that challenge has come up most often in connection with the principle that human beings should be welcomed in life and protected in law from conception until natural death. In my pro-life activities, I have frequently supported legislation that falls short of what I would consider ideal–and I have done so based on my judgment that the law in question advanced the protection of life and was the best obtainable under the circumstances. 

What do you think the future holds for our country if Barack Obama is re-elected?
I would have to hope that a second Obama administration would re-examine its current policies in many areas, especially as they relate to the protection of unborn life, marriage, and the economy. In the latter area, if the federal government continues to spend a trillion dollars a year which it does not have, we risk continued painful unemployment and a downward spiral that will harm everyone, especially the poor, by bankrupting our health care and social security systems.

And a future with Mitt Romney, especially given your experience of living under his gubernatorial administration in Boston?
As a Republican governor in a state where over 80 percent of the legislators are Democrats, and where the majority of voters, like me, are Independents, Mitt Romney demonstrated great skill in bipartisan cooperation. This will be crucial in dealing with the economic crisis, in meeting foreign policy challenges, and in developing fair and humane approaches to problems in areas like immigration and health care.

In a statement issued earlier this year, five former U.S. Ambassadors to the Vatican, including you, endorsed Mitt Romney, even over Catholic GOP hopefuls. Can you tell us why?
The field of candidates included a number of very impressive people. But we all agreed that Mitt Romney had the best combination of experience with understanding of current challenges, plus a deep commitment to the cultural values that sustain our form of government. I think it is significant that we all came to that view despite our different political affiliations (Ambassadors Melady, Nicholson, and Rooney are Republicans; Ambassador Flynn is a Democrat; and I am an Independent).

The statement read, “At this juncture in the nation’s affairs, we believe that it is important to support the one candidate who is best qualified by virtue of experience, intelligence, and integrity.” What juncture were you referring to and what do you believe is at stake in the November election?
What is probably foremost in the minds of American voters this year is concern about the state of the economy, at home and abroad. But the nation’s leaders will also have to deal with a variety of other domestic and foreign policy challenges. With respect to the economic crisis, the sense of urgency is heightened by the fact that the government is currently building a mountain of debt so high that it threatens to destroy the financial underpinnings of our nation for generations to come. In an important sense, this election is about the future of America’s young people.

Barack Obama campaigned four years ago on a message of hope and a shared quest for solutions. What good would you say that Obama ushered in during his time in the White House?
An important good, for which all Americans should be grateful, is that the election of an African-American president finally put paid to the idea that racism is an important factor in U.S. politics. As the United States becomes more demographically diverse, we can look forward to a future when the nation will benefit more than ever from the talents of all its citizens without regard to their race, religion, or national origin.

Years ago, CL students adopted the slogan The First Order of Politics is Living because there was the sense that our political responsibility cannot simply be handed over to elected officials; our very nature requires us to be interested in the life of society as much as we are interested in our own individual happiness. Can you comment on this wider definition of politics and our political responsibility, especially as Christians?
It seems to me that the CL student definition is perfectly in keeping with the Gospel’s injunction to each and every one of us to be leaven and light in the world–according to our abilities and situation in life.

What contribution can initiatives like the Meeting of Rimini and New York Encounter make toward the common good and political life in its widest meaning?
The political vocation, in the sense of the CL student definition, is a vocation that entails special responsibilities for the laity. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: “It is not the role of the Pastors of the Church to intervene directly in the political structuring and organization of social life. This task is part of the vocation of the lay faithful, acting on their own initiative with their fellow citizens.... to animate temporal realities with Christian commitment, by which they show that they are witnesses and agents of peace and justice.” Among the many blessings of the Rimini Meeting and the New York Encounter is the inspiration they give to so many of us to embrace that part of our vocation with confidence, hope, and good cheer.