As most of you know by now, Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana has been ousted in the Republican primary after serving 36 years as a Senator from Indiana. Growing up in the state, I was fortunate to be active in the political process and met Sen. Lugar on more than one occasion. Yet, like many Hoosiers, I also watched as a career politician seemed to forget who he represented as he distanced himself from his Indiana roots.
Those of you familiar with Strauss & Howe will recognize the traits of a Silent-generation leader as they read this. I’m sharing it because I think Sen. Lugar makes some interesting points about our juncture in history and how far our political system has debased itself over the past decades. And, frankly, who’s calling the shots these days.
Prepared Statement of Senator Richard G. Lugar on the Concluded Indiana Senate Primary
May 8, 2012
I would like to comment on the Senate race just concluded and the direction of American politics and the Republican Party. I would reiterate from my earlier statement that I have no regrets about choosing to run for office. My health is excellent, I believe that I have been a very effective Senator for Hoosiers and for the country, and I know that the next six years would have been a time of great achievement. Further, I believed that vital national priorities, including job creation, deficit reduction, energy security, agriculture reform, and the Nunn-Lugar program, would benefit from my continued service as a Senator. These goals were worth the risk of an electoral defeat and the costs of a hard campaign.
Analysts will speculate about whether our campaign strategies were wise. Much of this will be based on conjecture by pundits who don’t fully appreciate the choices we had to make based on resource limits, polling data, and other factors. They also will speculate whether we were guilty of overconfidence.
The truth is that the headwinds in this race were abundantly apparent long before Richard Mourdock announced his candidacy. One does not highlight such headwinds publically when one is waging a campaign. But I knew that I would face an extremely strong anti-incumbent mood following a recession. I knew that my work with then-Senator Barack Obama would be used against me, even if our relationship were overhyped. I also knew from the races in 2010 that I was a likely target of Club for Growth, FreedomWorks and other Super Pacs dedicated to defeating at least one Republican as a purification exercise to enhance their influence over other Republican legislators.
We undertook this campaign soberly and we worked very hard in 2010, 2011, and 2012 to overcome these challenges. There never was a moment when my campaign took anything for granted. This is why we put so much effort into our get out the vote operations.
Ultimately, the re-election of an incumbent to Congress usually comes down to whether voters agree with the positions the incumbent has taken. I knew that I had cast recent votes that would be unpopular with some Republicans and that would be targeted by outside groups.
These included my votes for the TARP program, for government support of the auto industry, for the START Treaty, and for the confirmations of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. I also advanced several propositions that were considered heretical by some, including the thought that Congressional earmarks saved no money and turned spending power over to unelected bureaucrats and that the country should explore options for immigration reform.
It was apparent that these positions would be attacked in a Republican primary. But I believe that they were the right votes for the country, and I stand by them without regrets, as I have throughout the campaign.
From time to time during the last two years I heard from well-meaning individuals who suggested that I ought to consider running as an independent. My response was always the same: I am a Republican now and always have been. I have no desire to run as anything else. All my life, I have believed in the Republican principles of small government, low taxes, a strong national defense, free enterprise, and trade expansion. According to Congressional Quarterly vote studies, I supported President Reagan more often than any other Senator. I want to see a Republican elected President, and I want to see a Republican majority in the Congress. I hope my opponent wins in November to help give my friend Mitch McConnell a majority.
If Mr. Mourdock is elected, I want him to be a good Senator. But that will require him to revise his stated goal of bringing more partisanship to Washington. He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate. In effect, what he has promised in this campaign is reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party. His answer to the inevitable roadblocks he will encounter in Congress is merely to campaign for more Republicans who embrace the same partisan outlook. He has pledged his support to groups whose prime mission is to cleanse the Republican party of those who stray from orthodoxy as they see it.
This is not conducive to problem solving and governance. And he will find that unless he modifies his approach, he will achieve little as a legislator. Worse, he will help delay solutions that are totally beyond the capacity of partisan majorities to achieve. The most consequential of these is stabilizing and reversing the Federal debt in an era when millions of baby boomers are retiring. There is little likelihood that either party will be able to impose their favored budget solutions on the other without some degree of compromise.
Unfortunately, we have an increasing number of legislators in both parties who have adopted an unrelenting partisan viewpoint. This shows up in countless vote studies that find diminishing intersections between Democrat and Republican positions. Partisans at both ends of the political spectrum are dominating the political debate in our country. And partisan groups, including outside groups that spent millions against me in this race, are determined to see that this continues. They have worked to make it as difficult as possible for a legislator of either party to hold independent views or engage in constructive compromise. If that attitude prevails in American politics, our government will remain mired in the dysfunction we have witnessed during the last several years. And I believe that if this attitude expands in the Republican Party, we will be relegated to minority status. Parties don’t succeed for long if they stop appealing to voters who may disagree with them on some issues.
Legislators should have an ideological grounding and strong beliefs identifiable to their constituents. I believe I have offered that throughout my career. But ideology cannot be a substitute for a determination to think for yourself, for a willingness to study an issue objectively, and for the fortitude to sometimes disagree with your party or even your constituents. Like Edmund Burke, I believe leaders owe the people they represent their best judgment.
Too often bipartisanship is equated with centrism or deal cutting. Bipartisanship is not the opposite of principle. One can be very conservative or very liberal and still have a bipartisan mindset. Such a mindset acknowledges that the other party is also patriotic and may have some good ideas. It acknowledges that national unity is important, and that aggressive partisanship deepens cynicism, sharpens political vendettas, and depletes the national reserve of good will that is critical to our survival in hard times. Certainly this was understood by President Reagan, who worked with Democrats frequently and showed flexibility that would be ridiculed today – from assenting to tax increases in the 1983 Social Security fix, to compromising on landmark tax reform legislation in 1986, to advancing arms control agreements in his second term.
I don’t remember a time when so many topics have become politically unmentionable in one party or the other. Republicans cannot admit to any nuance in policy on climate change. Republican members are now expected to take pledges against any tax increases. For two consecutive Presidential nomination cycles, GOP candidates competed with one another to express the most strident anti-immigration view, even at the risk of alienating a huge voting bloc. Similarly, most Democrats are constrained when talking about such issues as entitlement cuts, tort reform, and trade agreements. Our political system is losing its ability to even explore alternatives. If fealty to these pledges continues to expand, legislators may pledge their way into irrelevance. Voters will be electing a slate of inflexible positions rather than a leader.
I hope that as a nation we aspire to more than that. I hope we will demand judgment from our leaders. I continue to believe that Hoosiers value constructive leadership. I would not have run for office if I did not believe that.
As someone who has seen much in the politics of our country and our state, I am able to take the long view. I have not lost my enthusiasm for the role played by the United States Senate. Nor has my belief in conservative principles been diminished. I expect great things from my party and my country. I hope all who participated in this election share in this optimism.
This is what 36 years of non-partisanship got us from the esteemed Senator Lugar:
National Debt in 1976 when he entered the Senate: $620 Billion
National Debt when he leaves Congress in January: $16 Trillion
Well done!!!!!
Ah, but how fond you are of showing how the National Debt has exploded exponentially under an increasingly partisan, special-interest-controlled system we’ve had in the past 5-10 years. You’re missing the point of the post… Silent generation attitudes and how unlikely it is we’ll ever find workable solutions while the system is mired in the partisan ideology that Boomers are most noted for.
Thinker
The national debt began to accelerate in 1980 when Reagan and Tip O’Neill were perfectly non-partisan. The problem most certainly is not partisanship. It took plenty of cooperation to create this debt. The only time we had gridlock was during Clinton’s term and we ran a surplus. This is the result of “solutions” agreed to by both parties and signed off on by Presidents of both parties.
[img[/img]
What a clueless, moronic ASSHOLE!!! Good for the people of Indiana!!! One less dickhead out there. Bipartisanship…Tarp, bailouts, KAGAN!!!!!!!!! FUCK HIM!
I’m sure he considers every bit of his retirement well earned. This is why spending cuts in federal government should start with the US Congress. We’re going to end up with nationalized pensions in this country before we recover from the second great depression anyway, may as well start with our elected representatives pensions and retirement bennies.
“They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.”
– George Washington, in his farewell address to the nation, on the detriment of increasing sectarianism of the political parties
He will pull down beaucoup bucks as a lobbyist.
Thinker
Both parties have a mutual interest. They both promised voters anything they wanted in order to get re-elected for 6 terms like Lugar. Our problem is because these two parties are exactly the same. There is no real partisanship. Has Obama reduced Defense spending? Didn’t Bush sign Medicare Part D?
We don’t need more solutions from these politicians. We need some guillotines, pitchforks, and torches.
Modern-day ones, yes, Jim. You have to admit, they did stand for something, once. Before the special interests bought both parties off.
I’m not saying Lugar was a good senator, merely pointing out how differently his generation thinks than the generation mostly in power today. It will take getting Boomers out of government, tearing the system apart and rebuilding it to return to the days when politicians represented the people over their donors.
I’m not as nihilistic about it as you, but it may just take your guillotines, pitchforks and torches.
Thinker
I disagree 100%.
When did they stand for something?
Politicians like Lugar created the Federal Reserve and Income Tax in 1913.
Politicians like Lugar passed the Great Society legislation of the 1960s.
Politicians passed TARP and the Patriot Act.
I see no difference between politicians of any era. They have all screwed the country. And we elected them, so it’s our fault too.
They have enough money and time to pass favorable laws. The common people have their hands tied just trying to put food on the plate and keep their job.
The time they have left over they don’t feel like fighting for their rights, so they pop on the TV and watch Dancing with the Stars and thats that.
If you ascribe to Strauss & Howe’s theories of generations repeating through time, you’ll see distinct traits that accompany the four archetypes — Civic, Artist, Prophet and Nomad. Prophet gens are always ideological, while Civic gens are cooperative and Artist generations are compromising. Nomads are always non-interventionist.
But yes, if you mold them all together in the circle of history, you may think they all acted the same way over the historical record when, in fact, they all made choices that drove society and effected the events of the day. The Prophet gen before Boomers — the Missionaries — led moral crusades like women’s suffrage and Prohibition. Today it’s the war on drugs and women’s issues/gay rights. Artist gens like today’s Silent focused on flexible, consensus-building leadership (the “Compromises” of the Whig era, the “good government” reforms of the Progressive era).
Yes, “politicians” as a whole have created many issues, but to lump them all together isn’t fair, either. Each generation has done both good and bad — some worse than others. Most of the examples you used were passed by Prophet-majority governments and were based on their ideology at the time.
Bi-partisanship is merely their way of joining to control and take advantage of us. There is evil in every generation and cooperation in the name of fleecing the sheep is not a trait of the Silents only. All 4 of the archetypal generations do or will have people (if you can call them that) who are willing to come together to dominate humanity in general.
im just sorry i no longer have the opportunity to vote against this clueless old man. 8 years i called indiana my home, and to think i once voted for this schmuck ! what a total and complete doooshbag this guy has become. good riddance to bad, old trash . enjoy the few months of .gov pension and social insecurity payments , while they last SUCKA ! lol….. hope you die sitting on the toilet in your vacation home in florida and they don’t find you for 11 months…… what a cute mummy you will make…. 🙂
Luger was an old dusty fart that needed to retire…
I do find it amazing how little partisanship there is when it comes to passing NDAA, the Patriot act, or TARP.
When comes to screwing American citizens Congress is always non- partisan.
But but but Strauss and Howe are boomers!
National Debt in 1976 when he entered the Senate: $620 Billion
National Debt when he leaves Congress in January: $16 Trillion -admin
He must work for the same guys that Krugman does.
We need to become more non-partisan, so we can get things done.
[img[/img]
Whenever I see these stories, I think we really do need term limits in Congress. 12 years in House and 12 in Senate should be enough for anyone to fulfill whatever mission it is they think they have.
By the time these guys get to Lugar’s age, all they do is work on their “legacy”. Like buildings and projects named after them. And getting your 20-something old son appointed as a US attorney like Strom Thurmond. They really don’t have anything to meaningful to add anymore. “Decades of experience” is way overrated as an attribute unless you are just going for the pork.
While I appreciate that he correctly identifies “the state of affairs” and it correlates with the 4T hypothesis, he really does not have a role in the future and he needs to accept that. He is basically saying that “Boomers should not be Boomers.” But they still are.
@Dragline: +1 For term limits. Right now when a lobbyist buys a congressman they get decades of return from that investment. Putting term limits in place would at least lessen the amount of money companies would be willing to spend on those bobbleheads.
Greece is the road map to what awaits. They are so fractured they cannot elect a government – any fucking government.
At least the US has only 2 parties – neither of which is prepared to take positive action. But with only 2 there remains a faint hope that one may comet other senses. It is a very faint hope. But with ten minority parties across the entire spectrum,there is no hope at all. Greece is toast. I think Germany will give France’s new lefty president the finger, and so Spain,Italy, and France are likely the next to be buttered and served with eggs over-easy. not to mention the assorted smaller hangers-on like Portugal.
What an incredible cluster-fuck. It is with morbid curiosity that I watch it unfold. The sheeple of Greece have now panicked and have grasped at straws. They better get good at herding sheep because that is all they will have left to do.
I always thought his name “Lugar” was too close to “lugee” which according to http://www.urbandictionary.com is:
“The wad of phlegm that comes up when one is coughing, or hocking (making a gagging sound in order to bring up a lugee).”
How appropriate because I felt like coughing up one of those after I read this sanctimonious swank’s farewell address.
Gahhhh.
that made me sick to my stomach, what a POS. good riddance, he’s delusional enough to think he did a good job. enjoy retirement, ahole.
anyone who voted for the auto bailout can ES.
Thinker: the debt exploded with closure of the gold window. hello. it didn’t matter who was in charge after 1971.
Wow. I am a newly minted Hoosier and I had no idea that such vitriol existed against Lugar. Now, my home state of Nevada, and its favorite son, Harry Reid, well that’s another story…
no more than most of the others, and he being a career politician means he is by definition a disconnected, brainwashed POS. shouldn’t be a surprise given Congress’ approval rating.
i’d hate him less if he didn’t write that nauseating farewell, as if anyone would care what he thinks.
HZK Thanks I needed that, Things are just so fucked up, and this use to be a half ass decent place to live and work.
This old goat Lugar probably really believes he has done the right things and served his people well. If he didn’t why would he still be working at his age and not spending all his time enjoying things like his family, his pets and hobbies, or other personal interests like Viagra and 25 year old babes. You know things that are fun and really make life worth living. Because he loves his work and believes deeply in what he does and it makes him feel good, that’s why. He been around and certainly knows how things really work, even more than we do. He bevies in compromise, authoritarian team work and the institutions of business and government. This is the realm in which he operates on the behalf lessor men and he knows in his heart it is good. He’s an old man and will be gone soon and that’s a shame as a hangman’s noose would suite him well. (After examining his record in court and found guilty of treason by a jury of twelve that is.)
As Individuals old fuckers like Lugar may not be evil men but as an institution of many they do the work of demons. They are masters of rationalization that cross the bounds into delusion. They all make compromise and are compromised. The only concessions these men don’t make are concessions to reality and the restrains of the constitution. They do not and can not because the systemic corruption of the government has been embedded so wide and so deep for so long they know nothing else.
The removal of Lugar means nothing. If his his replacement goes on to win the election it will mean nothing. Admins charts depending on what negative facts they reveal will still go up or down.
The time for big is almost over. The time of big box government, institutions and retail stores is drawing to a close. The iron chains of fiat, trade, finance and debt are rusting to powder. The lip stick and rouge on the ugly face of political tyranny is coming off. The era of ITthing status is drawing to a close. The unwitting consumer is headed for the wall and spectacular crash.
There’s no telling what the massive hoards of fat, tattooed,ignorant, armed morons will due when abruptly awaken from their life long government subsidized, iPod, rap music induced hibernation. Angry and outraged don’t come close to describing how they might react. The centralized octopus of authority will not have enough arms to contain the damage. It will start by picking off a few of the “Early Insurrectors” and evolve into a hopeless game of Soviet Eastern Front style Whack a Mole. The PTB know this and will do every thing they can to head this off and to maintain complacency and relative calm. Things will be really bad if they fail and incredibly horrible if they succeed. People like Lugar who believes in his soul that he is a patriot know they have been the cause of the problems yet want the system to prevail and will make the compromises they think will sustain it.
Maybe we simply need to abolish the Federal Government and replace it with nothing. If we don’t it will abolish itself and be replaced with something worse. We can see that happening before our eyes.
Embrace the Doom.
“We don’t need more solutions from these politicians. We need some guillotines, pitchforks, and torches.”
I’ll bring the tar and feathers. This treatment for politrixters should’ve never fell out of style.
They need term limits.Mabe a six year term so they can just work? and not spend time trying to get elected again.They all disgust me.
The country is so dumbed down i figure Obama well stay in power.
Loogie-I have believed in the Republican principles of small government,
Bullshit!
And good riddance to another lying POS Republicat corporatist pig.
Half way thru this rhetorical tripe of contradictory spew , I had to stop reading as waves of nauseating disgust threatened to ruin the beginnings of a fine morning.
Dragline says:
Whenever I see these stories, I think we really do need term limits in Congress. 12 years in House and 12 in Senate should be enough for anyone to fulfill whatever mission it is they think they have.
Great book on the benefits of term limits …Loogie would have definitely been in the cross hairs.
An Act of Self-Defense
Erne Lewis
The primary election of Richard Mourdock once again reminds me how prophetic “The Fourth Turning” is. Richard Mourdock is most certainly a 4T man. He also is straight out of Sinclair’s “It Can’t Happen Here” – even the name, Mourdock, sounds as though it fell from Sinclair’s pages …almost as if he walked straight out of the book.
Richard Mourdock is the darling of the Fox News Neo-Cons, financed by the limitless funds of Citizens United, the Club for Growth, banks and/or financial interests, and wealthy investor-types. The funding is public record; read it yourself.
Will he win the general election? I don’t know. My guess is that he will, as he has massive funding and is spouting all the Fox News buzzwords.
Tea Party, eh? Remember him well when he advocates turning loose the police dogs and fire hoses at the next Occupy protest.
Yes, very much a 4T man.
I’m afraid you’re right there, Terry. That’s what happens in 4Ts… as Nigel Farage just pointed out in a speech to the EU, “the status quo middle falls and the extremists on both sides rise.”
Just as it was in Hitler’s time.
Libertarians don’t fare too well in Fourth Turnings.
Lugar voted for NDAA. Amazingly, only 7 brave Senators voted against it, 1 Independent and 3 D’s and R’s. Over 90% of the vote in favor in the Senate. I guess that’s the kind of bipartisan cooperation that Lugar speaks of. Anyone who voted for it needs to be booted out, as AFAIC 92 more to go.
Rand Paul voted against it.