I don’t know if Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) will succeed or fail in his effort next year to win the Republican nomination to run for another six-year term. I also don’t know whether I should be pulling for him or celebrating his demise. It’s complicated. He’s literally the last of his kind. He’s dedicated his career to serving this country’s foreign policy interests (as he sees them) without much regard for who is in the White House. As Foreign Policy writes, the Republican Party has a long and rich legacy of producing statesmen who put the country before party. But, what is also true is that our foreign policy elites have failed us in rather dramatic ways. It was only a matter of time before the populist right finally destroyed the Republican Establishment’s hold on foreign policy. The question is, considering how many screw-ups the Establishment has produced, don’t they deserve their comeuppance?
It’s true that a patrician class that could loftily announce, as Walter Lippmann did in 1929, that dispassionate elite experts must provide the American people with “what they will learn to want” has probably had it coming for a long time. The truth is that the wise men have never made much secret of their claim to superior wisdom over the hoi polloi. The establishment’s aloof impartiality has always appeared to the populist right as unvarnished hauteur, a cloak in which the wise men wrap themselves as they propound upon and execute policies independent of, or simply oblivious to, the will of the American people.
But this time something may be different about the battering that establishment is suffering. As historian Geoffrey Kabaservice writes in his important new book Rule and Ruin, “The first decade of the twenty-first century witnessed the final decline and virtual extinctions of moderates’ power and representation in the Republican Party.” Whatever its past shortcomings and foibles, the demise of the wise-man tradition in the GOP should evoke apprehension in anyone who thinks that America’s leading role in the world has, by and large, been a force for good. In defining itself by opposition to the idea of an elite, the party is willfully abjuring one of its noblest legacies. If the road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom, as William Blake observed, then the GOP might eventually rediscover its heritage. Perhaps the first sign of a return to wisdom in the GOP would be acknowledging rather than scorning the wise men and their accomplishments.
I do think that America’s leading role in the world has, by and large, been a force for good, but it’s much closer call than it should be. Neo-Cons and representatives without passports are not an improvement, but it’s not as if people like Dick Lugar have been knocking it out of the park. I think the real problem with losing Dick Lugar is that we lose someone who goes about foreign policy-making the correct way, even if he hasn’t always produced the best solutions or supported the wisest courses. He and John Kerry work together in a constructive way, and did a great job on the New START Treaty. For twenty years, he’s been doing outstanding work on nuclear non-proliferation.
I think he’s trying to groom Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee to be his eventual replacement, but I don’t think Corker has the same instincts. When Lugar leaves, foreign policy will be that much more politicized. That concerns me.
On the other hand, I’d like to win his Senate seat.
On the other hand, I’d like to win his Senate seat.
Did you see the vote on that anti-woman bill in the House today?
Yup. Good thing we have the Senate and a veto.
And that will help how if Woman-hater Joe Donnelly moves to the Senate?
Frankly, it won’t make much difference because Lugar doesn’t vote any differently. It could hurt, perhaps, at the committee level during the mark-up of a bill. But it won’t change the tally on the Senate floor.
I would never vote for Lugar, but he’s what I consider to be a ‘ sane’ Republican.
he’s a dinosaur.
We’ve gone from liberal and moderate Republicans going extinct to “sane” Republicans going extinct. That’s scary in itself. But the only way for them to come back at this point is for the party to die and be relegated completely to the south — like so disliked that they can never win a presidential election disliked. Well, maybe not…nothing is ever true until it is, but their trajectory isn’t looking good.
I’d like to win the seat as well. Who do we have running?
I’d like to win the seat as well. Who do we have running?
A shit-for-brains who thinks it is cool to have women die to satisfy the Randall Terry’s of the world.
On our side?
yes.
Joe Donnelly is the guy the DSCC recruited. And yes, he hates women given his vote in the House today(Thursday).
A Democrat, if you consider Democrats on our side. Depends on who “us” is.
“Us,” in my usage, is pretty much anybody but Republicans. I get that there are plenty of awful Dems out there too, but it’s a starting point. My world view has developed to a point at which I find it unthinkable that in a head-to-head matchup, a Republican could be any less vile than a Democrat. And if they’re equally vile, then the caucus count still decides the match.
“less vile” interesting. For clarification, did you really intend to say the Democrat must be more vile than the Republican? Or did you mean “more vile” in your sentence?
I think I worded it correctly. Any given Republican running against a Democrat will be at least as vile as the Dem and in 98% of the cases more so. Hence, I find it unthinkable that the Rep could be less vile then the Dem, because if the Rep were less vile, then naturally the Dem would be more vile.
I just woke up, so I may have this backwards. But I’m pretty sure it’s correct.
For example, take the recent special election to fill Robert Byrd’s Senate seat in West Virginia. Joe Manchin has got to be one of the slimiest characters of the last 30 years to call himself a Democrat. He ran against Republican opponent John Raese.
Here’s a little about Raese:
Pretty close call. You’d have to be a local or really involved in the race to know all the nuances, but I’d say that the worst you could say about Manchin in that match-up is that both candidates are equally bad, that is, Raese is not less vile than Manchin. In which case, one remembers that Manchin’s seat in the Senate at the very least (and that’s about all the good he’ll do for us) helps preserve the Dem majority.
That’s what I was trying to say.
In a better world, we wouldn’t have Democrats like Joe Manchin and wouldn’t need to have convoluted discussions like this.
If another Republican wins his seat, I’ll be missing the hell out of Lugar. I can’t imagine what kind of Crazy is stirring in IN these days.
Y’know it’s interesting, reading the rundown on Lugar in the quoted article (and elsewhere), it reminds me of what they were saying about Lincoln Chafee back in ‘006, albeit with a heavy dose of arrogance thrown into the mix.
Chafee at least had the wisdom to vote against the Iraq war resolution.
Lugar voted for it.
Got to respect a man of integrity, even he is mostly wrong. There are so few in politics.