Senator Richard Lugar

Senator Richard Lugar represented Indiana from 1977 to 2013 as a United States Senator. He served as chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations from 1985-1987 and from 2003-2007. Senator Lugar left the Senate this past January after losing a primary election. He plans to accept positions at Georgetown University, Indiana University, and the German Marshall fund.
Harvard Political Review: What do you consider your greatest legacy in the Senate?
Richard Lugar: I believe my greatest accomplishment is my work on non-proliferation, which began with my cooperation with Sam Nunn, a former Democratic senator from Georgia. In 1986, we decided to take appointees of President Reagan to Geneva, Switzerland with the hope that we would create the first arms control agreement with the Soviet Union. Bit by bit over the next twenty years, greater safety resulted for our country, for the Russians, and for the rest of the world. The program has since grown to include other weapons of mass destruction that are critical to contain. This has been a major occupation for me that has led to travel to Russia and all over the world to meet with people who want to bring about better conditions for peace and security.
HPR: In what direction do you think U.S. non-proliferation policy should be headed?
RL: For the moment, I think that arms control is less likely to be achieved by treaties than by concerted action by the United States. In particular, the U.S. needs to work with other nations to negotiate with the governments of Iran and North Korea to ensure that they do not continue to enrich destructive materials for use in nuclear weapons.
In addition, we are going to have to carefully monitor what is occurring in Syria with regards to chemical weapons. When I was in Russia last August, I proposed that the leadership in our two countries—both of which have been heavily involved in chemical weapons conventions—think carefully about what we need to do about the situation in Syria. Those private talks will continue, as they must.
HPR: What do you consider the biggest threat to U.S. national security?
RL: I believe that the war on terrorism, which inherently involves a war against those who are involved with Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups abroad, is an ongoing process that requires extraordinary intelligence information and cooperation with intelligence agencies wherever possible. Likewise, we need to find much more sophisticated means of eliminating the threats from such perpetrators of terrorism. Recently, drone strikes have been used in this regard, simply because we cannot send regiments of American troops to every country where terrorists reside. Therefore, it is of critical importance that we become able to strike more quickly and with fewer costs to other countries and to ourselves.
Though I don’t want to confuse issues, recently we have seen the ability of countries to hack foreign messages and institutions as a new threat. In particular, I have been following the case concerning China, which alleges that the Chinese government has been involved to some extent in hacking the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. Quite apart from the supposition that banks have been in harms way, this is a very serious dilemma, given the U.S.’s reliance on computers for national security and, in fact, our whole system of communications.
HPR: You mentioned drone strikes as a tool for fighting terrorism. Are you concerned about international fallout from strikes where mistakes have been made?
RL: Of course I’m concerned whenever innocent lives are taken and when conventional wars bring about death or disruption for innocent people. This is of great concern. However, the drone strikes appear, at least to me, to be more likely to lead to fewer casualties overall. The problem of the war on terrorism, which is a war of great dimensions, is that we have the need, and the ability, to eliminate those who are going to be terror threats to the United States. I hope that our drone strike situation becomes as efficient as possible, but I suspect a certain amount of casualties are inevitable.
HPR: You’ve talked a lot recently about your concerns regarding partisanship in Washington, of which the filibustering of Senator Chuck Hagel’s confirmation as Secretary of Defense is a salient example. Does this worry you?
RL: In my judgment, if Chuck Hagel had been a Democrat, he might not have had such problems in his confirmation hearings. The objections that were raised about him really go back to arguments that pre-date the last election. One issue he faced was the problem that, on many occasions, he worked with Democrats and with the administration and with people outside of a very narrow partisan realm. For many Republicans, this means Chuck Hagel’s voting record is somewhat unsatisfactory. This is a real and broader dilemma that plays out in confirmation hearings and sequester debates and more.
Related to this issue of partisanship is the issue of campaign money—the need for which contributes to greater caution on the part of individual members of the House or Senate, particularly in terms of their voting records on key debates. Money affects how far out front in negotiations politicians want to be as leaders and in terms of offering new suggestions and compromises that allow us to negotiate some of the most difficult issues that face our country.
HPR: Having been challenged by a member of your own party. Do you think the Republican party has moved too far to the right? Has it lost its way?
RL: I won’t characterize the whole party, but I will say that essentially the problem is not so much right or left but rather specific national groups who have agendas and, in a day when there is unlimited campaign contributions or possibilities, the question is almost taken out of the judgement of the parties and becomes much more a contest in terms of the public relations or the ability of these groups to get their message out. This is a different type of political organization, which I don’t think is very healthy.
HPR: How would you prefer to counteract that aversion to compromise or leadership that stems from big money?
RL: Well, we have to elect members with strong courage of their conviction who are able and willing to speak to the public with such strength that they overcome all the byplay going on underneath. I don’t think that this is impossible, but it does call for some new leaders to come forward who are able to call out not only some of the problems facing the country and the people who are the enemies, but also to construct new programs that make since. And these folks are going to have to have the financial and organizational backing as well as the political skills.
HPR: After such a long career in the Senate, you must have had a variety of offers for retirement plans. What drew you to academia?
RL: I’ve always enjoyed visiting with students. After I had served for eight years as mayor of Indianapolis, Dr. Gene Sease of Indiana Central, now called the University of Indianapolis, who was a good friend, invited me to teach. He knew that I was running for the U.S. Senate that year but said “you can teach two courses in the morning but then campaign in the afternoon and evening.” So I did that for the entire calendar year of 1976 and it was a wonderful experience and I carried this on as a Senator. We had interns from colleges in our office continuously all year round, which gave me an opportunity to visit with the students and ask what they were observing.
This interview has been edited and condensed.