A Statesman

 Richard Lugar and Birch Bayh

1980 AP photo

Two legendary US Senators

     Richard Lugar was a great man. There is a reason he served one of the longest terms ever in the US Senate; he was a thoughtful, analytical intellect, he was a devoted public servant with a drive to make things better, he stood his ground, he chided and pushed even Presidents, and he worked as hard as anyone to make this world safe from nuclear weapons.
   Lugar's passing at 87 is reason for you to spend a few minutes reading some of the cascade of coverage about this remarkable man from Indiana. 

       Tom and Senator Lugar at Richard Lugar Fitness Fest and Run

Lugar was an early advocate of fitness and was a runner.

      I was fortunate to meet and begin covering his political and public service career in 1969. He was the young mayor of Indianapolis and I was a reporter assigned to cover city government.
     At one of our first meetings, Mayor Lugar, who was organizing an international conference of cities, got down on his hands and knees and worked through an overflowing book case, looking for a manuscript by a scholar. He was an habitual reader, voracious consumer of information which he worked to integrate into his public service.

an historic save

      Lugar's work on Nuclear Disarmament and Agricultural reform were his long suits in the Senate where he was respected by both sides of the aisle. 
      Lugar was at the center of one of the most critical and dangerous tipping points in history.
      The Soviet Union had collapsed and Generals from the Red Army showed up in Washington wanting to talk about life and death matters.  
     Secretary of State Baker and the HW Bush White House were being careful, but to a fault and spurned the contact.
     Lugar took the meeting and along with Democrat Sam Nunn heard this message-The Soviet power structure is gone, so is the command of the Soviet Army and Navy and that means we no longer have control over nuclear war heads that have US addresses on them. The same is true for chemical and biological weapons. 
        Diverse locales, Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and other nations that had been under the Soviet boot heel, had weapons, bases, ports and stock piles in their now independent nation. Who controlled them? That was the million dollar question.
      Lugar and Nunn were quick. Lugar, a former naval intelligence officer and Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee knew rogue players and terrorists soon would be bidding for control of the old Soviet nukes and chemical weapons and material.
     With in hours he and Nunn had worked legislative handles and had millions of dollars to essentially save the world. Soon they were flying off to the old Soviet empire and "buying" war heads, and paying military officers to stay in place and guard the nukes and subs, paying to house Soviet troops who were ready to desert since the empire was no longer in place and could not or would not pay the troops. The troops had families at home and they needed money. Command control was breaking down.
     What Lugar and Nunn saw would raise the hairs on the back of your neck. They returned to the states and crafted what was known as the Nunn-Lugar act. The US would buy weapons and take them down. It eventually became known as the Cooperative Threat Reduction plan. The two of them built a legislative consensus and kept the program funded. After Nunn retired, the work was Lugar's to do.
     This period of Lugar's work was one of the great diplomatic plays of all time. It is in the echelon of the Marshall Plan.  
    As a documentary maker I developed a project to tell the story. It didn't get made. As we were fundraising 9/11 happened. The focus shifted.

Senator Lugar and Lewis Stiner at the ceremony of Stiner's retirement

    Lugar was a progressive and creative mayor who was the godfather of revitalization of rustbelt cities. The halo around Indianapolis as one of America's great cities, was drafted and   the work began under Lugar, with the assistance of his dynamic staff, especially the visionary Jim Morris. The new Indianapolis that followed became guide light for other cities reinvention. 

     Morris was one of the brilliant young thinkers Lugar brought to public service and there were many.

     I met a young Mitch Daniels as he worked in that era and with Lugar's first political chief, Keith Bulen. Daniels became his Senate chief of staff for several years and later worked in the Reagan and W Bush administrations as well as being twice elected Indiana Governor. He is now President of Purdue University.

    The coverage of his passing reprises the extraordinary record of his 36 years in the Senate. Consider the sweep of history from 1977 to 2013 and ponder that Lugar was often a pivotal player and was revered and respected by politicians from every point on the spectrum.

     Praise came from former Presidents, current candidates, Democrats, Republicans and foreign leaders. They respected his depth and they liked the man. 

     When my fraternity brother and long time friend retired from Naval Intelligence, Lugar was there. He respected Lew's service. Lugar had been a legendary intelligence briefer for Admiral Raleigh Burke. He said that had been a shaping experience.

     A lot of people think Lugar would have been a good President. He gave it a run in 1996. One of his chief operators was Mark Lubbers, another of the brilliant people attracted to service by Lugar. 

     His campaign was themed on fiscal sanity and nuclear security. He was a brainy and non flashy candidate but what was the death knell for his campaign was the day it launched, April 19, 1995, the day of the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City. Millions of prospective voters didn't get to see or hear what would have been his moment in the spotlight.

      Amongst those who knew, worked with or covered Lugar there was always discussion about what might have been, how might the world have been different.
      Lubbers has advised Governors and lawmakers and has leveraged his own creative approach to policy issues, mentored by the Senator. Lubber's wife Teresa has spent her life as a multi term State Senator and Commissioner of Education. Her path to public service was inspired by Lugar who she interviewed as a high school journalist. He had a twinkle and spark and a way of motivating.
       There is a cadre of politicians and public servants who were inspired by the former school board officer, innovative mayor and towering 6 term US Senator.

      

      I've been ruminating on lots of Lugar reflections. 
      One that makes me laugh is when my first historical mystery-thriller novel was published. I was on Sanibel Island vacationing and doing a series of book signings. Lugar's staff reached me to say the Senator was also on the Island, one of his favorite break spots and that I should take a book around to him.

      When I arrived I was directed to a location near the pool and beach under an umbrella. There was the senator in a polo style shirt, Bermuda shorts, with dark, to the knee socks and I think wing tip shoes. They may have been loafers.

      I've written before about some of the greatest evenings.

When I was president of the Indianapolis Press Club we hosted dinner and conversations with Senator Lugar and Representative Lee Hamilton. Those men were among the most knowledgeable on national security, intelligence and foreign relations. They held ranking positions in the Senate and House. Sitting there and listening to their state of the art information and analysis, and seeing the respect they had for each and the marvelous byplay was a good as it gets.

     And so was Lugar. I didn't agree with all of his votes, but I respected him and the intelligence he put into his public service. He may have read more than anyone I know. He certainly did more to keep the world safe than probably anyone else.  
    If you don't know much about this man, read a few articles. He deserves the attention due a genuine and historic "Statesman." There are precious few.

       See you down the trail.

Give the moderators a whistle

no nonsense 

   It was another era and some of us miss it.

   The lad with the earphones looking over the shoulder of the men at the table is me. I was a political reporter covering a mid 70's state convention. The Africa American with his back to the camera was in the midst of an appeal and protest about being cheated out of his vote by political bosses who opposed the candidate for governor that he supported. That is the credentials committee at work. He was trying to be seated as he was elected. In those days a diligent journalist would not let a closed door keep his curiosity at bay. I was on the air live at the time.

     no way to run a debate

   That anecdote is by way of building credential. In those days and for a couple of decades to follow I moderated political debates. General election and primary debates.  Governor, US Senate, Mayor, Congress. I enjoyed the challenge.

     I watch political debates these days and feel sorry for the moderator.

     There was a time when on my cue the booth director could cut the microphone of any candidate who blathered on longer than the allotted time. 

     In one debate I had a coaches whistle and told the candidates that should they not stop when their time is up, I would blow the whistle. No one smiled.

     Politicians have become masters of answering by avoiding the question and cutting directly to one of their well rehearsed ad libs or talking points. I would interrupt and remind the candidate they were prevaricating, obfuscating, or dodging the question. I would even challenge them and ask "are you afraid to answer? am I speaking over your head?" A couple of times I asked the candidates to respect both the audience, who had tuned in, and the process and "simply answer the question."

     I don't know what kind of restrictions may be placed on the moderators in these recent cycles, but they and all of us would be better served if they could simply tell the candidates to cut the bull shit!

     By the time of my last moderating job I was a known commodity, for better or worse. I was fortunate to have two intelligent candidates with whom I had history through years of coverage. I knew them and they knew me. It was October 14, 2008 and was a contest between then incumbent Governor Mitch Daniels and the Democratic challenger former US Representative Jill Long Thompson. It was staged by the Indiana Debate Commission before a full house in the Indiana University Auditorium and was broadcast statewide and into the Louisville Kentucky and Chicago Illinois television and radio markets. Being a debate moderator is not a popularity contest. Done properly it can bring understanding. I think we should give them whistles.

     See you down the trail.

     

FREEDOM COULD MEAN STUPID and REAL EXOTICS

NOTHING OFF LIMITS

prickly yes-pampered no

     Case in Point

     Considering matters of intellectual and academic freedom, we start with a related anecdote.

     The Governor was growing increasingly angry. He was upset with the questions and unhappy being on camera. 
     He told me I should not ask him again. I did. He said I was out of line and if I did not stop he would leave. I asked again. He stood up and started to bolt for the door. The lavaliere microphone, still attached to his tie, caused him to jerk back at the end of the tether.

      "You'll ruin that nice tie Governor. Why don't you cool off, sit down and answer the questions?" I said as photographer Steve removed the camera from the tripod and walked toward the Governor, tape rolling.

       "You cannot treat me this way! I am the governor."

He glared at Steve now zoomed in on him. "Is that camera on?" he barked.

       "Yes it is. You are loosing your cool. Why don't you just answer the question?" I asked again.

        "I order you to turn off that camera," he pointed furiously, now free from the mic. "Do you hear me?"

        "Governor, you can't order us to turn off the camera. We just want you to answer our questions."

        "I order you as the governor to turn that camera off."

       There was more exchange as he and an aid bolted through our conference room door and started down the hall, Steve and I in pursuit, camera on. He was yelling I couldn't treat him that way, he was the governor.

      As he bounded down the stairs toward our lobby he boomed we could never use the video on the air. I said that since he was an elected official we could ask him "any thing, anytime, anywhere."

      And that's the point. More in a moment after a final word on the furor. It blew up a storm of controversy and news coverage from other media. The confrontation was on a Friday evening.  On Monday morning the State Board of Accounts sent an Auditor to the television station for an unscheduled audit and investigation. 

       I was reporting a story on how state supreme court justices were selected and the influence the governor had. It was not an unfair or unnecessary question, but that is another matter. 

       In our democratic republic freedom of speech is a foundational right. To that end all of us should be able to speak and inquire freely. I hold to the idea that if someone is elected to represent the public interest they are indeed on notice to answer any question anywhere. They're paid by taxpayer dollars so any taxpayer, they need not be a reporter with a camera, can ask and should expect an answer to their question.

       Extending that premise, such rights and extension of free speech should certainly apply at state schools. In fact nothing should be off limits in academia, even that which some might consider offensive, if for no other reason than others might not consider it offensive. There is a better reason. It's not the tone or offensive nature of something that matters-what matters is the very nature of intellectual inquiry which must be free and unbounded. It is troubling that Universities have sought to soften the hard nature of inquiry by limiting what can be discussed or by requiring warnings. Please permit me a couple of legacy expressions, "poppycock and balderdash!"

       The University of Chicago is praised for leading the way to how it should be in academia. The University says it is not right for a school to shield students from opinions or ideas they find disagreeable or even offensive. 
        Purdue University, led by a former political logician and thaumaturge, also seeks to extend intellectual freedom to consider and study on a broad latitude and there is an encouraging twist in this. 
        Mitch Daniels as a Governor criticized Howard Zinn's A Peoples History of the United States. As a University President he probably hasn't changed his opinion, but understands academic polemics is different than political conjuring. In the world of study all ideas have a seat at the table and they survive or perish based on merit. 

       It is sophomoric and unsophisticated to satirize or mock religious figures and sacred images yet a free society blessed with freedom of expression can tolerate such "offenses" under the guise of creativity. One may be self indulgently outrageous but we draw the line at desecration and destructive or violent behavior. However in the realm of a place for the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, ideas and words exist in a state of pure freedom.

      Civility, intellect and knowledge are great stages upon which bad ideas destroy themselves in light and under the preponderant weight of enlightened examination.
       And so we may end up with ridicule.

A STUPID CLAIM WE MUST ENDURE

   As another case in point, the anti immigration Californians for Population Stabilization has begun a campaign blaming California's drought and water restrictions on immigrants, especially those from Mexico.

     Laughable, except those who hold those views walk and drive amongst us. In our arena of free speech and thought they are entitled to their voice and their critics are entitled to calling them stupid. 

     I wonder if some are not trying to turn the evolution of human intelligence machine to reverse.

EXOTICS

    The annual Succulent show in San Luis Obispo brought other worldly sights from the earth. 

     See you down the trail.

IS IT WRONG TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A GAY OR LESBIAN COUPLE?

ANSWER THE QUESTION GOVERNOR

     Those of us with Indiana ties have been busy the last several days following the avalanche.

      Since Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restorations Act (RFRA) we've been watching years of progress unspool.

      From a purely good government point of view, Mike Pence has failed, aided and abetted by politicians who are more interested in personal or political agendas than they are concerned about what is best for the state.

      It's been a media carnival. Companies are to stop to doing business there. Celebrities, politicians, educators, scholars and citizens are embarrassed and decry the event. Charles Barkley has even suggested the NCAA, which is headquartered in Indianapolis, pull the Final Four out of there. In the meantime, the NCAA is in emergency mode and distressed by the Governor's signature. Millions of dollars of convention trade and other business may wash out of Indiana. Three thousand people marched to the State House. 

      The stupidity of the Governor in signing the bill is trumped by the idiocy of his not listening to a chorus of people who warned him about it. Intelligent minds, business leaders, mayors, chambers of commerce, ministers, academics and legal scholars tried to wave the ambitious Mr. Pence away from signing. 
      It is a cynical political bill that seeks to take advantage of a loophole in Indiana code that does not specifically protect gay and lesbians from discrimination. Pence and his supporters won't acknowledge that. 

      There is a strong right wing and evangelical current that runs through Indiana and they have been apoplectic about recent advances in human rights that extend marriage, union and freedoms to LGBT people. Despite all of the "defense" that, "gee, we are only doing what the federal government did under Bill Clinton" their argument is instead the product of that California specimen pictured above.

     I've known Mike Pence since before he was a radio talk show star with political aspirations. Mike ran and lost over a a few years but he continued to learn how to play to a base. He was eventually elected to congress and left radio politics behind. Mike has been a clever media student. Though a little "slick" for my tastes he was smart in mastering "messages," but he blew it on ABC.

      5 or 6 times George Stephanopoulos gave the Governor a chance to answer a straight yes or no, "Can an Indiana business refuse to serve a gay or lesbian?"  Each time Governor Mike weaseled out of it, trying to turn the shame of the situation back onto an hysterical media. Again and again he was asked for a straight answer. He could have moved the issue a long way with an answer, but he was defensive, not candid. That in itself speaks volumes about what is wrong in Indiana.

     One of Pence's supporters, a right wing evangelical political power broker, with a long history of worrying about non heterosexual matters, opined as to how the RFRA will now empower people to refuse to serve gays or lesbians, if they feel their religious beliefs would be violated in doing so. He has influence and sway in the Indiana legislature. The legislation is in lock step with an obstinate mindset.

    There has been plenty of legal scholarship and debate on this measure. Many who supported the legislation Bill Clinton signed now say they regret it or that it wasn't necessary. But in Indiana, and probably in Arkansas, Mississippi, Arizona and other places of such "enlightenment" and intellectual vigor, the RFRA is a backdoor defensive block to the extension of human rights to people right wing evangelicals think are "sinful."  

     The Indiana bill creates confusion, lacks focus and will set up conflicts. That may be part of the intended flack. Scholars say it affects the delicate balance between religious liberty and other rights that was already in place after years of federal and state legislation, history, practice and precedence. Religious liberty is not strengthened by this ploy and is probably weakened by placing stresses on the precious balance that has been achieved and respected. Scholars argue that has been the history of RFRA laws.

     Mike Pence must not be as smart as I thought he was, or he is  blinded by political ambition and panders to the extreme religious right. Either way he is now the captain of the ship that may well sink decades of improvement that was inspired by and then presided over by people like Richard Lugar, William Hudnut, Steve Goldsmith, Bart Peterson, Bob Orr, Otis Bowen, Frank Obannon, Mitch Daniels and countless other Republicans and Democratrs who assisted these mayors and governors who worked to create a climate of progress in Indiana. Those bi-partisan and practical combined objectives for Indiana did not aspire to be on the Pence list of cronies-Mississippi, Arizona, Alabama, etc.

    The current Indianapolis Mayor and those of large Indiana cities were among the chorus who warned Governor Mike to toss the bill into the trash.  Instead it is Indiana that is being trashed.

     I've heard from many Indiana friends, including Republicans who are angry, embarrassed and fearful of what happens to a state they have served and for which they have aspirations. The bill was ill conceived and the state was ill served by the Governor's signature. Maybe Pence's presidential ambitions and the state's retrograde image can be halted by an "Indiana Spring."  
     An intellectual, moral, economic and political twilight could halt what has been three of decades of genuine advancement and a heady private-public participation. It is time for the light of decency and intelligence.
     

    See you down the trail.