Whatever your view as to whether soon-to-be former Sen. Dick Lugarⁱ (R-IN) deserved another six years in office, the prepared concession statement he offered last night is a stinging indictment of the polarization gripping Capitol Hill. 

Listening to newly minted Republican nominee Richard Mourdock’s own words – that “bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view,” and that the “highlight of politics, frankly, is to inflict my opinion on someone else on a microphone or in front of a camera,” – makes Sen. Lugar’s criticism of the candidate’s "unrelenting partisan mindset,” seem mild.

Far be it from CREW to second guess the Hoosier state’s choice to represent its interests in the U.S. Senate, but we’re fairly certain that defining bipartisanship as “they have to come our way” is this is the last thing Washington needs.  This “my way or the highway” approach serves nobody’s interests and exacerbates the partisan gridlock Americans have come to know and loathe. 

Sen. Lugar has long been a model of bipartisanship and moderation in Washington.  His record of reaching across the aisle to address domestic and international problems ranging from job creation, deficit reduction, energy security, agriculture reform, and nuclear threat reduction is proof positive some issues needn’t be mired down by electoral considerations.  His approach to policy issues extended to his views on the presidential judicial appointment process.  Apparently Sen. Lugar’s “aye” vote for Supreme Court nominees Sotomayor and Kagan was just too much to stomach.  As one commentator notes today:

The most important and alarming facet of Lugar’s defeat, and a factor whose importance is being overlooked at the moment, is one of the things Mourdock cited against him: Lugar voted to confirm two of Obama’s Supreme Court nominees. Obviously, Lugar would not have chosen to nominate an Elena Kagan or a Sonia Sotomayor. But he was following a longstanding practice of extending presidents wide ideological latitude on their Supreme Court picks. In the absence of corruption, lack of qualifications, or unusual ideological extremism, Democratic presidents have always been allowed to pick liberal justices, and Republican presidents conservative ones. That’s not a law. It’s just a social norm.

But the social norms that previously kept the parties from exercising power have fallen one by one. Under Obama’s presidency, Republicans have gone to unprecedented lengths to block completely uncontroversial appointments, paralyzing the government and using the power to paralyze government to nullify duly passed laws. It is bringing on an approaching crisis of American government.

Sen. Lugar’s entire concession statement is worth reading, but notably, he stated:

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.

As for the new Republican nominee, Sen. Lugar said:

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.

Sadly, each election cycle there are fewer and fewer politicians who share Sen. Lugar’s world view contributing to the near total dysfunction in which Washington finds itself.  No wonder Congress has record-low approval ratings.