Sam Nunn an interview Page 1 | 2 | 3

SN: He did. He has so many critics now because of personal problems that we all regret and, in my own way of thinking, were deplorable. That personal conduct tainted a lot of his accomplishments. One of those accomplishments was moving the Democratic party toward the middle. And he governed off and on—but nevertheless much more than in the past—toward the center. I think that had a great deal to do with the fact that he was the first Democrat in my memory who was elected to two terms in the White House.

I think the middle of the political spectrum is really the swing vote in America. And I believe that really, in effect, it’s the common-sense position most of the time. I think the right wing and the left wing have their points, but a party that’s dominated by the right wing, like the Republicans, or left-wing Democrats, usually don’t enjoy the support of the common-sense middle where most of the American people are.

SK: Anyone who reads this is going to want me to ask you, after learning about your kind of vision and what you’re focused on, whether you think you’ll go into public service again, in either elected or appointed office. Is it still something that you have a passion for?

SN: I still have a passion for public service but not necessarily elected office. I had twenty-eight years, counting four years in the state legislature and twenty-four in the Senate, in elected office. I decided in 1995, a very hard decision—I thought about it for two years, really, before I made the decision—that I didn’t want to end up in the Senate too long. I’d seen too many people stay too long and so I did not want to do that.

And I also wanted to get out at a young enough age to be able to participate in the business community and the legal community and the community of nongovernmental organizations. It was a hard decision to leave office, but I made it. I doubt that I will get back into government but I’ve learned enough to know, don’t ever say never. And so it’s possible. But I doubt it.

SK: Do you have a sense that Washington life no longer appeals to you or that you can play a different role in policy outside of government?

SN: The purpose of being in government is to do something for the American people. And if you can’t do that because you’re so busy all the time trying to raise money to get reelected, it’s got to be a very frustrating existence. And I’m not saying we’re at that point—but we’re moving toward it.

I think if you’re sent to Washington you really have an obligation to set aside enough time to develop your intellect so that you can communicate with your own constituents and tell them what you’re doing, but lead in a way that benefits the country. For me, if I couldn’t do that, I’d much rather be back home taking care of my farm or my law practice and doing a good job of that, because you’re not doing a good job in Washington if all you’re doing is reading the polls and trying to regurgitate what people just said they wanted, based on some kind of snapshot opinion and then going out and raising enough money to throw all that on television and do thirty-second ads. That’s a pretty demeaning form of public service.

SK: The last question. How would you describe this new century and the new world order?

SN: I’d describe it as a world of huge opportunity and a world of considerable peril, both at the same time. The new technologies can be used for the benefit of mankind to an extent that we’ve never even dreamed of before, but they can also be used to kill millions and millions of people; not just nuclear technology can be used that way, but biological as well. With the new genetic breakthroughs, we’ve got a chance to do things in healthcare we’ve not ever been able to even dream of in the past, to help people who would otherwise be doomed to either a miserable life or a short life or help people who want children but haven’t been able to have them. My niece just had twins at an age that you wouldn’t have thought possible a few years ago. A marvelous thing. Wonderful. It’s wonderful to see it.

There are so many things that can be brought to bear with technology—if it’s used wisely. And yet we have huge challenges, such as the number of deaths from infectious disease that’s gone up 22 percent in the U.S. in the last ten or twelve years. We have all sorts of antibiotics now that the bugs are getting resistant to because of overuse or misuse. Furthermore, we live in an era when we have to think seriously about the possible intentional use of biological agents as weapons. So we’re in an age of tremendous opportunity and an age of considerable danger, and what we have to do is make sure we take advantage of the opportunities but also be alert and start addressing the down side.

SK: That’s a quote. And that’s the kind of statement that somebody would put into a thirty-second commercial!

Page 1 | 2 | 3

Copyright information | Masthead | Carnegie Corporation of New York web site