What a sad and tragic epitaph for a once-wise man: ‘and Staunch Trump Ally.’
I’ve called Lindsey Graham a stand-up guy here before, and I’d really like to have reason to do so again.
The saddest thing, to me, about our senior senator’s sudden death is that I never got to say that about him again.
I had hoped something would happen to return him to good sense — the good sense that he still had just a year before I said that, when he said this:
If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed…….and we will deserve it.
— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) May 3, 2016
He was absolutely right. “We” — the Republican Party, he meant… was almost completely destroyed. The party of Lincoln — which all my life had frequently produced candidates that were better than those from the opposing party — was no more. The process was complete by 2014. More than that, the America that was founded as a monument to deliberative government lay in pieces in the acrimonious dust. But I’ve addressed that before; back to our subject at hand…
During the 2016 campaign, Graham played the role of the acid-tongued party jester, daring more than anyone to speak the truth about Trump, and do it in a way that got widely quoted. You may recall some of the things he said. Here’s one:
“You know how you make America great again?” Mr. Graham said in a CNN interview in 2015. “Tell Donald Trump to go to hell.”
But that’s not the Lindsey Graham I appreciated most. It’s not why, in 2007, I called him a “stand-up guy.” It wasn’t for being a wiseacre. The world has plenty of those. It was for being an actual wise — and courageous — senator who in the years before American went mad, had distinguished himself for exercising nonpartisan judgment over and over. He was the guy you could depend on most to try to hold back the ill tides that brought about the disastrous things that were poised to destroy our country, from hyperpartisanship to xenophobia.
Of course, as the obituaries are saying, he was — with two of my other favorite senators in that time, John McCain and Joe Lieberman — one of the “Three Amigos,” who believed fervently that the strongest nation in the world was obligated to live up its global role since 1945. That meant standing up for liberal democracy and collective security, no matter how much that ticked off either the kind of Republicans who would embrace Trump’s advocacy of “America First,” or Democrats still deeply traumatized by Vietnam.
I was with him there, but I was just as proud of him for his activities as a gang member. I mean the Gang of 14 and the Gang of 8. (If you don’t remember what those were, click on the links.)
The Gang of 14 was about the way the Congress (and the country) was being torn apart by absurdly fierce, take-no-prisoners, partisan battles over judicial nominations. This had been getting worse and worse every year since about 1973, and the partisan nastiness was spoiling the country’s ability to deal with anything else. Graham was a leading member of the Gang, and the best at articulating its reason for being. He kept saying “elections have consequences,” and he proved that he meant it by backing Democratic nominees (assuming they found them objectively qualified) when there was a Democratic president.
Such an attempt — and in Graham’s own case, a reality — was based in belief in two things that had long been missing in the confirmation process: rationality, and a sense of proportion.
The Gang of 8 was just one instance of the most politically suicidal stand Graham ever took: trying to create a sensible, truly American, and workable immigration system. He did it right at the moment when his party was going into full-xenophobe mode — which of course is what created Trumpism, the rebirth of Know-Nothingism.
But he bravely stood up against the backlash that came his way over the next couple of years. I particularly recall the time when he was booed by the mob attending a South Carolina Republican Party gathering when he stood to speak. He just brushed it off with a surprising insouciance, waiting for those people to shut up so he could go on with his speech.
When was it that Lindsey Graham stopped standing up? When did he become the most lickspittle toady of Donald Trump? Apparently, a lot of people have trouble remembering. The New York Times this morning said, after mentioning Lindsey’s goading of Trump in 2016, “A decade later, though, he was regularly and effusively lauding Mr. Trump.”
Well, that’s true. But that wording makes it sound like a long, slow process over the course of a decade. It most certainly was not. It was sudden, and stunning. Of course, I remembered it slightly inaccurately myself — I thought it happened as soon as the 2016 election was over. It really occurred over the following year.
That quote at the top is from a Dec. 1, 2017 post headlined “Would the real Lindsey Graham please stand up?” But the signs of Lindsey’s crack-up had started earlier in the year. In October, I cited with horror a NYT piece headlined, “As Other Republican Senators Bolt, Lindsey Graham Cozies Up to Trump.” My words for it were, “What a disgusting headline about Lindsey Graham.” But I knew it was true. Here’s how I ended that post:
It’s really a shame to see this. Especially when Lindsey’s best buddy John McCain, as sick as he is, is determined to go down swinging against the guy Graham once quite rightly termed “the world’s biggest jackass.”
Because the thing is, he does know better. And therefore, he owes us better…
Several months earlier, there were signs Graham would be a Republican who would stand up to Trumpism with the same lack of personal regard as he had against isolationism, hyperpartisanship and xenophobia. But that was at an end.
It’s a tragedy for Lindsey Graham, and the country, that he never went back to being the man whom I had admired for very good reasons — before he let Trumpism overwhelm him.
Why did he do it? It’s an inadequate explanation, but the most convincing one to me is simple and personal: Lindsey Graham was a guy who had nothing to fill his life but being a United States senator. He had never married, and had no kids or grandkids. His parents had both died by the time he was 20. There was only his little sister, 11 when he was 20, whom he finished the process of raising. She has always expressed her appreciation to him for that, but she grew up and had her own family. I’m sure he stayed close, but there seems little doubt that the most consuming part of his life in recent decades has been in Washington. And it was certainly consuming. By the end, it seemed to be eating him alive.
Being not only a senator, but one of the most notable and quotable senators in Washington, was a tremendous addiction for a man with his sort of mind. How could he stand going back to S.C. and trying to build a new persona — maybe starting his own private law practice — as he was moving into his 70s? He had to stay in the Senate, or so he seemed to firmly believe.
Anyway, that’s my theory. It could be wrong. After all, he didn’t seem so terrified at losing his seat when he was infuriating so many in his party over immigration and judgeships. But something in him seems to have cracked as he realized that his party was no longer a party of ideas, but a cult with one main rule: Love Trump, or we hate you. He hadn’t seen anything like that before. (Neither had I, in this country.)
So what happens now? An anecdote…
A couple of days ago, a good friend who lives in my neighborhood called me and asked if I’d let him put an Annie Andrews sign in my yard. This was something that I hadn’t thought about, and I hesitated for a second or two, before remembering that this friend was someone who agreed to let me put a Russell Ott sign his yard two years ago. A this point I said “yes.”
I was out at the time, and when I came home, there it was.
This morning, a little before 9 a.m., that same friend called to tell me that Lindsey Graham was dead. He also expressed amazement that I hadn’t heard that, but I hadn’t. I do sleep sometimes.
A few minutes after that call, I went out and took down the “Annie” sign. Not for good, necessarily. I just took it down for two reasons:
- Respect for the dead. I’ve got one of those short flagpoles by my front door — the kind that hangs diagonally from a wall. There’s no way to lower it to half-staff. So I did this instead.
- I was supporting Andrews, even though I knew little about her, because I didn’t know anything bad about her, and since 2017, I have voted for any decent candidate who opposed Graham in a general election. But now, I wasn’t sure about who would be facing whom in the general. Henry McMaster will be appointing a replacement for Lindsey, and then there will be a special Republican primary. So there are variables.
Now, do I think that in this age of Trumpism, I will like either Henry’s appointee, or the winner of that special primary? No, probably not. But maybe the fallen GOP will surprise me with an unknown — somebody I will have to learn about just when I’m doing what I hadn’t really done before that phone call Friday (which is what made me hesitate about the sign) — study Annie Andrews as a candidate.
I need some time — the thing Lindsey didn’t get enough of, in the sense of enough to return to being the man he had been — to figure this out.
Happier times. Now all three amigos are gone.
One thing I can say. Annie Andrews had the right initial public reaction:
It’s interesting to see the way Wikipedia — and other Web entities — are scrambling to update their versions of reality at the moment.
It was no surprise an advisory at the top of the “Lindsey Graham” article that started like this:
But it didn’t occur to me how many OTHER articles Wiki would have to update, right away, as a result of Lindsey’s death. I realized it when I paused to look up Annie Andrews.
It was relatively easy to publish an encyclopedia when I was a kid. It’s not easy at all today, when publishers have the power to update everything, at any second. And because they CAN, they HAVE TO…
A tragic figure, ultimately, in the classic sense of the word.
Indeed.
By the way, I’ve disallowed some comments of the kind that are thoughtless, shouted insults aimed at the deceased, adding nothing to anyone’s understanding. The only point of these comments seems to be that they see this man’s death as their chance to kick him a few more times. And to think — when I read Annie Andrews’ entirely appropriate comments, I wondered whether I had dwelt too much on Graham’s failings. Seeing these other comments made me feel better about that.
A man has died. And as I have tried again and again to communicate, this blog has standards above those of the current president of the United States. You know, the guy who said “I’m glad he’s dead” when Robert Mueller died.
There is a W. African proverb that I cite too often: An angry cat is a lion in your home.
Sen. Graham was very happy to zero in on the authoritarian lions abroad, but he didn’t know how to deal with the angry cat in the White House. McCain had no problem spraying the cat and throwing things at it, but like a recent Atlantic piece points out, Graham found strength in the company of other patriots. He was the last Cold Warrior still standing. That had to have been a lonely place.
Even though he joined in on the “Please, say thank you.” chorus when Zylenskyy went to the Oval Office, Graham died supporting their cause. For that I’m grateful and I’ll correct any American (or Ukrainian for that matter) on it, just as you’ve seen fit to set the chronology on his domestic record. Meanwhile the Russian papers* are celebrating.
*They place a literal asterisk beside his name, a designation for all those found guilty of the vague crime of “Russophobia”. Given that’s a product of Putin’s war and Putin’s state, I’d take that as a badge of honor.
seeing the vultures already talking about his replacement, Nancy Mace throwing her name out there, etc- tells you that such folks are terrible human beings.
Trump actually had a decent (for him) statement saying he had someone in mind, but he wasn’t going to talk about that now out of respect for Graham.
In fairness, Graham knew the game and how it was played.
Of course, it’s none of Trump’s business. But yes, even normal presidents have preferences in such cases. They just don’t talk about it publicly, and at least in this case, Trump is holding back a bit (I’m taking your word for that; I don’t seek out his comments, knowing that I’ll get exposed to them anyway).
The unfortunate thing is, Henry will do whatever Trump says. If he doesn’t in this case, that would be a wonderful indication that we’re finally nearing a change that could lead to the end of this era. Not holding my breath, but always hopeful.
And this would be a good moment for Henry to be his own man (and he’s a pretty good guy, except for his relationship with Trump). Henry’s retiring. What, politically speaking, can Trump do to or for him?
Nikki doesn’t have to throw her name out. Hers was the first name mentioned by my friend who called me about this yesterday morning. But if it does come up in relevant circles, it would be interesting to see if Trump (to the extent he affects the selection) will let bygones be bygones. He might. He has no principles aside from his own self-interest, so it’s tough to predict…
For years, people have sounded foolish when they predict the end of Trumpism, along the lines of, “Surely, THIS will make them stop supporting him.”
But I mention the possibility of Henry disregarding him on something that is, after all, the purview of the governor of South Carolina for a number of reasons.
First, Henry has gone his own way quite recently, and on a significant matter that also involved Trump butting into something that was absolutely none of his business — redistricting.
Second, there are grumblings out there that we haven’t heard before, from folks who expected this impulsive warrior Trump to be the isolationist he said he was in the past. Also, certainly those people who blamed Joe Biden for rising gas prices have noticed that there was a rare obvious inflationary effect the instant Trump launched his now-failed Iran war.
But yes. One of the things that distinguish this era is widespread immunity to inconvenient facts, so…
Following up on that subject…
NYT reports that Trump is suggesting Lindsey’s sister as the placeholder until an election. I don’t know whose idea that was (did Henry come up with it, and let Trump put the name out because he has to look like he’s running everything?).
But it sounds OK to me. It’s sort of the traditional approach, except that it would usually be the widow of the deceased…
Trump just endorsed Lindsey Graham’s sister, Darlene Graham Nordone, to finish his term.
I really appreciated these comments from Mandy:
This, from Mandy’s post, was something I often thought myself:
In other words, it was a picture of a man on the ultimate undercover mission. Perhaps I got it from all those spy novels I’ve read. Although in his case, he wasn’t on an “assignment” from anyone but himself. And that would be the toughest thing of all. In real intelligence work, a spy generally needs a handler, someone he can talk to who is just as smart as he is and knows everything about the mission, and can meet with the agent and listen to him and let the agent vent all the conflicts in his mind — so the agent doesn’t go completely mad.
Who would have played that role for Lindsey?
But I don’t discount Mandy’s idea. There’s a way to reconcile all the things we can see. I think he was a lonely man, who didn’t mind going that deep into madness in order to hold on to the position that he valued. And at the same time, if he could serve his unknowing country by being in the room and having some effect on Trump’s actions… to him, that would make it all worthwhile, and justify becoming something that he had despised.
No theory completely works. For instance… if you were a Trump fan — the people to whom he was capitulating by cozying up to Trump — how in the world were you ever fooled by the act? These people had despised Lindsey for years. He had gone beyond most Trump critics with those things he said in 2016. They had to hate him for that, along with such things as those that cause them to say “Grahamnesty.” And yet… it seemed to work. He kept successfully running the gauntlet of Republican primaries.
The thing is, we’ll never know…
Oh, another thing I need to ask Mandy when I speak to her…
I don’t know what she did just there with that post. (I’ve pulled away to such an extent that, I confess, I can no longer claim to be one of the Twitterati! I’ve left that far behind.)
I embedded her Tweet. But the entire thing did not appear here. You had to click on Show More to show the rest. And (maddeningly, to me) that took the reader away from the blog and to Twitter, which is rather disruptive to continuing with consideration of her Tweet HERE.
Never mind that. The point is, how did she do that? I probably will never use it. I’m still grumbling about the move from the 140 character limit to 280. That’s lazy and undisciplined, and it spoils the game — the way allowing designated hitters marred the purity of baseball. It’s like, to get back to the realm of words, putting 10 syllables in the second line of a haiku.
But to get back to my point… What happened here is, you get to see, in the embed, 278 characters, so it ends right at the (now) conventional limit. Then you have to continue back at Twitter (and yes, I always use the real name of the medium).
So how does one do that? I’m sure everyone who’s still into using the medium regularly knows, but I don’t. Not that I’m likely to use it. If I need more than 280 characters to say something, I say it here, and if I use Twitter at all, I use it to link to the blog for the full message.
I’m just curious…
Anyone who reads that will probably think, “Get a load of this guy! He seldom posts anything under a thousand words, and he’s complaining that Twitter is being slack because it allows 280!”
But see, that’s the beauty of the limit. A blog has no limits. The fact that Twitter has limits forces discipline upon me. And that improves my writing…
I’ve heard some of the Trump’s real believers in Congress didn’t like Lindsey at all from a Senator standpoint.
If you prone to believe Mandy’s opinion on Lindsey’s approach, Lindsey was able to fool Trump enough to get his endorsement which meant no one else could win in South Carolina.
I don’t agree with Mandy. I think Lindsey was the typical politician- he had no core values- and the ones he did have were up for sale.
The “strong Christian” as he’s been described is also described by some as one of the most vulgar talking elected reps in Washington DC. I am around some folks that use some strong language at times, but I wouldn’t describe the people I know that are the most vulgar as “strong Christians” either.
And here’s what Jim Clyburn had to say: