Famous Death Dwarves
Lindsey Graham is finally laid to rest
I’ve spent the last few days trying to scrape together a quick Loose Tabs, given that my last one was well over a month ago, on June 14. Much has happened since then, including the ridiculously Trumpy Fourth of July, the running joke of the reflecting pool, and the resumption of the Iran War. Those things could probably have been predicted, but then there’s seen the sudden death of South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, who must have died happy having done his bit to quash the Memorandum of Understanding with Iran.
I had no desire to write an obituary for Graham, so lots of things are omitted below. Like his “finish the job” cheerleading for genocide in Gaza. And his peculiar claim that he wasn’t a racist because he welcomed blacks into the Republican Party. Exact quotes on these and other issues will take some more digging. One might also look into his close and formative relationship with Strom Thurmond, who backed his political career, and whose Senate seat he claimed.
I’ve toyed with the idea of pulling excerpts from Loose Tabs out and posting them here. And after the third sizable chunk I wrote on Graham below (not in the order presented), I thought I had enough for a test case here. Today was Graham’s funeral, so another round of pieces is just coming out. I’ve picked up a couple, and may well find more before Loose Tabs runs. But the substantive part is in my comments. Sorry if some seem redundant. Piecemeal assembly will do that, plus the fact that Graham was such a one note character.
Lindsey Graham: The Senator (R-SC) died on July 11, age 71. While I have many unpleasant memories of the man who probably ranks as the most persistent war hawk in my lifetime (a span that includes Arthur Vandenberg, John Stennis, Henry Jackson, and Graham’s amigos John McCain and Joe Lieberman), one that sticks in my mind occurred back when he was an obscure junior member of the House (1995-2003). I pretty clearly remember him talking about the need for Republicans to lock up the judiciary and other centers of power whenever they have the chance, to stay in power even when elections turn against them. (Admittedly, it isn’t easy to fact check this rare instance of blurting out the usually unspoken part about subverting democracy.) While his passion for provoking armed conflict was his defining trait, he was an inveterate schemer, a political animal with no respect whatsoever for democracy, or for the people it’s meant to serve.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos [07-12]: Lindsey Graham, last great Cold War warrior, dead at 71: “The senator was an inspiration to those who believed military power was essential to making the world ‘right.’ Others thought he lost his ‘America First’ perspective in Ukraine and Israel.” I think the “Cold War warrior” concept misses the point. While he was old enough to have formed his hawkish beliefs before the Soviet Union dissolved, the Cold War was always constrained by a sense of limits. Graham, on the other hand, fully embraced the post-Cold War euphoria, relishing America’s singular superpower (aka hyperpower) moment, believing that the mere threat of “shock and awe” would cower enemies into surrender and submission. That doctrine almost immediately failed in Somalia (where it is still failing 35 years later). It failed in Afghanistan. It failed in Iraq. No nation embraced it more fully than Israel, and they’ve been locked in a hopeless forever war against everyone (even their own people) ever since. Most people know by now that Graham never met a war he didn’t want to escalate. What’s less commented on, perhaps because it’s even more ridiculous, is his inability to ever see a downside in the wars he promoted. They’ve failed time and time again, not only to achieve their stated goals but by causing enormous collateral damage that has only generated more chaos and resistance. But his only answer to such failure was to double down on violence. He not only worshiped power. He was locked inside its web, unable to see or imagine anything else. But perhaps worst of all was how glib and giddy his delusions made him. I don’t know why Al Smith was called “the happy warrior,” but he couldn’t have been a tenth as deserving of it as Graham.
Benjy Sarlin [7-12]: Lindsey Graham sacrificed his reputation to Donald Trump. He got plenty in return. “His career explains why so many Republicans made peace with Trump — and what he gave up to do it.” The assumption, which isn’t unreasonable, is that Trump will be soon regarded as a disgrace, even to Republicans. But one could also ask the question, what did Trump sacrifice to gain the toadying allegiance of Republicans like Graham? (And Rubio, Cruz, Vance, dozens more, among them the most reactionary reprobates in American politics.) In 2016, Trump had the smarts to run against Republican orthodoxy on war, trade, corruption (”the swamp”), and social security. But after he got elected, he turned everything over to regular right-wing Republicans, reducing himself to nothing more than an inept front man.
Jeet Heer [07-13]: Lindsey Graham chose evil: “Conspiracy theorists liked to say that Graham’s Trump sycophancy was a result of blackmail. But the truth is worse: He stuck with Trump to keep the US war machine going.”
Michael Tomasky [07-13]: Lindsey Graham’s legacy? It’s about one thing, and it isn’t good: “He alone had the moral authority within the Republican Party to try to stop Donald Trump, especially after January 6. He chose not to. That’s what we must remember today.” It’s mind-boggling to think that Graham had any morality, much less moral authority. (I don’t have any more respect for McCain, but at least he had an act he appeared to believe in.) And for the record, the one Republican who could have stopped Trump after Jan. 6 was McConnell, who could have gotten Trump banned from running again by declaring him invalid under the 14th Amendment (with or without convicting him on impeachment charges). But by then hyperpartisanship had so rotted his brain he couldn’t conceive of crossing Trump.
Chas Danner [07-13]: Was Lindsey Graham an opportunist, operator, failure, or disgrace? Probably all of the above. None of those are words a normal person would welcome in a eulogy, although Graham himself might have opted for the first two.
Jeffrey St Clair [07-13]: Graham Crackers: The words of a professional warmonger. Lots of Graham quotes here, not a lot of context. He contradicts himself so often some quotes may appear reasonable, but rest assured that in its proper context everything he said was meant to be evil. Like this one, which can hardly be interpreted any other way: “When this [Iran] regime goes down, we are going to have a new Middle East, and we are going to make a ton of money.” I doubt that Graham was ever in the war business that much for the money, so most likely this quote was intended for an audience of the one who was [Trump]. But it sums up nicely what Graham saw as his Faustian bargain: he gets his war in exchange for his soul, which was never worth much in the first place. Still, odds are that in the end Trump will just pocket the money, leaving the old Middle East much as it was, but poorer.
Nathan J Robinson [07-13]: Why mourn Lindsey Graham and not his victims? “The late Republican senator was constantly lobbying for the killing of others. Why should anyone weep for a man who didn’t care about inflicting death around the world?”
Elie Mystal [07-14]: Lindsey Graham’s defense of Brett Kavanaugh told us everything: “The senator’s infamous cry of rage spoke not only to his cruelty but also to his larger role in changing the court.” Well, not everything, but enough.
Peter Baker [07-28]: At Graham’s funeral, a glimpse into power in Trump’s Washington: “The political evolution of Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina senator, both captivated and confused many of his old friends but reflected the changing order in the nation’s capital.” A report from the funeral, which doesn’t come close to capturing how very surreal it must have been. Imagine if all the old Nazis could have shown up for Eichmann’s funeral.
Brett Wilkins [07-28]: ‘Lindsey liked war’: Trump laughs off Graham’s giddiness over Iran onslaught: “He’s never seen a war that he didn’t like.” And Trump finds that charming?
Al Jazeera [07-28]: Lindsey Graham ‘almost cried’ tears of joy over war on Iran, footage shows: “Excerpts from a planned documentary show the hawkish senator claiming credit for persuading Donald Trump to attack Iran.”
I expect I’ll pick up more before I post Loose Tabs, but it is pretty unlikely that I’ll find anything that changes, or even softens, my view of Graham.
Although not directly attributable to Graham, his fingerprints are all over Zelensky’s decision to curry favor with Trump by attacking an Iranian ship in the Caspian Sea. (Graham visited Zelensky in Kyiv in the days immediately before his death: see Inside Lindsey Graham’s relentless last days spent fighting for Ukraine and sanctions.) It would have been wholly in character for Graham to impress on Zelensky that the way to worm his way into Trump’s good graces would be to help out against Iran:
Trita Parsi [07-28]: Is Zelensky trying to merge the Iran and Ukraine wars? “. . . and why Israel would benefit from intertwining these two wars.” He explains the Israel angle thusly:
This dynamic would also appeal to Israel. First, it would give the Iran war another lease on life. Second, it would internationalize the conflict further by drawing European governments into the Iran theater through their deep commitments to Ukraine. And third, perhaps most significantly, it would transform the political narrative. Defeating Iran would no longer be presented as a necessity to defend Israel, but rather, to defend Ukraine.
Given the levels of elite and public support Ukraine enjoys — after all, it was the victim of an illegal invasion — such a framing is far more politically digestible than centering the war on Israel, given Israel’s plummeting standing in the West due to its genocide in Gaza and critical role in starting the illegal war with Iran.
Parsi turned this blog post into an article:
[07-28]: Zelensky’s dangerous gambit to merge the Iran and Ukraine Wars: “Of course this would also appeal to Israel, prolonging the Middle East war and potentially drawing European governments into the theater, too.” I’ve heard mixed reports about Trump’s support for Zelensky: his arms pipeline has more/less shifted to Europe, which isn’t capable of the same largesse as Biden provided, but also is less likely to saddle him with crappy weapons like the Abrams tanks. Zelensky’s resolve to fight on has been bucked up by European support, while Putin’s resolve builds on Trump’s indifference to the war. So one can see how Zelensky’s move tries to break this stalemate, but the key to getting Trump support isn’t alignment with Israel: it’s pushing Putin to align with Iran. At present, Iran is hard pressed to manufacture all their own missiles and drones. But Russia may have surplus manufacturing, and could provide Iran with weapons systems (like anti-aircraft, longer-range missiles, aircraft even) that could make a difference. Also, while Zelensky may fancy that the way to Trump’s heart is through Israel, he’s ignoring a lot of moral baggage that come with aligning with Israel. He’s already been reckless in provoking Russia, repeatedly crossing so-called “red lines,” which Putin has been reluctant to do anything about. But at some point, some Europeans are going to doubt the wisdom of following him into what might quickly become a World War. Especially if it involves supporting Israeli genocide.
I was as sympathetic as most people toward Ukraine when Putin invaded. However, the decision to continue an extremely long and costly war for no good reason has worn out my patience. I’ve long assumed that he held out because Washington (certainly under Biden, probably under Trump) felt that the war was good for their arms business. But in expanding his war to Iran, just to curry favor with Trump and Netanyahu, he’s risking joining them (and Putin) among the ranks of war criminals.
I’ve written quite a bit about Ukraine over the years, but my early 23 Theses on Ukraine is still useful historical background, and I hope quite clear on the need to wrap the war up as soon as possible. (Also, as I review it now, thesis 8 jumps out at me for my condemnation of Graham and McCain for wanting to jump straight to war with Russia over Georgia in 2008.)
Title recalls a famous Lester Bangs article, although his subject was much more benign.