Our Perpetually Indignant Lindsey Graham

In the turbulent matter of immigration reform I wholeheartedly agree with the NY Times' editorial of yesterday -- that "trading insults gets the country nowhere."

But in the related matter of the turbulent Lindsey Graham, it seems more factually relevant than insulting to simply note that the man is a crybaby -- or, just to flesh that out a bit, a first-rate, world-class, aw-shucks, attention-grabbing whiner who excels at the political stagecraft of calculated outrage.

Senator Graham has, to the best of my memory, always been such. Whenever I recall the televised Clinton impeachment hearings, one of the first images to pop into mind is that of little Lindsey, a mere Representative voice of Southern insincerity at the time, theatrically bemoaning Washington's atmosphere of incivility, just he pressed ahead as a key floor manager on one of the more unconscionable, utterly uncivil political acts in the history of American politics.

That was then and this is now and, with respect to Sen. Graham, I can't see any difference. He's still at it, full of his inner light, with halo adjusted, throwing rehearsed temper tantrums at a darkly wicked political world inhabited by scheming enemies everywhere ... and projecting like all get-out.

To wit, Graham's wretchedly indignant and -- please note -- publicly released letter to his Senate colleagues last weekend, saying that he was going home with his toys: "This" -- the sudden elevation of immigration reform -- "has destroyed my confidence that there will be a serious commitment and focus to move energy legislation this year. Moving forward on immigration -- in this hurried, panicked manner -- is nothing more than a cynical political ploy."

It grows harder and harder to be genuinely shocked these days, but shocked I have been at the number of experienced political observers who have fallen for Graham's self-righteous routine.

Last night on "Hardball," for instance, Chris Matthews damn near autoerotically frothed with admiration at the senator's undying Southern honor, and last weekend, Jonathan Chait of the New Republic, who unquestionably knows better than Matthews, wrote that "Harry Reid pulled the carpet out from under" Graham, the latter of whom now "has every right to be angry."

Or, there was the Washington Post's Ezra Klein on Monday, noting that "Graham has a legitimate beef here...." The senator is "right on the merits: Moving a climate change bill this year is more important than moving an immigration bill. There's a point-of-no-return on climate change: If you don't start getting carbon emissions down in the near future, it'll be too late. Immigration, conversely, is bad, but it's not getting dramatically worse or harder to fix with each passing month."

It's true that no one expected Congressional Democrats to move on immigration reform this year. But did Mr. Klein already forget that it was Arizona Republicans who preemptively, autocratically, unConstitutionally forced the issue? Republicans, who indeed made it dramatically worse?

Worse not only in Arizona, but elsewhere. Congressional inaction has opened the door to "irresponsibility by others," President Obama noted last Friday, and "If we continue to fail to act at a federal level, we will continue to see misguided efforts opening up around the country."

For those of accent and Boehnerlike color and even, according to California's Republican Rep. Brian Bilbray, those of the wrong footwear, it's "Land of the free my ass."

Let us also not forget Sen. Graham's less than abstract reasons for staging a hissy fit. His mentor and top-banana John McCain scarcely needs an immigration reform battle in the midst of desert fighting for his political life, and closer to home, right-wing South Carolinians (excuse my redundancy) have taken to belittling Graham as "Graham-nesty" for his previous work on reform. Graham is undoubtedly hearing J.D. Hayworthian footsteps.

Yet, barring that sort of speculation, we mustn't forget above all that Sen. Graham remains a devoted member of the most cynical party in American political history; thus he possesses no reasonable "right to be angry" or "legitimate beef" in ever objecting to what he labels as others' "political ploys."

His party's hands have become so irredeemably dirty and even downright dangerous to America's future, they have, in the clean world, forfeited their right to grumble about anything.

They have crossed the Rubicon. Their despicable and enduring deceits in the health-care wars were disgraceful enough -- in addition to their towering deception on "bailouts," past and present -- and it is vividly evident they have no plans to move toward any acceptable level of common political decency.

It is now axiomatic to observe that polarization is the #1 political problem in 21st-century Washington, and it's further true that liberal Democrats, in the conscientious mitigation of that problem, need to work with conscientious conservatives. But just where, these days, in Washington, D.C., are liberals expected to find one?