Senator Lindsey Graham’s impassioned speech (or temper tantrum, depending on your view) at the hearings for Judge Kavanaugh changed the focus and momentum of those hearings at a key and crucial point. Whatever his intentions, and guessing them has become a sport in the media, Senator Graham fired up the Republican base and gave Republican Senators, particularly those on the fence from more moderate states, enough wiggle room to vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh and have a plausible explanation for voters back home. For those from conservative states, he made it almost impossible to not vote to confirm, lest those senators face the ire of the Republican base in the next primary.

It was pure political theater and genius, and it made me weep. The weeping was not for Judge Kavanaugh. It was not for Dr. Blasey Ford. It was not for improperly accused men or sexual assault victims whose stories are not believed. All of those are separate issues that merit separate consideration and appropriate weeping.

I wept because I was disappointed in what has become of the senatorial mandate to “advise and consent” on presidential nominations to the Supreme Court.

Any pretense that these nominations and all the tactics used to push them forward or to stop them are not ideologically motivated now qualifies as nonsense, as a review of the last two nominees clearly shows.

Let’s start with the last nominee. The worst thing Neil Gorsuch was accused of, outside of his ideology, was plagiarism. Even though Democrats opposed his ideology, he should have been, and was, confirmed, even with continued Democratic opposition (though I believe three Democrats voted for him). I did not like him as a choice because I think there are a slew of more qualified candidates who would give each case a fair hearing, but there were no grounds on which to oppose him, except for ideology.

Judge Merrick Garland, nominated by President Obama a year before he left office, was a centrist. Just days before he was nominated, Senator Orrin Hatch suggested he would be a good nominee. It didn’t matter. The goals of the Republican far-right could not tolerate a centrist. They wanted a judge that they could count on to side with conservative ideology every time. Some previously reasonable Republicans, afraid of losing influence or their seats in the next primary, joined in the argument put forth that basically said that Judge Garland’s nomination was held up because the election cycle had begun and the voters should have a say. That was pure BS. Presidents are elected for four years. The voters already had their say. Judge Garland was the oldest judge nominated since the 1970s, and his judicial qualifications were impeccable. That didn’t matter. The Republicans have the majority and stoped the nomination. The base demanded it, and it happened.

There is no doubt that the initial Democratic opposition to Judge Kavanaugh was based on ideology. None. Just as Republicans left no doubt that the nomination of Judge Garland was never voted upon because of ideology, the Democrats made that clear in their public statements and initial questioning.

However, in the case of Judge Kavanaugh, serious accusations must be taken seriously. When the American Bar Association, the Dean of Yale Law School, and other legal experts say that a more thorough investigation of the accusations against Judge Kavanaugh is needed, I don’t think that should be passed over for partisan reasons.

I think Senator Graham saw that coming. I think he felt the Republicans were losing the battle of public opinion that day. I think that, though he has often worked on a bipartisan level, he decided it was time to take one for the team. Maybe he just got pissed off, as he has indicated. It doesn’t matter. His message reached the Republican base and they approved. Whatever the motivation, the result is the same. Republican Senators have now been given every reason to vote to confirm Kavanaugh or face the ire of the Republican base.

It is strange political theater, as the more extreme elements of the Republican base have never been kind to Senator Graham. In South Carolina, where I live, much of the base says he is “too liberal” for our state. Laughable. They say he is RINO every time he participates in bipartisan negotiations, because to the hard-core South Carolina Republican base that is the same thing as participating in ritual sacrifice to Satan. They even questioned his masculinity and sexual orientation.

I voted for Senator Graham because I think our state needs a senior Senator representing it in Washington. I don’t agree with Senator Graham’s positions on many issues, but sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t. I didn’t vote for President Trump - I just couldn’t do that. In the 80s I was a Regan Republican. I now consider myself a moderate, slightly left of center (but in today’s political climate, particularly in South Carolina, that would make me a flaming liberal). I am not an ideologue. Voting for Senator Graham did not conflict with my realistic approach to politics and governance.

However, I will have a hard time voting for Senator Graham again. I think a lot of moderates who voted for him, Democrats and Republicans, will also. The extreme right Republican base tried their damnedest to defeat Senator Graham in the last primary, and it was moderates from both parties that counteracted their efforts. I doubt the opposition from the Republican right will subside. They are not the forgiving type, and they have already pegged Senator Graham unworthy. 

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next primary. Many won’t remember. I will. Forgiveness will be hard earned.