Lindsey Graham Was the Face of the Duopoly

Margaret Kimberley, BAR Executive Editor and Senior Columnist

15 Jul 2026

🖨️ Print Article

Kamala Harris and Lindsey Graham at Dick Cheney funeral November 20, 2025 Credit: Getty Images

The late Senator Lindsey Graham played the role of chief congressional war-monger very well. But many of his colleagues, who spoke in quieter voices, were completely aligned with his support of U.S. imperialism.

Lindsey Graham, South Carolina’s republican senior senator, passed away suddenly on the evening of July 11, 2026. Earlier that day he had returned from Ukraine, where for years he made the case for funding the anti-Russia proxy war and proclaimed that Ukrainians would fight, “to the last person.” There are many dead Ukrainians who acted as Graham predicted while others who are less willing are being snatched off the street and sent to the front despite their protestations.

Graham was consumed with the imperialist, white supremacist mind set and went to great lengths to defend Israel and claimed that the state had the right to drop nuclear weapons on Gaza. He publicly stated that someone should “take out” Vladimir Putin and, as he did on the day of his death, made the Ukraine proxy war a very high priority. His support for U.S. state violence was constant and makes it easy to point out his very public and unhinged devotion to domination.

Yet the question must be asked: was he so different from his colleagues? Lindsey Graham was the darling of the most vociferous members of the war party but that group is thoroughly bipartisan. Every president, whether republican or democrat, requests and wins approval for increased military spending, wars, invasions, interventions of various kinds, and unilateral coercive economic measures which kill people as surely as bombs and bullets do.

Graham differed from his colleagues in tone because he was a true believer in U.S. hegemony and a lover of media attention and his closeness to Donald Trump. He certainly was zealously loyal to the imperialist project. But does that matter if he had little or no opposition?

It is understandable but a political error to give too much attention to those who seek attention with crude rhetoric. Graham relished his role as head spokesperson for U.S. militarism and domination. That is why he would make statements such as the U.S. was “killing the right people” as he delivered red meat to the faithful. But what matters more, his violent rhetoric or the silence of those who were allegedly in disagreement with him?

Who in congress spoke up when the Trump administration bombed boats in the Caribbean, claiming without evidence that they were in the business of drug trafficking? The murder spree now totals more than 200 people and began as war propaganda intended to make the case for a regime change plot against Venezuela.

We must give credit where it is due, as in the case of the four person congressional delegation that recently returned from Cuba. They got a first hand look at how the U.S. blockade has deprived that country of revenue, electricity, and medical supplies, and caused the deaths of many people. Democratic representatives Maxine Dexter, Mark Pocan, Teresa Leger Fernandez, and Delia Ramirez must be commended for taking action but it must also be pointed out that a party of four people among more than 400 is an indication that most of their colleagues are in favor of the worsening blockade, are not really interested in the fate of people suffering because of the U.S., or share their concerns but choose to remain silent. Graham bragged that “Cuba is next. They’re going to fall,” when he spoke of Trump’s march of conquest. Even worse, unless there is a concerted effort to oppose the siege, he will have been proven right.

Republican and democratic presidents alike have no fear that their requests for military spending will be approved. There are a few, very few, congressional voices who oppose U.S. interventions but even those thought to be progressive shrink and equivocate when their voices need to be heard.

California democratic congressmember Ro Khanna was in that category. After the Hamas Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on October 7, 2023 he joined in the chorus of those who declared Israel’s right to exist, and condemned Hamas whenever he was asked. As evidence of war crimes became more evident he would condemn Israel but would also hedge his bets.

But on a recent visit to the occupied West Bank he personally experienced the violence that Israeli settlers inflict upon Palestinians. He and his party were detained by Israeli settlers and the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). They were not free to go on their way until they contacted the U.S. embassy.

Now Khanna has signed on to an amendment sponsored by Thomas Massie that would cut off all aid to Israel. Massie is the Kentucky republican who lost a primary after publicly disagreeing with Trump administration policy. Massie’s amendment has little chance of being passed but it is a sign of public opinion that has turned against Israel and made itself known to members of congress.

Congressional Black Caucus member and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries ought to be seen in the same light as Lindsey Graham. To my knowledge he never advocated that Israel should “flatten” Gaza as Lindsey Graham did, but he has his position precisely because he shares the same politics, just with better language.

Jeffries sent what is known as a Dear Colleague letter expressing his opposition to the Massie amendment. His fence straddling is nothing but support for the apartheid state and is as damaging as any unhinged war propaganda that Graham might have spewed while on a Sunday news program.

It isn’t just politesse that causes people like Kamala Harris to express condolences upon Graham’s passing. Her claim that he was full of “wit, energy and charm” is hard to believe but her protection of his memory ought to be expected. During her 2024 presidential campaign she often spoke of making the U.S. military “the most lethal” in the world. She said nothing about flattening Gaza but that is what she meant.

Harris and Graham were quite happy meeting one another at former Vice President Dick Cheney’s funeral in 2025. Cheney was the bete noire in the George W. Bush administration, the man who led the march to a war of aggression against Iraq who was hated by most Democratic Party voters. But when he died Harris and Graham greeted each other warmly and Nancy Pelosi and Rachel Maddow were among the mourners.

They are all as cozy as the proverbial peas in a pod because in the final analysis they are on the same team. The duopoly has two wings which often cosplay as enemies. If Kamala Harris were president she would have made good use of the lethality she so often promoted. When Lindsay Graham bragged about Ukrainians fighting “to the last person” he stood next to democrat Richard Blumenthal, who is as much of a hawk on Ukraine as his better known and now deceased colleague. They both represented the duopoly, just in different tones of voice.

Margaret Kimberley is the author of Prejudential: Black America and the Presidents. You can support her work on Patreon and also find it on Twitter, Bluesky, and Telegram platforms. She can be reached via email at margaret.kimberley@blackagendareport.com.