The internet makes monsters and saints before the body is cold

The internet has done an admirable job hobbling the corporate left-wing media’s ability to control the population through a single narrative. But that blessing comes with regrettable costs.

The speed of information and the incentive to push hot takes onto social media mean that when a public figure dies, there is an immediate race to decide which competing narrative will define his legacy.

Was Graham a true convert to MAGA and its values? Unlikely. But politics is not a contest over who believes harder.

When Lindsey Graham died suddenly of heart failure over the weekend, conspiracy theories about foreign assassination plots immediately began to circulate online. Many leftists openly celebrated his death, and the reactionary impulse of conservatives drove others to recast Graham as a stalwart crusader for MAGA.

The truth is more complicated. But in the eternal battle for narrative supremacy, there is little time for reflection, even in response to death.

No one is above criticism. But in a healthy society, some space exists between a public figure’s passing and attacks on his legacy.

That standard now seems quaint, perhaps naive. It is also better for the soul of the nation.

Unfortunately, wishing to live in that kind of society does not make it real. The information war is relentless. Abstaining from the fight only means someone else defines the truth.

The news cycle does not observe a respectable period of mourning. The battle begins the moment the headline drops.

Wild conspiracy theories now seem obligatory whenever a prominent figure dies, and Graham was no exception. The senator toured a Ukrainian weapons factory the day before his death, and several figures speculated that he had really been killed in an attack on that facility or poisoned by the Russians.

Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin suggested on social media that Graham had likely been killed by Israel, despite Graham’s long record of advocacy for that country.

This is not to denigrate conspiracy theories in general. One thing we learned after COVID is that such theories can often prove correct. But the narratives around Graham’s death were bizarre.

Graham was a 71-year-old man with a family history of fatal heart conditions who did not take care of himself. His death is sad, but its cause was hardly mysterious.

RELATED: Lindsey Graham’s sister appointed to serve out the rest of his term in the Senate

Grant Baldwin/Getty Images

Progressives reacted exactly as expected. There was gloating, celebration, mockery, and even speculation about who should come next.

Graham’s death was nowhere near as visceral or violent as Charlie Kirk’s assassination, but the left’s response carried unnerving echoes. It was a brutal reminder of a lesson conservatives have worked hard not to learn since Kirk’s murder.

Even the average Democrat is emotionally unhinged.

Your progressive neighbor may not be willing to commit violence personally against you over politics. But many are happy to cheer those who do and dance on your grave once you are gone.

The reaction on the right was strange in a different way. Some conservatives rushed to construct a hagiography, transforming Graham into a MAGA saint, a lion who died fighting for the cause.

That impulse may have been an understandable response to the left’s disgusting vitriol. It was not wise.

Graham served in the Senate for 31 years. He supported every disastrous war during his tenure, including the war in Ukraine that Donald Trump ran on ending and the war in Iran now costing the administration dearly.

Graham pushed for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. He backed Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton during military operations in Syria and Libya.

He pushed to send hundreds of billions of dollars to foreign governments while inflation was driving up the cost of living for ordinary Americans. After Graham’s death, Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that when he told the senator Israel should pay for its own defense, Graham insisted that American taxpayers should foot the bill.

On immigration, the core issue of the MAGA coalition, Graham was even worse.

He was part of the Gang of Eight and pushed for amnesty alongside men like Marco Rubio. In 2006, Graham teamed up with John McCain to pursue a similar pathway to citizenship. His attempts to secure amnesty for illegal aliens were so common that he earned the nickname “Grahamnesty.”

Lindsey Graham was, in almost every way imaginable, the essence of the Washington swamp Trump promised to drain.

He was also a savvy political operator.

Graham initially fought Trump tooth and nail. Like many Republicans, he slowly changed his rhetoric. Despite still pushing horrible foreign policy and endless war, the senator became a reliable vote for Trump on many domestic issues. His work advancing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and the SAVE Act deserves note.

Was Graham a true convert to MAGA and its values? Unlikely. But politics is not a contest over who believes harder.

It would have been unwise to trust Graham. Many Republicans have discovered new respect for Trump to get what they want, only to betray him the moment he stops prioritizing their issues.

RELATED: Conservatives are blowing the easiest political win in America

Blaze Media Illustration

But Graham delivered votes and support at key moments. That made him politically useful in scenarios that cannot be ignored.

Graham spent most of his career as an institutional neoconservative advancing policies that were disastrous for the country. He eventually corrected course on amnesty and delivered some key votes for the Trump administration. Yet his monomaniacal obsession with war made him one of the central proponents of a foreign policy quagmire threatening to derail the MAGA agenda.

Does his opportunistic support for Trump in the final years of his life make him a true MAGA patriot? No.

Does he deserve the hatred poured on him by the left after his death? Also no.

That is not mercy for a political enemy. It is moral clarity. Refusing to lie about a man’s record does not require joining the mob that cheers his death.

Those are entirely separate moral sins.

In the rush to define the narrative, the complicated nature of Graham’s legacy disappears.

The internet has made immediate judgment mandatory and thoughtful reflection almost impossible. It turns public figures into mascots, villains, saints, and demons before the body is cold.

In the end, the internet makes fictional characters of us all.