Random Thoughts on Dead Bad People

Another person who was bad has died and we are in for another round of back and forth over whether we need to or even should speak ill of the dead. I do not have a ton to add to that discourse, as it is the same every time. Decent people do not want to hurt the ones left behind and do not wan tot tarnish the memory of someone they may have worked with. And decency is a good habit to encourage, so I am not so down on those who are reluctant t say the truth about deceased public officials. I also understand that there are many indecent people today, our current President among them who no longer feel constrained by decency and lash out in vile and vulgar ways any time anyone they mildly disapprove of dies. So I will also not waste pixels on chastising those who react in turn when someone who has truly done harm passes. But I do find that this interminable, unending cycle tells us something about how we as a culture deal with power and morality.

This rambles, much like a zombie in a movie does, so feel free to imagine a tense soundtrack as you wait for the point to emerge.

Senator Graham has died, unexpectedly, and most of his colleagues and the press have talked about how nice he was in private — in their work, in their personal lives, etc. The discussion of his life has downplayed the impact of his policy decisions. This is pretty common. Graham, in life, supported a violent foreign policy at every turn, and turned into a complete Trump sycophant even after January 6th, supporting things like the abrupt end to USAID. The end of USAID undisputedly killed , and will kill, hundreds of thousands to millions of people, for example. And nothing was made of this. Compare this reaction to the reaction to Graham Platner being forced out of the Maine Senate race.

This is not a brief for Platner, who was forced to step down after credible accusations of sexual abuse emerged (or, as one wag put it — a bad week for Graham crackers). He is a terrible person and should never have been the senate candidate. But the press felt much more comfortable talking about Platner’s personal failings rather than Graham’s policy failings. Policy has, according to our press, no moral component. Well, I can hear you say, it is just policy. Except it is not just anything.

Supporting election denialism is not a pure policy position, an argument about how to best order society. It is an attack on the ability to order society — it is morally wrong. The sudden destruction of USAID is immoral. This was not a planned draw-down after a democratic debate about best how to allocate limited government resources. This was a sudden removal of aid with no warning and no chance to find alternate sources. Death was inevitable, and supporting such a move was undeniably immoral. And yet, because such support is plausibly cloaked in policy, the press and society in general seem to allow people a pass.

I am not going to chastise almost anyone for how they react to the death of a famous person. While it is true that if you do not want people to speak ill of you after you are gone, you should lead a good life, I also respect the instinct to be decent to the loved ones of a deceased person. But we would all be much better off is we and our press took seriously the fact that policy has a moral component. And that the morality of how a politician implements policy matters. Even when they have died.