Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Lincoln's Adultery

My wife found out about the affair. She acts all hurt and confused and humiliated and everything. As if I did something bad. As if I betrayed her. She doesn't understand: I did it for her. 

The other woman is a coeval, which is to say, she's old as hell. Yeah, she's got a great rack. Lots of mileage on the chassis, but not much rust. That much I admit. The fact remains I'm not one of those shallow middle-aged guys who pursued a younger woman. Those guys are cads. They're interested in one thing and one thing only. My fling was different. Lust played a role, sure, but my liaison resonated with a sensitivity that transcended base carnal desire. 

See, I did it for the Greater Good. I did it for love. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's marital vows for one's marriage. I don't mean love for the aging floozy with the proud and supple bosom--though that, too, entered into it. I did it because I loved my wife. I did it because I wanted to strengthen our marriage. I did it to put the breaks on our rapidly de-Christianizing culture.   

Strong marriages are the sine qua non of strong families Family is fundamental unit of society. Civilizations unravel without stable families.  

So how does doing the wild thing with a woman not your wife strengthen your marriage? On the face of it, the act would appear to tear at the very fabric of marital love. That's only the face of it, though. Ask any student of (court) history and he'll tell you. Sometimes the statesman has to violate his oath of office to serve the Overriding Public Interest. One does not tie his hands! Not even by invoking the sacred parchment intended to tie his hands! Where are we today if such visionaries as Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR tied their hands to the sacred parchment? 

No, no good can come from tying a visionary's hands. Same goes for not tying a visionary husband's hands to his marital vows. Sometimes a visionary husband has to violate his marital vows to uphold his marital vows.


What is taxation if not a violation of the rules governing property--legalized extortion--in the service of protecting property? What is quantitative easing if not a violation of the rules governing monetary fraud--legalized counterfeiting--in the service protecting a sound monetary system? What is war if not a violation of the rules against killing--legalized mass murder--in the service of protecting human life? The anti-principle principle runs up and down every society. The State can only uphold human decency by violating human decency.

The original statist was a visionary with only the noblest aspirations of society in mind. Where would civility, fair play and societal order be without monopoly violence? Monopoly violence is the sine qua non of community.

You see a contradiction, you say? Well, you're looking too hard. We live in a fallen world, you know. That's the reality. Deal with it.

Abraham Lincoln grasped the anti-principle and wielded it good and hard. America's greatest president waged war against Southern civilians. He confiscated handguns, imposed a draft (involuntary servitude in any other context), tossed Northern dissidents in the hoosegow, and shut down newspapers critical of his administration. He deported an anti-war congressman from Ohio.


Lincoln violated his oath to the Constitution to preserve the Constitution. Could I do any less than violate my marital vows to preserve my marriage?

There’s a surprising amount of wiggle room when it comes to politicians’ commitment to their marital vows and their oaths to uphold the Constitutions. Since we can’t have order without the State, and the State can’t have order without its prescribed disorder, can I do any different?  I have to commit adultery.

How about Give 'Em Hell Harry Truman? He nuked tens of thousands of innocent civilians to death. He did it to save lives. 

Finally, there's that whippersnapper Paul Ryan. (http://www.thestreet.com/story/11661640/1/paul-ryan-bbt-shrugged-off-banking-bailout-street-whispers.html.)

Ryan actually voted to approve TARP, and explained in an interview with the Daily Caller in February 2010 that "we were on the cusp of a deflationary spiral which would have created a Depression," and that "if we would have [sic] allowed that to happen, I think we would have had a big government agenda sweeping through this country so fast that we wouldn't have recovered from it. So in order to prevent a Depression and a complete evisceration of the free market system we have, I think it was necessary. It wasn't a fun vote."


0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home