Members of Congress May Commit Only Great Crimes
Okay, okay, you are saying. Nothing is more humdrum than another exposure of a hypocritical congressman–naturally Fossella specialized in socially conservative positions that appealed to his many Catholic constituents. But such always-gratifying revelations have a larger lesson to teach us: a member of Congress will not be forgiven a personal peccadillo, but he may with complete impunity commit the greatest crimes–grand larceny, mass murder, arson, and every other species of abomination–by authorizing and funding their commission by government agents. Indeed, not only may a member of Congress act as an accessory to great crimes, he is expected to do so, and rewarded lavishly by the public with re-election to office and all the honors and aggrandizements that accompany his entrenchment in that occult and wicked temple known as the Capitol. S
Steal a hundred dollars, go to jail; steal a trillion dollars, go on to fame and fortune as a public servant. Kill one man, go to the gas chamber; kill a million people, go on to well-paid retirement at public expense and big bucks on the lecture circuit. Alert children are learning these lessons, and acting accordingly when they become old enough to run for election to public office.
Not only have Americans split the atom, they have–mirabile dictu–split their moral sense. Countless actions for which any ordinary person would be denounced to the heavens will serve to sustain a lifetime’s political career. Lie, cheat, and steal and your friends will condemn and abandon you, but do the same on a hugely greater scale in your capacity as a public representative and the voters will stand by you to the end.
Just don’t father an out-of-wedlock child. That’s so vile!
comments powered by Disqus
Billy Carter - 5/21/2008
...that statesman's morality is a totally different animal than personal morality. I remember hearing Robert Kagan openly making this point on cspan's booknotes (or some similar cspan program). So, yes, the moral sense has been split and that has been done deliberately and more or less openly.
You see, for a statesman (or, rather, 'leader', as they would have it) killing millions of people is not a failing, not a crime, but a duty, an obligation. As long as it's for an ostensibly good cause. Black is white, up is down, welcome to Wonderland.
But, of course, the official enemy leaders mustn't kill whatever the cause - where's their Gandhi, dammit?
- Historians gloss over too many unpalatable truths, Antony Beevor says
- Historian shares his own experience with mental illness
- Daniel Pipes calls the rulers of Iran "madmen" on official Iranian TV
- A Professor Tries to Beat Back a News Spoof That Won’t Go Away
- NYT History Book Reviews: Who Got Noticed this Week?