What interests me more than these questions is this notion—a very modern, democratic one—that political leaders must be “representatives” of the people. An indiscretion on the rep’s part is deemed a betrayal of the people (who are presumably good) as well as his democratic “position of honor.”
This morality is new.
Pat, one would assume, honors Emperor Constantine, who commissioned the Council of Nicaea, canonized the Bible, and laid the foundation stone for the conversion of the European peoples to Christianity. Constantine also executed his son and wife, the latter by means of boiling her to death in her own bathtub, for reasons that seem to have much more to do with the emperor’s jealously and rage than any actual crimes.
I don’t bring this up to scandalize Constantine. One could come up with numerous other anecdotes involving rank immortality among truly great men. Henry VIII is, rightfully, an English hero, yet who could defend his marital shenanigans?
In turn, my opinion of Martin Luther King Jr. would not change in the slightest were I to discover that he were actually a loving family man (and not a sexual hyena.)
(On this matter, I do hope that the FBI’s “MLK tapes” will one day be released. The sainted civil rights leader’s penchant for White prostitutes would reveal that, much like the other sociopaths who flourish in democracies, he had no great love for his own people.)
At any rate, the true “old morality” judged political leaders on whether or not their use of state power protected and advanced their race and civilization. Salus populi lex suprema—The salvation of the people is the supreme law.
Put more crudely, if a politician did what needs to be done—most importantly, expel the Third World element from this continent—then I wouldn’t care if he were boffing goats on the White House lawn.
