In the grand theatrical stage of American politics, it seems a new act is unfolding, a peculiar production featuring the radical left and right as the lead characters. With the spotlight on these extremes, the center appears to be auditioning for a role it was never meant to play—that of the great mediator, attempting to smooth the jagged edges of both sides. Yet, in this fascinating performance, there arises an issue that’s as old as time itself: adultery. With some recent scandals causing a flurry of stir and sensationalism, it feels like we’re watching an overplayed soap opera. The questions echo in the rafters: Why should there be shame? Why is there ridicule? Why not just call it art?
The concept of shaming those caught in secretive embraces, it seems, is met with a chorus of outrage from one side. To them, every hidden affair should be considered an expressive art form, a narrative that only adds color to the otherwise monochrome canvas of life. The notion that those guilty of such indiscretions should face any sort of public reckoning is dismissed as archaic. This is life, after all, unpredictable and messy, they say. Yet, one cannot ignore the peculiar trend of human history, where societies have thrived on certain moral standards, like faithful marriages. At some point, maybe there was value in adhering to promises made with a ring and a vow.
In this drama, there are those who gleefully play the supporting roles of provocateurs, eagerly exposing ‘hidden truths’ about societal divisions. This dance on the periphery adds a certain spice, a contentious dialogue that, when left unchecked, suddenly becomes the focal point of the show. Arguments swing like comedic rubber chickens across the political spectrum, and somehow, everyone gets hit.
It’s rather entertaining, this chaos, though perhaps only if one has a front-row seat and isn’t being pelted by ideological tomatoes. What becomes troubling is when the center, perhaps out of a desire to keep everyone from walking out of the theater, attempts to integrate these radical ideas into mainstream discourse. It can become laughable when the extremes are presented as palatable options for the everyday citizen, as if choosing a radical viewpoint comes with the same ease as deciding between popcorn or nachos during intermission.
The true artistry, however, lies not in adopting these polar extremes but in appreciating the lively debate they stir—without letting them overthrow the stage. As curtains fall on this act, the audience must remember that every performance should ultimately aim to reinforce what allows humans to thrive, not deconstruct it. Perhaps it’s worth applauding the radicals for keeping the conversation lively, but let’s not be so eager to hand over the script just yet. After all, the play must go on, ideally with a sense of humor and a strong underpinning of shared values.
