David Brooks, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Three Views of Marriage," informs us, "If you read the popular literature, there are three different but not mutually exclusive lenses through which to think about marriage decisions." Brooks then goes on to describe the "psychological lens," the "romantic lens," and the "moral lens." Brooks's conclusion:
"The three lenses are operating at different levels: personality, emotions, the level of the virtues and the vices. The first two lenses are very common in our culture — in bookstores, songs and in movies. But the moral lens, with its view of marriage as a binding moral project, is less common. Maybe that’s one of the reasons the quality of the average marriage is in decline."
Fascinating. But what about the psychology, romance and morality of the Clintons' marriage? With respect to the psychological lens, both Hillary (known for her lust for money) and Bill (known for his lust for women) have proven that negative traits do not change over time.
Regarding the romantic lens, Brooks tells us that some couples, particularly in America, believe "that you need a few years of passionate love to fuse you together so you’ll stay together when times get hard." In the case of Hillary and Bill, it sure must have taken a heck of a lot of passion in those first few years to guide them through Monica, et al. Or was there something else lurking in the background.
The moral lens? Is the Clinton Foundation, funded by financial institutions that have engaged in dubious dealings and misogynistic Muslim countries, a "humanity-enhancing project for the secular"? I have my doubts.
Increasingly, Bill is proving a burden to Hillary's campaign for the Democratic nomination, and my guess is that if Hillary is not elected, by reason of an FBI recommendation to indict her or otherwise, this marriage, premised upon a fourth "lens," i.e. mutual advantage, will not last more than another year.