I am going to argue for the unpopular, nay, shocking view that Alabama voters should consider eating baby Democrats. No, this isn't satire. Satire is dead.
Even if Roy Moore did what he is accused of doing, and we often can agree he did, I still think voting for him would be appropriate -- no, just. What he did had a certain merit to it, when you consider that he was born centuries ago, in biblical times, before we had laws or limits to consent.
At least, I think he was. That is certainly the vibe he gives off. But after coming to that decision, we reach the real problem: As long as there are Democrats in Alabama, some of them will vote against Moore or run for office against him, which seems a great shame now that we have decreed he is morally acceptable.
What alternative remains?
Simple: Eat the Democrats' young.
Many in recent weeks have written essays at which I have sneered. They argue, "You cannot advocate doing evil in the name of good!"
To them I say, "Politics has always been the choice of the lesser of two evils."
Now, would you rather see a Democrat in the Senate, or eat all baby Democrats as soon as their political leanings become clear (a bib with Elizabeth Warren on it, say, or a romper that says "Women's place is in the House ... and Senate")?
Both options are unpalatable. In one scenario, there will be a Democrat in office. In the other, you will probably have a sticky mess in your saucepan.
Let's get one thing straight. I have a baby, and when I look down at him and see his big eyes and little feet, I just want to gobble him up -- metaphorically only.
I, personally, would murder anyone who actually tried to eat my baby. But my baby is bound to grow up and become a good Republican, unless something disastrous happens at college.
Democrat babies are another story. They look, as a class, edible. And when I consider that they might grow up to support a candidate like Doug Jones, my resolve stiffens. If we cannot convince them to be absorbed into our party voluntarily, let us forcibly absorb them in the form of nourishment.
This practice is not without historical precedent.
Yes, eating children is, today, considered taboo, but you have to remember that the Democrat is our enemy, and devouring the progeny of enemies is an ancient and time-honored tradition.
If you are trying to feed your own growing family, you could not do better. Democrats are grass-fed, I think.
Eat them now and grow strong on their meat, or watch them wither and die without a safety net later. Once they age and fail to receive health care, they will become stringy and unpalatable.
Most importantly, we must remember: Many Democrats support a right to abortion. I can think of nothing more inhuman than terminating the life of a fetus. That is why we ought to eat them as infants.
Once they are outside the womb, they are threats to the only true people: those still inside it.
We can agree that pursuing 14-year-olds as a 30-something is a sound and advisable practice, with biblical precedent.
And if we are arguing for that, we should be just as able to argue for smashing an infant's head in with a rock and roasting it over a low fire. I bet that happened in the Bible somewhere.
What is so sacred about babies anyway? Either we are in favor of letting something bad happen to them now, or in favor of something bad happening to them in 14 years. And if I can convince myself of the second thing, the first one seems increasingly ... palatable.
Happy 350th birthday, Jonathan Swift. I am so glad you did not live to see today!
ALEXANDRA PETRI writes the Washington Post's ComPost blog, offering a lighter take on the news and opinions of the day. She is the author of "A Field Guide to Awkward Silences."