The idea that the aims justify the methods is becoming more and more accepted in our society, culture, and politics.
These days, it seems to apply to almost every aspect of our life, including politics, athletics, celebrities, and everything in between, such as Logan and Jake Paul’s respective occupations. Success seems to be idolized regardless of the toll it takes on others, how it was attained, or how it looks, especially when it comes with what appears to be an easy financial reward.
Take, for instance, the former and prospective president’s habit of praising people of poor character who just so happen to be successful, powerful, or both by referring to them as “killers.”
Naturally, one does not need a psychology degree to question whether Donald Trump’s reason for praising and promoting these “killers” is projection. He is aware that his desire for fame and wealth has caused him to act terribly over the years, and he has the court judgments to show it. Accordingly, nothing helps his achievement appear more normal and mainstream than associating with people who have never allowed their moral principles to interfere with their personal goals.
Nobody is arguing that someone who is accused of sexual misconduct but is not prosecuted ought to be excluded from society or have their employment opportunities affected. However, must they be in charge of a military that takes pride in its morals as the country’s defense secretary? Is there anyone else who agrees with the president about how the Pentagon should function and who hasn’t had the cops called after having sex with someone? (An alleged sexual assault detailed in a 2017 police complaint has been rejected by Trump’s pick, Pete Hegseth, who was never charged.)
I understand that owning the libs is the coin of the realm on the MAGA right these days, which means that no matter how morally wrong your actions are or were, you are doing something good if the left or the mainstream media is voicing alarm or indignation at it.
Throughout his life, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been plagued by questions over his personal behavior, ranging from accusations of sexual misconduct to his misuse of hard drugs. In response to a former family babysitter’s accusation of groping last summer, Kennedy texted her to apologize, claim he had no recollection of the incident, publicly describe himself as not a church boy, and mention that he had additional skeletons in his closet.
Few people are rewarded with a high-profile government position that will affect the health of the entire world, but Kennedy may not be the only one who has allegedly acted in this manner throughout the years. This individual has found it difficult to serve as an example of leading a healthy life, much less one that is morally sound. Once more, is the president-elect unable to locate someone who shares Kennedy’s public health beliefs and hasn’t tried to lead an entitled, consequence-free life that has harmed other people?
As you read this, you could be thinking that I’m being too severe (with a hint of na tivism). Or maybe you’ll be equipped with some hypothetical information on the personal traits of, say, John F. Kennedy or Bill Clinton. However, two wrongs do not equal one right.
There should be no political party or philosophy associated with character. Every political party, in my opinion, has a sizable number of supporters with excellent morals as well as many with poor morals. With all of that, we are a nation of more than 330 million people. However, how can we become a more perfect union if we cease to demand or try to identify high-quality character in our elected officials?
Does anyone, however, think that the best and the brightest are being drawn to public service by the current political climate?
We shouldn’t expect leaders to be flawless just because they have high character. However, people with good character appreciate other people, own up to their mistakes, and work to improve the next time. As long as they own up to their lies, I’ll accept a liar as a leader rather than one who pees on my leg and claims it’s raining every day of the week.
In the classic film Broadcast News, there is a memorable scene that is as representative of modern culture as it was in the 1980s. Holly Hunter’s character yells, “You crossed the line,” to which William Hurt’s character replies, “It’s hard not to cross it.” Don’t they just keep moving the little jerk?
Although the conversation focused on the evolving ethics of the media industry at the time, it might equally be applied to our political culture, which has undergone significant change over the past 30 years. What used to be an unjustifiable moral shortcoming is now hardly a fault. We may have shifted from being overly puritanical to being overly lenient.
However, you will come to regret it the moment you begin to overlook character defects on your side of the political spectrum since eventually it will come from a political rival rather than an ally. Wouldn’t it be unfortunate if the electorate determined that those with poor morals are suddenly the ones who belong in politics?
I fear that this is the moment we are in. Is it to be believed that politics is so transactional and zero-sum that only people with little or no morals can endure the public scortern? Democracies turn into kleptocracies in this way.
To be fair, I do believe that our public servants and political leaders ought to be morally superior. We have abruptly determined that it is sufficient as long as they are not the worst person to have ever held that post. Since it makes us feel better about ourselves or our station, maybe there is a part of us that enjoys the fact that some of our political leaders have lower moral standards.
From dishonest tactics to divisive campaigns to our foreign policy, there has always been a component of ends justifying means in our politics, where buying off a nation and gaining them as an ally is viewed as merely diplomacy. The other day, a friend of mine made the argument that he misses the “good ol’ days” of political corruption, when Congressmen were attempting to increase federal funding and resources for their states or districts. He maintained that the 20th century’s political corruption may have benefited the people in some way. Although the politician may have received a payoff, the district also saw the construction of a plant that created a specific number of jobs. This makes it simple to justify the ends justify the means mentality.
However, what occurs when a corrupt politician tries to utilize the system to further their personal interests rather than aiding their citizens in order to enrich themselves? Unfortunately, many members of Congress who grew up in the modern era believe that utilizing your position to gain personal notoriety and wealth is inevitable. The motivator that seems to be really advancing the common good is yet a long way off. Consider some of the most outspoken members of Congress who seem more interested in earning a living as social media influencers than as advocates for American law: What have they accomplished for their constituents as opposed to what they have accomplished for themselves?
Look, when it comes to public service, I am Pollyannish. Every citizen should, in my opinion, devote at least one or two years of their adult lives to this higher calling. It shouldn’t be a route to fame, in my opinion. That does not preclude an outstanding public worker from being well-known in the future. To the contrary, I hope all of our most famous politicians achieve their fame for the right reasons they used their time in public service to make the country better, rather than using their time in Congress to launch a successful career on Cameo.
Like with anything in life, it’s easy to rationalize a little bit but going all-in with the whatever it takes mindset will eventually boomerang badly on you. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but when it does, it will be rich with karma.
We as a nation have taken this concept of ends justifies the means and essentially turned the country s North Star of whatever it takes for our own success, not just whatever it takes for our own survival.
One of the most impactful books on a generation of political reporters was Richard Ben Cramer s 1988 epic What It Takes. Ostensibly, the book examined the candidates from 1988 and showed all of us the traits the most ambitious Americans need or have to succeed in the rough and tumble world of American politics.
The book spent as much time noting the positive characteristics of those who succeeded in the arena of presidential politics as it did their negative characteristics. But there was a moral code that all of the candidates had and seemed to believe they should follow it was the American way, after all.
Today, a similar book about the rise of some of today s new political leaders would have to be called Whatever It Takes, as right now, our algorithm-enhanced culture rewards that behavior above all others for now.
Culturally, I think historians will one day label the Trump era as the culmination or punctuation mark of the steroids era of the ’80s and ’90s, when perception became as important, if not more important, than reality. Not so coincidentally, pro wrestling, the sport that is all perception without the reality, also went mainstream in the 80s and 90s. The founder of the most powerful pro wrestling circuit is Trump’s pick to be the next secretary of education.
I saved this column for a holiday week purposely. As we take stock during our family gatherings, let s try and remember that the ultimate test of American exceptionalism is whether we can continue to be a shining city on the global hill and do so while also demonstrating high moral character.
The more we succumb to the idea that politics is such a brutal game that only the amoral or immoral need apply, we will cede our high ground and won t like the reactionary world that develops around us. Happy Turkey Day!
Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!