There is a growing comfort in our society and culture, and therefore in our politics, with the “end justifies the means” mindset.
It applies to almost everything in our lives now – sports, politics, celebrities, and everything Logan and Jake Paul do for a living. Success (especially when it appears as an easy financial reward) is worshiped no matter what it costs others or what it looks like or how it is achieved.
Consider, for example, how the once-and-to-be president regularly praises people of bad character who have success or power or both, calling them “murderers.”
Of course, it doesn’t take a psychology degree to wonder if Donald Trump’s motivation for promoting and glorifying these “murderers” is some form of projection. He knows he’s been behaving badly over the years – he has the civil judgments against him to prove – in the desire to gain fame and fortune. So, following this logic, nothing makes his success more fundamental and plausible than surrounding himself with people who don’t let their moral compass get in the way of their ambitions.
No one is saying that someone accused of sexual assault but not charged with a crime should be ostracized or have their ability to get a job affected. But should they be the defense minister of a nation that oversees an army boasting character? Can’t we find someone else who shares the president’s views on how the Pentagon should operate and doesn’t call the police after being intimate with someone? (Pete Hegseth, Trump’s pickIn 2017, he denied the allegation of sexual assault described in the police report and was never charged.)
I understand that the coin of the realm at MAGA these days is “owning the libs,” meaning that if the left or mainstream media express concern or outrage at your behavior, you’re doing something right, no matter how morally so. is it wrong or was it once.
Questions about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s personal conduct followed him throughout his life, from his abuse of powerful drugs to allegations of sexual misconduct. (This summer, Kennedy responded to the alleged handshake by sending a letter of apology from the former family nanny, saying that she did not remember the incident, and publicly described herself as “not a church boy” and noted that there are other “skeletons” in his closet.)
Kennedy may not have been the only person to do so over the years, but few people have been awarded a high-profile public job that would affect the health of the entire planet. This is a man struggling to set an example of healthy living, let alone a morally defensible life. Then again, can’t the president-elect find someone who shares Kennedy’s views on public health, who isn’t trying to live a life of fruitless entitlement that harms the lives of others?
You’re probably reading this and thinking I’m being harsh (with a bit of naïveté). Or perhaps you will be armed with some “incompleteness” about the personal character of, for example, Bill Clinton or John F. Kennedy. But two wrongs don’t make a right.
“Character” should not have a political party or ideology. I think every political party has its fair share of high character supporters and I think every political party has its fair share of low character supporters. We are a country of over 330 million people, with all that. But if we stop demanding or trying to find high quality character in our elected officials, then how will we become a “better union”?
However, does anyone believe that today’s political world is attracting the best and brightest to public service?
High character does not mean we should expect flawless leaders. But people with high character admit when they make mistakes, try to do better next time, and treat people with respect. For a liar who pees on my leg and says it rains every day of the week, give me a liar as a leader – as long as they admit the lies.
There’s a great exchange in the old movie “Broadcast News” that’s as much about culture today as it is about culture in the 80s. “You crossed the line,” Holly Hunter’s character yells at William Hurt’s character, who replies, “It’s hard not to cross it. They just move the little sucker, don’t they?
While this trade-off relates to our changing ethics in the media industry at the time, it can also be attributed to our constantly changing political culture over the past 30 years. Moral failings that were once indefensible are now almost as bad. We have perhaps gone from being a little too puritanical to a little too permissive.
But the minute you start discounting character flaws on your side of the political fence, you’ll regret it – because one day it will come from a political opponent, not a political ally. Wouldn’t it be a shame if the voters decided that politics was now for the low character crowd?
This is the moment we meet. Are we to believe that politics is so transactional, zero-sum, that the only people with the stomach to survive public scorn are those with little or no morals? Thus, democracies become kleptocracies.
For what it’s worth, I think our political leaders and civil servants should have above average moral character. We suddenly decided that it was “good enough” if they weren’t the worst person ever to hold the position. Maybe there’s a part of us that likes some of our political leaders to have a lower moral status because it makes us feel better about ourselves or our station.
There has always been an element of “the ends justify the means” in our politics, from dirty tricks to negative campaigns to our foreign policy. A friend of mine argued today that he misses the “good old days” standard of political corruption, when it was all about members of Congress trying to get more federal money and resources to their districts or states. At least the political corruption of the 20th century, he argues, may actually have helped voters. Of course, the politician could have been returned, but the factory was also built in the region and created a certain number of jobs. Thus, the “ends justify the means” mindset can be easily rationalized.
But what happens when a corrupt politician is no longer trying to help his constituents while lining his own pockets, but rather trying to use the system only to advance himself. Unfortunately, many members of Congress who are of age today think that the idea of using your office for personal fame and fortune is a given. We are actually far removed from the apparent motivation of contributing to the public good. Ask yourself about some of the members of Congress who have made a living as social media influencers rather than influencers of US law: What have they done for their constituents, compared to what they have done for themselves? ?
Look, I’m Pollyannish about public service. I think it should be a higher calling for every citizen to participate in at least a year or two of their adult life. I don’t think it should be a career path to fame. This does not mean that a great civil servant cannot eventually become famous. On the contrary, I hope that 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 their time in Congress to build a successful career in Cameo.
As with anything in life, it’s easy to rationalize it a little – but going with a “whatever it takes” mindset will backfire on you in the end. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but when it comes, it will be rich in karma.
As a nation, we have embraced this “ends justify the means” concept and essentially turned the country’s “north star” into “whatever it takes” for our own success, not just “whatever it takes” to survive.
One of the most influential books on a generation of political reporters was Richard Ben Kramer’s 1988 epic “What It Takes.” Apparently, the book examined the 1988 candidates and showed us all the qualities that the most ambitious Americans need or need to succeed in the rough and tumble world of American politics.
The book spends as much time highlighting the positives as the negatives of those who succeed in the arena of presidential politics. But there was a moral code that all candidates had and believed they should follow – after all, it was the American way.
A similar book about the rise of some new political leaders today should have been called “Whatever,” because our algorithm-enhanced culture currently favors this behavior above all else…for now.
Culturally, I think historians will one day label the Trump era as the culmination or punctuation of the steroid era of the 80s and 90s, when perception became more important, if not more important, than reality. It’s no coincidence that pro wrestling, a sport that is all perception without reality, also became popular in the 80s and 90s. The creator of the most powerful professional wrestling circuit is Trump’s choice to be the next secretary of education.
I intentionally saved this column for the holiday week. As we reflect during our family gatherings, let’s try to remember that the ultimate test of American exceptionalism is whether we can continue to be a shining city on a global hill and at the same time demonstrate high moral character.
The more we succumb to the idea that politics is such a cruel game that only immoral or immoral needs are enforced, the more we will give up our high ground and dislike the reactionary world that is developing around us. Happy Turkey Day!