In our society and our culture, and therefore also in our politics, there is increasing comfort in the ‘the end justifies the means’ mentality.
It now seems to apply to pretty much everything in our lives: sports, politics, celebrities, and everything in between, like whatever Logan and Jake Paul do for a living. Success (especially when it comes with what appears to be easy financial reward) seems to be worshiped regardless of the toll it takes on others or what it looks like or how it was achieved.
Consider, for example, how former and future presidents regularly compliment people of bad character who happen to have success or power, or both, by calling them “murderers.”
Of course, it doesn’t take a degree in psychology to wonder whether Donald Trump’s motivation to promote and compliment these “killers” is a form of projection. He knows he has behaved badly over the years – he has the civil judgments against him to prove it – in his drive to achieve fame and fortune. So, by that logic, nothing makes his success seem more mainstream and acceptable than surrounding himself with people who have never let their moral compass get in the way of their own ambitions.
No one is saying that someone accused of sexual misconduct, but not charged with a crime, should be removed from society or have their ability to find a job hindered. But should they be the country’s defense minister and oversee a military that prides itself on character? Can’t we find someone else who shares the president’s views on how the Pentagon should operate and who hasn’t had the police called after intimate relations with someone? (Trump’s pick, Pete Hegseth, has denied an alleged assault, detailed in a 2017 police report, and has never been charged.)
I understand that the coin of the realm on the MAGA right these days is “owning the libs,” meaning that if the left or the mainstream media express concern or outrage about your behavior, you’re doing something right, no matter how moral. is or ever was wrong.
Questions about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s personal conduct have haunted him throughout his life, from his abuse of hard drugs to allegations of sexual misconduct. (This summer, Kennedy responded to an accusation of groping by a former family babysitter by texting her an apology, saying he had no memory of the incident, publicly describing himself as “not a church boy” and noting that he had other ‘skeletons’ in his closet.)
Kennedy may not be the only person to have behaved this way over the years, but few people are rewarded with a high-profile government job that will impact the health of the entire planet. This is a person who has struggled to set an example of a healthy life, let alone a morally defensible one. Again, can’t the president-elect find someone who shares Kennedy’s views on public health, and who hasn’t tried to live a life without consequences that harms the lives of others?
You may be reading this and thinking I’m being too harsh (with a hint of naivete). Or perhaps you will be armed with some “whataboutism” regarding the personal character of, say, 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 there are plenty of high character supporters for every political party, and I think there are plenty of low character supporters for every political party. We are a country with more than 330 million people, with all that entails. But if we stop demanding or trying to find high-quality character in our elected officials, how can we become a “more perfect union”?
And yet, does anyone believe that today’s political world attracts the best and brightest into the public sector?
High character does not mean that we should expect leaders without flaws. But people with high character admit when they are wrong, try to do better next time, and treat their fellow human beings with respect. Give me a liar as leader – as long as they admit to the lies – over a liar who pees in my leg and says it rains every day of the week.
There’s a great exchange in the old movie “Broadcast News,” which tells as much about today’s culture as it did about culture in the ’80s. “You crossed the line,” Holly Hunter’s character shouts at William Hurt’s character, who responds, “It’s hard not to cross it. They just keep moving that little sucker, don’t they?’
While that exchange was about our changing ethics in the media industry at the time, you could also apply it to our political culture, which has been constantly changing over the past thirty years. What was once an indefensible moral failing is now hardly a flaw. We may have gone from a little too puritanical to a little too permissive.
But once you start making an exception for character flaws on your side of the political fence, you will regret it – because one day it will come from a political opponent and not a political ally. And wouldn’t it be a shame if the electorate decided that politics now belongs to the people of low character?
I fear this is the moment we face. Are we to believe that politics is so transactional and so zero-sum that the only people who have the guts to survive the gauntlet of public scorn are those with little or no morals? This is how democracies become kleptocracies.
For what it’s worth, I think our political leaders and officials should have higher than average moral character. We’ve suddenly decided that as long as they’re not the worst person to ever hold this position, that’s “good enough.” Perhaps there is a part of us that likes the fact that some of our political leaders have lower moral standing because it makes us feel better about ourselves or our position.
There has always been an element of ‘the end justifies the means’ in our politics, from dirty tricks to negative campaigns to our foreign policy, where buying off a country and making it an ally is simply seen as ‘diplomacy’. A friend of mine recently argued that he misses the “good old days” standard of political corruption, when it involved members of Congress trying to get more federal money and resources into their district or state. As he argued, the political corruption of the 20th century could have at least actually helped voters. Sure, the politician may have gotten a kickback, but the factory was also built in the neighborhood, creating a certain number of jobs. That’s how the “end justifies the means” mentality can easily be rationalized.
But what happens when the corrupt politician stops trying to help his own voters while lining their own pockets and instead just tries to use the system to get ahead for himself alone. Unfortunately, quite a few members of Congress who have come of age in today’s age think that the idea of using your office for personal fame and fortune is a given. We are still far from the motivation that actually seems to contribute to the common good. Ask yourself about some of the loudest members of Congress, who seem to be trying to make a living as social media influencers rather than US legislative influencers: what have they done for their constituents, compared to what they have done for themselves? ?
Look, I’m Pollyannis when it comes to public service. I do think that it should be a higher calling in which every citizen participates for at least one or two years of their adult life. I don’t think it should be a career path to fame. That doesn’t mean a great civil servant can’t eventually become famous. On the contrary, I hope that all of our most famous politicians gain 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 pursue a successful career on Cameo to launch.
As with anything in life, it’s easy to rationalize a little, but if you go all in with the “whatever it takes” mentality, it will ultimately backfire badly on you. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but if it does, it will be rich in karma.
We as a nation have adopted this concept of “the end justifies the means” and have essentially changed the country’s North Star from “whatever it takes” for our own success, and not just “whatever it takes” for our own survival.
One of the most impactful books about a generation of political reporters was Richard Ben Cramer’s 1988 epic “What It Takes.” Ostensibly, the book examined the 1988 candidates and showed us all the qualities that the most ambitious Americans need or have to succeed in the rough world of American politics.
The book spent as much time noting the positive characteristics of those who succeeded in presidential politics as it did on their negative characteristics. But there was a moral code that all the candidates had and seemed to believe they had to follow – it was the American way of doing things, after all.
Today, a similar book about the rise of some of today’s new political leaders should be called Whatever It Takes, because our algorithm-enabled culture currently 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 steroid era of the ’80s and ’90s, when perception became as important, if not more so, than reality. Not so coincidentally, pro wrestling, the sport that is all perception without reality, also became mainstream in the ’80s and ’90s. The founder of the most powerful professional wrestling circuit is Trump’s pick to be the next secretary of education.
I purposely saved this column for a holiday week. As we take stock at our family gatherings, let us try to remember that the ultimate test of American exceptionalism is whether we can remain 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 cruel game that only the amoral or immoral applies, we will give up our high position – and dislike the reactionary world developing around us. Happy Turkey Day!
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
