In our society and our culture, and therefore in our politics, there is a growing comfort in the “ends justifies the means” mentality.
It now seems to apply to just about everything in our lives — sports, politics, celebrity and everything in between, like whatever it is Logan and Jake Paul do for a living. Success (especially when it comes with what looks like an easy financial reward) seems to be worshipped no matter the toll it takes on others or what it looks like or how it was achieved.
Consider, for example, how the once and future president regularly compliments folks of bad character who happen to have success or power, or both, by calling them “killers.”
Of course, it doesn’t take a degree in psychology to wonder if Donald Trump’s motivation to promote and compliment these “killers” is some form of projection. He knows he’s behaved badly over the years — he has the civil judgments against him to prove it — in his drive to achieve fame and fortune. So, following that logic, nothing makes his success look 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 who is accused of sexual misconduct but isn’t charged with a crime should be cancelled from society or be impacted in their ability to get a job. But do they have to be the nation’s defense secretary, overseeing 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 who didn’t have the police called after intimate relations with someone? (Trump’s pick, Pete Hegseth, has denied an alleged sexual assault described in a 2017 police report and was never charged.)
I get 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 is expressing concern or outrage at your behavior, then you are doing something right, no matter how morally wrong it is or once was.
Questions about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s personal conduct have followed him throughout his life, from his abuse of hard drugs to allegations of sexual misconduct. (This summer, Kennedy responded to an allegation of groping from a former family babysitter by texting her an apology, saying he had no memory of the incident, describing himself publicly as “not a church boy” and noting that he had other “skeletons” in his closet.)
Kennedy may not be the only person who has allegedly behaved this way over the years, but few people get 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 living a healthy life, let alone a morally defensible life. Again, can’t the president-elect find someone who shares Kennedy’s views on public health who didn’t attempt to live a consequence-free entitled life that hurt the lives of others?
Perhaps, you are reading this and thinking I’m being too harsh (with a dash of naïveté). Or perhaps, you are going to 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” shouldn’t have a political party or an ideology. I think there are plenty of high-character supporters of each political party and I think there are plenty of low-character supporters of each political party. We’re a country of 330-plus million human beings, with all that entails. But if we stop demanding or attempting to find high-quality character in our elected officials, then how are we going to become a “more perfect union”?
And yet, does anyone believe the current political world is attracting the best and the brightest into public service?
High character doesn’t mean we should expect leaders without flaws. But high-character people admit when they are wrong, try to do better the next time, and treat fellow humans with respect. Give me a liar as a leader — as long as they fess up for the lies — over a liar that pees on my leg and tells me it’s raining every day of the week.
There’s a great exchange in the old movie “Broadcast News” that is as telling of today’s culture as it was about culture back in the ‘80s. “You crossed the line,” Holly Hunter’s character screams at William Hurt’s character, who responds: “It’s hard not to cross it. They just keep moving the little sucker, don’t they?”
While that exchange was about our changing ethics in the media industry in that era, one could also apply it to our political culture, which has been shifting constantly for the last 30 years. What was once an indefensible moral failing is now barely a demerit. We’ve, perhaps, gone from being a bit too puritan to a bit too permissive.
But the minute you start making an exception for character flaws on your side of the political fence, you’ll regret it — because one day it will be coming 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 low-character crowd.
This is the moment I fear we are facing. Are we to believe politics is so transactional, so zero-sum, that the only folks with the stomach to survive the gauntlet of public scorn are those with little or no morals? That’s how democracies become kleptocracies.
For what it’s worth, I do think our political leaders and public servants should be of a higher-than-average moral character. We’ve suddenly decided that as long as they aren’t the single worst person ever to hold said position, then that’s “good enough.” Perhaps there’s a part of us that likes that some of our political leaders are of a lower moral standing because it makes us feel better about ourselves or about our station.
There has always been some element of “ends justifies the means” in our politics, from dirty tricks to negative campaigns to our foreign policy, when buying off a country and making them an ally is seen as simply “diplomacy.” A friend of mine argued the other day that he misses the “good ol’ days” standard of political corruption, when it was about members of Congress trying to get more federal money and resources to their district or state. As he argued, at least the political corruption of the 20th century might have actually helped the constituents. Sure, the politician might have gotten a kickback, but the factory also got built in the district creating a certain number of jobs. That’s how the “ends justifies the means” mindset can be easily rationalized.
But what happens when the corrupt politician no longer is trying to help their own constituents as they line their own pockets but instead is just trying to use the system to only get ahead for themselves. Sadly, quite a few members of Congress who have come of age during the current era think the idea of using your office for personal fame and fortune is a given. We are a long way from the motivation appearing to be actually contributing to the public good. Ask yourself about some of the loudest-mouthed members of Congress, who appear to be angling to make a living as influencers on social media rather than influencers of U.S. law: What have they done for their constituents, versus what they’ve done for themselves?
Look, I am Pollyannish about public service. I do think it should be a higher calling that every citizen participates in for at least one or two years of their adult life. I don’t think it should be a career path to celebrity. That doesn’t mean a great public servant can’t eventually become famous. 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!
