In today’s society, there’s a growing acceptance of the “ends justifies the means” mentality, which seems to permeate everything from sports to politics to celebrity culture. Success, particularly when it’s accompanied by financial gain, is increasingly celebrated, regardless of how it was achieved or the harm it may cause. This trend reflects a disturbing shift in how we view character and morality, both in public life and beyond.
Take, for example, President Donald Trump’s frequent praise of individuals he refers to as “killers,” a term he uses to compliment those who achieve success, regardless of their questionable character. Critics argue that Trump’s affinity for these figures is rooted in self-projection, as he himself has faced civil judgments due to his past actions. By surrounding himself with those who have shed their moral compass in pursuit of power, Trump seemingly normalizes such behavior, making it appear more mainstream and acceptable.
This “ends justify the means” attitude is not confined to the president’s circle. Consider Trump’s nomination of Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense. Hegseth, despite allegations of sexual misconduct, was never charged with a crime, yet he is poised to lead the U.S. military, an institution that prides itself on character. This raises questions: can we find leaders who share Trump’s views on national defense but who haven’t been involved in scandals that tarnish their moral standing?
The idea that personal failings should be ignored, or even rewarded, is a growing trend among the right, particularly in the context of “owning the libs.” This mentality suggests that if the left or mainstream media criticize your actions, you must be doing something right—regardless of the moral implications.
The case of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is another example. His history of drug abuse and allegations of sexual misconduct have followed him throughout his life, yet he has been rewarded with a prominent role in public health. Shouldn’t we expect higher moral standards for someone tasked with overseeing the health of the planet? The president-elect could surely find someone who shares Kennedy’s views on public health but without a track record of morally questionable behavior.
Some may argue that comparing today’s political leaders to figures like Bill Clinton or John F. Kennedy is an example of “whataboutism.” However, two wrongs don’t make a right. Political parties should not have a monopoly on good character, and we should demand high moral standards from those we elect to office.
The problem with embracing low moral standards in politics is that it becomes a slippery slope. Once we justify character flaws for our political allies, we risk opening the door for the same flaws to be accepted when they come from our opponents. What happens when the political world becomes a space for those with little regard for morals, only out for their own gain?
This shift in standards is not just an abstract concern—it affects the very integrity of democracy. If public service is reduced to a means of personal fame and fortune, then we are a long way from a government that serves the public good. This mindset has already crept into Congress, where some members seem more interested in building personal brands on social media than serving their constituents.
The “ends justify the means” mentality is nothing new in politics. Historically, dirty tricks and corruption have always existed. Yet, there was once a time when corruption at least had a veneer of helping constituents. Today, it’s about personal advancement at any cost. This growing cynicism threatens the future of American democracy.
The public’s acceptance of morally compromised leaders reflects a broader cultural shift. Politics is no longer about service to the people but about personal gain. In the past, books like Richard Ben Cramer’s What It Takes explored the traits that helped presidential candidates succeed. Today, a similar book would likely be called Whatever It Takes, celebrating behavior driven by ambition and self-interest rather than integrity.
This shift in values represents the culmination of decades of cultural change, starting with the perception-driven ’80s and ’90s, epitomized by pro wrestling and the rise of media personalities. Trump’s rise to power reflects this era, where image often outweighs reality, and morals are increasingly negotiable.
As we reflect on these trends, especially during the holiday season, it’s crucial to remember that true American exceptionalism lies in maintaining high moral character while striving for success. If we continue down the path of moral compromise in politics, we risk losing the very principles that have made the U.S. a beacon of democracy. The question remains: will we allow politics to be dominated by those with no moral compass, or will we demand better for the future?
