“The first sign of corruption in a society that is still alive is that the end justifies the means” (Georges Bernanos)
End justifies the means?
I doubt that politics has ever been entirely devoid of this malady – particularly in times of war or other perceived crises – but it seems that the idea of “the end justifies the means”, i.e., that we should accept morally or legally dubious methods, as long as actors do them for the purpose of some perceived greater good, has become ever-more pervasive in public discourse since the turn of the 21st century.
Perhaps the era in which I grew up, an era that included some of the great public discussions in Canadian history (bilingualism, multiculturalism, free trade, patriation of the Constitution, etc.) have caused me to believe that ideas matter and that a fair and honest exchange of views is both desirable and possible. However, fair and respectful exchange – and the idea that we can agree to disagree – often seems to be a low priority at best and it appears that “anything goes” when it comes to public discourse. I find this abhorrent and take the view that process matters: that how you achieve something is just as important as what you’re trying to achieve.
My own political experience
My own personal public experience with this was at the municipal level when I was mayor of an Alberta village of 400 during the century’s first decade. The “end justifies the means” thinking might have been as prevalent there (and in other small municipalities, based on conversations I had with other mayors and councillors) as it is anywhere, either then or now. As an elected official, I often encountered the view that it does not matter if people always follow the rules: “We’re just a little village;” “‘Common sense’ is more important than any rules;” and “policies are just guidelines.” I found it interesting how “common sense” was always in the eye of the beholder who, as often as not, stood to benefit in some way from his or her definition of it.
Attack ads
We also see a significant number of examples of the “end justifies the means” thinking at other levels of government, with election attack ads or statements meant to belittle others personally. No party is guiltless: they will say or do whatever they think is necessary because they believe that they will accomplish some ultimately some greater good by their being elected. Moreover, the fact is that attack ads “work”. Yet, stooping to the low levels we have seen more and more in recent years cheapens the whole political process and erodes respect for it in an irreversible way. In the short term, your party might win the election but to what extent has it sold its soul and cheapened the process to accomplish that end?
Moreover, should it come as any surprise that running for public office is a lot less of a noble pursuit than it used to be? If politicians treat each other with derision and disrespect, why should they expect members of the voting public to treat them any differently?
The "right thing to do"
There are many other examples of situations in which the end justifies the means – some are relatively insignificant in our day-to-day lives and some decidedly more so, but the idea is the same. That this approach seems to have become ever more the modus operandi for so many politicians and non-politicians alike is telling indeed, but it makes it all the more significant when someone decides to do something because “it’s the right thing to do” and actually means it, consequences be damned. It’s a shame that people doing what they ought is rare enough that it is almost newsworthy – Quixotic, really – when it actually does happen.
In truth, none of us is entirely blameless in this “end justifies the means” thinking and it should come as no surprise that our public officials reflect this relativistic trend in their public pronouncements and activities. However, it is what we do precisely when we are in positions of power or influence – either as individuals, as political parties, or as nations – that defines us at the deepest level. It is the extent to which we respect the process in the pursuit of our goals that tells others who we really are.
"You knew what I was when you took me in"
If politicians or political parties are willing to wage personal attacks and otherwise drag their opponents through the mud all in the name of getting elected because ”that’s when we can start to do some real good”, do not buy into that nonsense: it is morality of convenience, which is to say no morality at all. Do not be surprised if, after being elected, a party or individual willing to compromise on electoral process does or says distasteful things while in office. As the snake said when he eventually sank his fangs into the woman who had befriended him, “You knew what I was when you took me in.”
So when you are taking stock of parties, leaders, or candidates, judge not on the basis of what they say they are going to do when elected, but on the means they actually employ to get there. Who they really are makes itself amply clear with the process they employ in the pursuit of power.
This is an uncomfortably accurate analysis of political discourse today. Sadly, “Decline” is a soft word for what is actually occurring!
I recall your Mayorality in Bawlf and the fact that there lived too many loud-mouthed knotheads in town. Their ignorance wrecked a top notch (not to be seen again in Bawlf) administration. In that community, the “decline” started years ago….
This is an excellent follow-up to your essay on Lougheed/Trudeau…
My favorite saying lately is “easier to ask forgiveness, than it is to ask permission”. It applies to politicians as well.
We are a mess here in the states. All of this hits home.
It’s everywhere, Lana. The dynamic of it is a bit different here but there are definitely common elements.