The 2017 Election: Principles or Results
Do the Ends Justify the Means?
Americans from every political background are searching for paradise. They want to make America — their America — better. They want to enhance the lives of those around them. They have differing notions of what will get them there: America always has. But we have also respected the principles and institutions that unite us. The division that marks today and the past decade threatens that reality. We are now faced with a choice between our principles and the results we pursue with unwavering, but divisive, vigor.
Whether their party holds power or fights against it, Americans are wrestling with the question: do the ends justify the means? As each news cycle passes and the stories become more polarizing, more questions arise. How far is too far? Which principles matter and which do not? What defines America?
Popular culture knows the story. In Star Wars, the hero first surrenders to the lure of results. Anakin Skywalker wants a peaceful galaxy for his wife and children. He pursues the ends with so much passion that he loses himself and and his principles. He is so blinded by fear that he is conquered by it. And Darth Vader rules over the Galactic Empire he sought to evade.
American leaders may do the same. The political arena they inhabit forces them to make tough choices. Some of their constituents are divided, extreme, and unruly. Others are moderate, disinterested, or depressed. Leaders are often trying to meet their needs or just meet their own. They think to themselves: if only the opposition got out of our way, our policies would work. Wealth would trickle down. Redistribution would spur growth.
The policies our leaders advocate matter. But the principles, process, and culture that govern political action and the American political system should not be forgotten. America is built on a common framework, made of principles which include the pursuit of freedom (of religion, press, speech), constraint of power, free discourse, and equal opportunity. America’s failure to embrace these principles is partially responsible for the division today and the threat to the institutions and social norms such principles underpin.
The American people’s dismissal of our common principles — what has been decency, spirited discourse, and distribution of power — grants our leaders the warrant to trade principles and process for results. In the electoral cycle, we ask our leaders to do whatever it takes. Do not fail. With a mandate and pressure to perform, leaders race to an end that will justify the means. They do so in the same way that the media produces content that sells instead of quality discussion because viewers prioritize entertainment over substance. In doing so, the country loses itself and the success we seek.
Government: Offender or Defender?
To understand the disintegration of common principles, it is critical to understand the ends for which people fight. Generally, these ends are commendable. But they provide insights into how principles are forgotten.
Americans who classify themselves as conservatives likely perceive the world as a aggregation of people whose individual freedom deserves to be defended. For many, their roots lie in love of country and the Protestant work ethic — one makes the best of the lot in life they are given. Success, then, is often equated to money, education, and status.
The Republican Party, which purports to represent conservative voices, reflects this world-view. The Republican Party is top-down; it is a loose community dedicated to defending values and policies they believe support more individual freedom and less government intervention. Many conservatives saw Obama and liberals are intolerant, smug, and uncompromising. To them, the government is an offender and it has overstepped its bounds. In 2016, the Party put forward numerous candidates that would not cut it for disgruntled voters. And so Donald Trump emerged.
On the other hand, American liberals see the world as a conglomeration of groups whose dynamics politics must mediate and rectify. Whereas conservatives seek to defend the individual from government, liberals strive to use the government to defend the groups to which individuals belong.
The Democratic Party, which intends to represent liberals, follows suit. The party is grassroots, organized by unions, advocacy organizations, ethnic groups, and representatives of every socio-economic strata. These groups unify — and often compromise — to empower leaders that will fight for them. Identity is powerful force, but it is risky, because it can lead to fragmentation. Facing a conservative movement deemed as a threat to many of its groups, the party fractured. In 2016, the Democratic party split over Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. It put forward a divisive candidate.
Both groups believe they will make America great. If they are selfish and intolerant, it is because their experiences lead them to those conclusions.
Losing Ourselves or Recalling our Principles
While the results that Americans pursue are definitively in contrast, we have upheld our common principles and institutions. Gary Gutting argues that the founders did not give us a shared vision of freedom, but rather a “framework for an indefinite continuation of their revolutionary struggle over what freedom should mean.” In blind pursuit of change, Americans have forgotten to prioritize this principle. As a result, leaders continue to push institutions aside to achieve results, often doing the very things that we do not want them to do.
Because Americans have disengaged from our leaders and each other, we fail to keep our leaders accountable. We have become blind to their actions and instead project them as representations of our ideologies. The irony of proximity is that the closer we are to our leaders, the less we like them. Face to face, we see character, emotions, and ethics. But when our leaders are distant, we just desire for them to make our lives better, whatever the cost.
With unconscious empowerment comes pride. Today and throughout human history, leaders’ pride assures them that they can always accomplish the end at all costs. They can prove, once and for all, that they are right.
“Pride consists in a man making his personality the only test, instead of making the truth the test…It is pride to think that a thing looks ill, because it does not look like something characteristic of oneself.” — G.K. Chesterson
As humans, we want strong leaders that will solve our problems and achieve our goals. But frankly, they cannot. The President, for example, is only one person — they rely on a massive bureaucracy and citizenry. They can never deliver results on every promise, even if they are willing to do anything. But if given unfettered power to stampede towards the end, liberals will always practice the intolerance they preach against. Conservatives will always commit the government overreach they detest. Both sides will lose the American freedom for which they fight, however different it may be.
As power obliterates and pride commands, we persecute others. We do whatever we can to achieve the goal. But ask yourself: do you always want the outcome, whatever sacrifices they require, or do you want leaders that abide by a just and fair process? Expediency can lead to autocracy, which value quick action — results — over the voice the people. The brilliance of a democratic republic, above all else, is that it is built on the principle that all individuals have a stake in a governance process with a unifying set of rules.
This is why leaders of character — those that carefully weigh both world views and the value of the ends and the means — are needed. Surely, leaders are going to have to make tough decisions. But citizens must remind their leaders that the ends do not always justify the means. We have to honor the framework that allows us to fight and respect the people for which we fight.
As a community, we have to remember the importance of a shared framework. This is not a question that only party leaders can solve. Citizens have work with others of all kinds to reinvigorate participation in vigorous debate. We have to stand for principles that work for all Americans, while also standing for the results we want for our tribe and our creed. We have to be patient. This is the 2017 election. And if the vote is split, we must ask ourselves: do we have anything in common at all?
