Do Ends Justify Means? Sydney Williams
“The principle that the end justifies the means is in individual ethics regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule.”
The Road to Serfdom, 1944 Friedrich von Hayek (1899-1992)
In a 1928 dissenting opinion, in Olmstead v. the United States, Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote: “Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites everyman to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means – to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal – would bring terrible retributions.”
In 1928, Roy Olmstead was a suspected bootlegger. Without judicial approval, federal agents wiretapped his home. He was convicted based on those wiretaps. In 2016, Donald Trump was a successful real estate investor and entertainer. Politically, he was a novice. He was disruptive to establishment politicians, and to federal bureaucrats whose careers depend upon an ever-expanding government. Following his election, but before his inauguration, Senator Chuck Schumer spoke about Mr. Trump’s taunting the intelligence agencies: “He’s being really dumb…Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community and they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” A truth Mr. Trump was to discover. Those who used unlawful means to marginalize Mr. Trump did so because they felt that the end – the destruction of his political career – justified any means employed. However, as Theodore Roosevelt said in a speech in Chicago on April 10, 1899: “No man is justified in doing evil on the grounds of expediency.”
Over six years have elapsed since Mr. Trump won the Presidency. And we now know that senior executives in the FBI and the Justice Department were culpable in the “Russian collusion” story, as well as four years later being responsible for suppressing the authenticity of what was found on Hunter Biden’s laptop. Ten years ago, Lois Lerner, then IRS Director, Exempt Organizations, singled out conservative organizations. These federal bureaucrats used illicit means to achieve a preferred political end. What they did was despicable. Will they be punished? Probably not, as long as mainstream media sees their role as propagandizers, rather than seekers of truth and disseminators of news.
It is true that in times of crises, our government adopted undemocratic means toward what it felt was a noble and necessary end: During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, to silence dissenters and rebels. The Sedition Act of 1918 curtailed free speech during World War I. Franklin Roosevelt interned Japanese Americans in camps. Were any of those actions justifiable? I suspect not.
One consequence of this illiberal behavior has been a decline in the public’s confidence in government. A Pew Research Center survey reported on June 6, 2022: “Only two-in-ten Americans say they trust the government in Washington to do what is right ‘just about always’ (2%), or ‘most of the time’ (19%). In 1958, three-quarters of the American public trusted government to do what was right, always or most of the time. The decline has been steady, except for a bump during the Reagan years and in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. There are many factors that have led to this decline, including the quality of candidates, political corruption, and an abundance of politicians and bureaucrats interested in using public office as a stepping-stone to private wealth.
Are there times when an end justifies any means? Yes. Henry David Thoreau wrote of civil disobedience – the disruption of custom and law for an honorable cause. Martin Luther King, in advocating for civil rights, violated existing, though unjust, laws. He was assassinated for his beliefs. Anti-war protestors in the late 1960s were jailed, but their efforts helped bring an end to the Vietnam War. In all cases, individuals were willing to suffer the consequences of doing what they thought was right. Those who fought for freedom in late 1760s and early 1770s Boston used means that were illegal under British rule. A few Germans, with the goal of ending Nazi rule, engaged in activities in the 1930s that were forbidden by the Third Reich. In both cases – the eventual success of the American Revolution and the ultimate defeat of the Nazis – the perpetrators put themselves at personal risk. Had the United States failed in its bid for independence, its leaders would have been hung as traitors. Most of those who tried to sabotage Hitler’s Nazis were tortured and shot. On the other hand, government bureaucrats who worked to derail Mr. Trump’s Presidential campaign (unsuccessively in 2016 and successively in 2020) did not take personal risk. Most operated anonymously. Many of those exposed have left government service and have, for the most part, retired with full pension benefits, paid for by taxpayers.
This is not written in support of Donald Trump, whose well-publicized character flaws have magnified since he left office. While I voted for him twice, I could not vote for him now. This is written because of my fear of non-elected bureaucrats, convinced of their superior knowledge, who assume extralegal powers. They are not, as one would expect in a democracy, kept in check by the media. The powers of the state are awesome and must be thwarted. History tells of democracies degrading into autocracies. Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, in an interview with German novelist Georg Klein on December 10, 2004, compared Nazism to Communism, that in both their philosophies “the end justifies the means.” That cannot happen to us.
As many have written, from both sides of the political divide, democracy is fragile. The French author Georges Bernanos (1888-1948) is quoted in his posthumous book Why Freedom?: “The first sign of corruption, in a society that is still alive, is that the end justifies the means.” Once shredded, democracy is not easily repaired. The means government uses to accomplish its goals must be forthright; they must reflect respect for the individual and the standards of civil behavior. Regardless of one’s political leanings, I trust the issue of accountability and integrity in government is something about which we all remain vigilant.
……………………………………………………………………..
In the meantime, I thank you for your patience with my rantings over the past year; I wish for all the happiest of holidays and the healthiest of New Years.
Labels: Chuck Schumer, Donald Trump, Friedrich von Hayek, Georg Klein, Georges Bernanos, Henry David Thoreau, Lois Lerner, Louis Brandeis, Martin Luther King
Comments are closed.
