From article:
Partisan extremes in the United
States have become entirely consequentialist in their ethics. The overriding
goal may be the end of Roe v. Wade — or its preservation. It may be passage of gun control
legislation — or protection of the Second Amendment. In each case, the
objective — always measured in saved lives — means everything. But if
the objective means everything, then how do we judge the character of leaders
or the morality of political methods? If ending Roe, for example, is really all that matters, wouldn’t a corrupt
or lying politician who opposes Roe always be better than the ideological alternative? This
is a point I have sometimes pressed with pro-Trump, pro-life evangelicals:
Would you support a rapist who opposes Roe over a pro-choice Democrat? How about a serial killer?
The result is usually uncomfortable silence. If political outcomes are truly
all that matter, there is no way to draw necessary moral lines.
Since Trump is on “our” side in the culture war, any excess can be
forgiven. There is no penalty for corruption, deception or cruelty. And more
than this, many Trump supporters have begun to enjoy the transgressive side of
our brutal political culture.
Why should we care? Because democracy is hard to sustain in the
absence of certain values. Self-government requires ethical hierarchy — a
belief that honor is better than dishonor, fairness is better than exploitation
and truth is superior to lies. American freedom is not based on relativism; it
is based on the belief that the dignity of human beings is a knowable,
universal truth. And the success of that principle is demonstrated in the way
we treat each other.
There are categorical commitments to respect and
truthfulness that can’t be subordinated to partisan outcomes. And they point to
an essential, post-Trump task: restoring a decayed moral environment.
By
Columnist
