Ends justify the means thinking is a hallmark trait of progressivism.
Alinsky on ends vs means
1. One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue.
2. The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.
3. In war the end justifies almost any means.
4. Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.
5. Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.
6. The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.
7. Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.
8. The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.
9. Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.
10. You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.
11. Goals must be phrased in general terms like “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” “Of the Common Welfare,” “Pursuit of Happiness,” or “Bread and Peace.”
Not quite what I meant.
If one is honest and does the correct thing all the time, then that is good.
If one in the past does not do the right thing but in the end does, then that is also good.
I believe most would prefer the first guy, but the second is still doing the right thing.
What we do not need is a guy who does not do the right thing in the past or present. That guy just left the WH.
The key is the definition of 'right'.
