Let’s suppose that someone who backs Trump agrees that he is flat out trying to steal the election. And this is perfectly okay with him. Why? Because he is a right-wing conservative and he rationalizes any and all means to keep Trump in power. Why? Because from his frame of mind Biden and the liberals are so despicable as government policy makers, nothing is not justified from keeping them out of power.
Now, let’s turn it around. Suppose it was determined that in some manner Biden and the Democrats were pursuing a campaign strategy that involved rigging the election so that Trump had no chance of ever being re-elected in a fair contest.
Would that, could that too be rationalized by some liberals/Democrats as “okay this time” to get rid of a man that they deem to be a dire threat to the country?
How about liberals here. Does the end – upending Trump – justify any and all means? Can “the stakes” get so high that a “nihilistic” approach to elections becomes the least objectionable path?
This of course revolves around the manner in which I construe objectivism in politics. For the objectivists at the radical extremes of the political spectrum [left and right] “democracy and the rule of law” becomes all that more problematic. If it comes down to “one of us” or “one of them” in regard to “ends”, how to deal with that “for all practical purposes” in regards to “means”?
It’s like those arguments that pop up from time to time regarding what is or is not appropriate to display as art in museums. Liberals have their taboo subjects, conservatives their own. Captured here for example: youtu.be/gtb2Wn8tEmM
I merely take this further and suggest that political ends themselves are really only political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein.