'Might makes right' is the traditional statement of this...uh...pragmatic philosophy. Of course, it is in one sense, 'true'. Quoting an early Brit linguist who was discussing 'language' and 'dialect', "The difference between the two is that one has a navy."
The modern right in the US is a particularly acute example of this approach to democratic governance. A recent New Republic article (not available now without membership...
https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20050124&s=crowley012405 ) details how Gingrich set about seeking to achieve power whereven and whenever he could manage it. It worked. Or there is Cheney's statement (detailed by Woodward) on deficit spending, "Reagan proved it didn't matter." By 'didn't matter', Cheney isn't speaking of economic or social consequences, but rather about electoral gain and loss.
The other neoconservatives in and around the administration also hold such a pragmatic notion, as it falls out from Strauss' philosophy of governance.
And one can pretty easily make the case that much of the religious component in the party operate under a 'end justifies means' understanding of the polity.
I think one could also say that the business community, by which I mean the big corporate voices, have placed function rather higher than morality on their list of important operational critera.