By David French
Saturday, December 09, 2017
Earlier this week, my friend and esteemed colleague
Andrew McCarthy wrote a thought-provoking essay urging Americans to withhold
judgment on Peter Strzok, the FBI agent dismissed from Robert Mueller’s team
after he allegedly exchanged anti-Trump text messages with his reported
mistress, an FBI lawyer named Lisa Page. Andy makes a good and fair point. A
civil servant — including a prosecutor or law-enforcement officer — can be an
informed citizen with partisan political preferences and still do his job
fairly and competently.
Are we now saying that whether a
prosecutor or agent is qualified to work on a political-corruption case depends
on his or her party affiliation or political convictions?
That would be a terrible mistake.
It would do more to intrude politics into law enforcement than remove it. Bear
in mind: We already have ethical standards and oaths. If an investigator knows
he or she cannot be fair to a suspect, or that the investigator’s participation
in the case would create a reasonable perception of bias, the investigator is
obliged to recuse himself — and, failing that duty, the supervisor must
disqualify the investigator.
Andy’s right, of course. A partisan can still be an
effective prosecutor. There are public servants who set aside their political
preferences to do good and effective jobs without demonstrating the slightest
favoritism. Moreover, there exist legal and ethical safeguards against the
worst and most obvious forms of bias.
But how is a member of the public — especially in the
midst of hyper-partisan times, when elements of the bureaucracy have been weaponized against political
dissent — to know when a civil servant with known partisan preferences is fair?
How can we have a degree of confidence that our most contentious disputes are
decided on the law and the facts rather than according to political bias?
As for me, I’m done with giving government employees the
benefit of the doubt. Want me to have confidence in your fairness, prudence,
and good judgment? Refrain from violating your marriage vows (an act, by the
way, that makes an FBI agent vulnerable to blackmail) and texting inflammatory
political content to your mistress. Or, in the case of Barbara Bosserman, the
Obama donor and DOJ attorney who helped oversee the IRS Tea Party–targeting
investigation, make a choice: Give money to your favorite politician, or lead the then most-contentious
investigation in American politics.
Indeed, here’s a good rule of thumb. The more politically
contentious the investigation, the greater care should be taken to cleanse the
investigators and prosecutors of obvious partisan leanings. Even though the DOJ
may not discriminate on the basis of political affiliation when hiring for
career positions, nothing stops a lawyer or investigator from saying no to an
offer or declining to apply. Indeed, it’s worth building your career around a
principle of restraint. The culture should be clear: If you want to protect the
republic from public corruption, voluntarily relinquish your rights to certain
kinds of public political participation. Your acts of voluntarily restraint are
the acts that will lay the foundation of public trust.
And that brings us to Robert Mueller’s investigation. The
Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly
Strassel has been keeping score:
Judicial Watch this week released
an email in which Mr. Weissmann gushed about how “proud and in awe” he was of
former acting Attorney General Sally Yates for staging a mutiny against the
Trump travel ban. Of 15 publicly identified Mueller lawyers, nine are
Democratic donors — including several who gave money to Mrs. Clinton’s 2016
campaign. Jeannie Rhee defended the Clinton Foundation against racketeering
charges, and represented Mrs. Clinton personally in the question of her emails.
Aaron Zebley represented Justin Cooper, the Clinton aide who helped manage her
server. Mr. Goldstein worked for Preet Bharara, whom Mr. Trump fired and who is
now a vigorous Trump critic. The question isn’t whether these people are
legally allowed (under the Hatch Act) to investigate Mr. Trump — as the left
keeps insisting. The question is whether a team of declared Democrats is
capable of impartially investigating a Republican president.
Yes, I know that some or all of these individuals may
well be outstanding public servants who are capable of exercising independent
judgment. And, yes, I know that the law and rules of ethics already place a
coherent set of limits on public employees. They can’t, for example, use public
resources for partisan activities. They’re (as Andy notes) supposed to avoid
“the appearance of impropriety,” but that’s a notoriously loose standard — one
that, for example, still permits an investigator to stock his staff with
political donors and known partisans.
The objections to voluntary restraint are obvious. “I
have a right to donate to candidates, and the exercise of my rights cannot and
should not impair my career opportunities.” Or, “I have a right to my private
life, and my private communications shouldn’t cost me my job.” And, of course,
there’s a degree of truth in these objections. As much as possible, we want to
protect individual liberty and create a culture where freedom doesn’t limit
opportunity. In normal times, I’m persuaded.
But these are not normal times.
We’re confronting a crisis of confidence in America’s
public institutions. Negative polarization is through the roof. This is the
worst time for careerism in the civil service. It’s the worst time to watch
public servants grasp at power. There’s a path through the darkness, but it
requires the kind of virtue that the military demands from its members. It
demands selfless sacrifice. It asks a person to say, “I’m not the man for this
job.” I’ll have greater confidence that a public servant can lay aside their
partisan bias when they’ve already done so thoroughly enough that I can’t
discern their partisan leanings.
Many years ago, at the start of my Army career, I met an
Army lieutenant colonel who told us that he not only didn’t give to political
candidates, work for political candidates, or discuss politics at work — he
refused even to vote. He wanted the men under his command to know that the
identity of the commander in chief was irrelevant to his commitment to his
duties.
I’m not saying that our public servants need to go that
far. Refraining from voting is too extreme. But it is time for our bureaucrats
— before they engage in partisan expression or partisan giving — to ask, “What
would a reasonable partisan opponent think of my conduct?” It’s time for
bureaucrats to apply a governmental version of the Golden Rule. Should I
inflict on others the kinds of suspicions that I’d feel myself if the roles
were reversed?
Applying that rule would mean that a certain number of
talented, honest civil servants would pursue other projects or maybe even other
jobs. But our nation doesn’t suffer from a lack of lawyers or investigators. It
suffers far more from a lack of integrity and confidence in political
institutions. Americans are no longer giving bureaucrats the benefit of the
doubt. Good public servants shouldn’t ask us to.
No comments:
Post a Comment