ShareThis Page
Joseph Sabino Mistick

Joseph Sabino Mistick: Democracy requires 'a little faith'

| Saturday, Feb. 10, 2018, 5:30 p.m.
The Pentagon is referring queries about the delivery of suspicious packages to military installations in the D.C. area to the FBI. Authorities are tracking the delivery of several packages.
AP Photo | Cliff Owen
The Pentagon is referring queries about the delivery of suspicious packages to military installations in the D.C. area to the FBI. Authorities are tracking the delivery of several packages.

“It's complicated.” If you grew up during boom times in the industrial towns of the Northeast, that may be the most accurate thing you can say about your relationship with the FBI.

Surely, every boy was enthralled with the “G-men” of the movies and television, who fought for justice. Then, as now, brave FBI field agents were seen as heroes, never hesitating to put themselves at risk for others' safety. But their boss was a different story. The FBI's tone in those days was set by J. Edgar Hoover, a power-ravenous bureaucrat of considerable political talent, all of which he spent on self-promotion.

Because of Hoover, if you were a first- or second-generation American, or you came from a family of liberal Democrats or unionists, you saw the dark side of the bureau, too.

Hoover was the FBI and vice versa. He targeted labor unions, the same ones that were responsible for decent wages, health benefits, job safety, pensions and weekends off. And anyone with a good ethnic name was a suspected communist or mafioso.

Hoover ordered agents to infiltrate the civil rights movement, smear Martin Luther King Jr. and stand by while civil rights workers were beaten and worse. Later, he did the same with peaceful anti-war demonstrations in cities and on college campuses.

He used “dirty” files to coerce public officials to bend to his will, from presidents on down. And he announced his credo, showing true colors, with this quote: “Justice is merely incidental to law and order.”

With Hoover's death, there was a chance for a fresh start, but there were stumbles. Richard Nixon, who treated the Justice Department like his personal law firm, appointed L. Patrick Gray as acting FBI director. In short order, Gray was pulled into the Watergate swamp and resigned after a year.

None of this made the FBI popular around the blue-collar dinner tables of the era. But in time, things changed, as professional leadership worked its way and encouraged and rewarded field agents for their independence and integrity.

Throughout the bureau's history, even in troubled times, “law and order” Republicans stood with it. But somehow, the FBI and the Republican Party have gotten turned around. Now, top Republicans launch daily attacks on the bureau, while many others stand by silently, unwilling to speak in its defense.

Nothing could be more American than questioning government authority and demanding answers from its leaders. But there is another side to that, too.

As author Bill Bishop wrote in The Washington Post, “Political scientists tell us that democracies require a little faith. … You have to assume that institutions will be fair and that leaders will act in the country's best interest.”

This is the balance that we have lost.

The FBI is not a perfect government institution, and it should be questioned. But hysterical sweeping attacks, designed to derail the investigation of Russian interference in our presidential election with groundless claims and manufactured “evidence,” are not the American way.

That can only further weaken what little faith we have left.

Joseph Sabino Mistick is a Pittsburgh lawyer (

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me