We didn't start the fire…but it sure is getting warm

• Published date: 01 September 2023
• Author: Jeremy L. Hall
• Date: 01 September 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13717

EDITORIAL

We didn’t start the fire…but it sure is getting warm

Jeremy L. Hall

University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA

Correspondence

Jeremy L. Hall, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA.

Email: jeremy.hall@ucf.edu

I have often used my editorial introductions to say

something about current events and share my perspectives

on the implications for public administration practice and

research. I have done so in hopes that they might someday

help to contextualize the published research of our era as

future scholars look back on it (Hall, 2021). Today, I have pol-

itics on my mind—pure, visceral, and ugly politics—and as

much as I might talk about a certain well-known dichotomy

in the classroom, a better word today might be monotony.

The abuses that I perceive have become so commonplace

that they have become monotonous. So, what does this

matter for public administration? Bear with me, and I’ll see if

I can come to a point in the paragraphs ahead.

Abusesofpowerareneveracceptableinademocratic

society. And even though they may be expected in nonde-

mocratic society, that doesn’t make them any more tolera-

ble. While the politics/administration dichotomy has been

well-refuted (Pandey et al., 2022), that should not provide

agencies with carte blanche to dabble in politics with inten-

tionality. A growing number of voices have recently accused

major US federal agencies—primarily the Department of Jus-

tice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation—of becoming

weaponized against the citizens they are tasked to serve. For

the most part, those accusations speak to unequal treatment

on the basis of one’s political allegiance. For that matter,

most of the pointed attacks have been directed at former

President Donald Trump. With weekly indictments, one

might wonder how he remains politically viable—how his

poll numbers keep climbing. One very compelling answer, I

believe, is that even if his personality, words, or deeds may

be unsavory to some from time to time, a very large number

of people see these efforts as nothing more than political

opposition from his chief competitor. What one side sees as

protecting our institutions from Trump, the other side sees

as corrupt efforts to tamp down political discourse, dissent,

and opposition. And if that be the case—ifonesideorone

group claims moral superiority and uses it to justify absolute

destruction of all contrary views—then the principles of

democratic governance would no longer apply.

And then there are the frequent stories about ambi-

tious inner-city prosecutors who have been throwing the

book at political crimes committed by their ideological

enemies while allowing capital crimes to go unpunished

as their cities burn around them. No matter one’s political

position, it’s easy to see the differential treatment of key

players based on their political affiliation. As the argu-

ment goes: it’soknow because they did it to us, and those

before did it to them, and so on. But it’snot ok. It wasn’t

ok when it had to leak to the newspapers to become

known, it wasn’t ok when it had to find its way to the eve-

ning news, and it’s not ok now that social media can

transmit information immediately around the globe. For

there to be order, justice must be dispensed equally,

cautiously, and fairly. I can only imagine the potential

ramifications of misinformation generated by artificial

intelligence and how it might be used or misused in the

governmental context in years to come.

Today, even one of the media elites called out intel-

lectual elitism over the past 50 years as being responsible

for the mess we find ourselves in today. In an opinion

piece in the New York Times, Brooks (2023) first recites

the frame held by the anti-Trump elite:

Republicans see a world changing around

them uncomfortably fast, and they want it to

slow down, maybe even take a step back-

ward. But if you are a person of color, a

woman who values gender equality or an

L.G.B.T. person, would you want to go back

to 1963? I doubt it.

Through that frame, Brooks then posits:

In this story, we anti-Trumpers are the good

guys, the forces of progress and enlighten-

ment. The Trumpers are reactionary bigots

and authoritarians. Many Republicans sup-

port Trump no matter what, according to this

story, because at the end of the day he’s still

the bigot in chief, the embodiment of their

resentments, and that’s what matters to

them most.

Accepted: 8 April 2023

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13717

Public Admin Rev. 2023;83:1011–1014. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/puar © 2023 American Society for Public Administration. 1011