D.G. Martin

CHAPEL HILL —  Are the days of human sacrifice long gone?

Remember that story of Abraham’s near sacrifice of his son Isaac and how God put an end to that sort of thing?

But the tradition continued in a way, according to the Bible, as kings of Israel and Judah regularly executed their rivals and their rivals’ children.

Just before the fall of Judah and the beginning of the exile, King Josiah, having found copies of God’s laws that had been lost and ignored by the idol-worshiping prior kings, set out to clean house.  He wanted to demonstrate to God and the people that the reforms were real.

So according to II Kings 23:5 he “… put down the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem; them also that burned incense unto Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, and to the planets, and to all the host of heaven.”

“Put down” probably means executed—sacrificed to dramatically show Josiah’s attempt to restore his country’s standing in the eyes of God.

Thank goodness we don’t do it that way anymore.

But the necessity of sacrificing professional lives on the altar of the greater good continues in the realm of politics and government. It is an ugly, painful, unfair necessity. But the public leader who fails to change the leadership of a tainted department has usually made a mistake.

Here is what happens. In a department or agency reporting to the president, governor, or mayor, a scandal or some other smelly situation develops and gains public attention and concern.

Maybe the leader of the agency, by his or her own swift and decisive action, solves the problem and dismisses the responsible people. Otherwise, the taint is on that agency leader. In such cases, the president, or governor, or mayor has to sacrifice the agency leader.

Otherwise, the taint attaches to the one at the top. When this taint attaches, the top leader is compromised.

Replacing an agency head is always a disruptive and usually a painful exercise for a governmental leader. The situation is more troublesome when the agency head has otherwise done a good job. It is even more trying when the agency head is a trusted friend or supporter of the president, governor, or mayor.

Sacrificing a good friend to preserve the position and strength of the top leader may be the most difficult of all the difficult tasks that the top leader has to face.

Our governor, Beverly Perdue, faces this kind of situation today.

The state’s Highway Patrol, beloved and respected by most North Carolinians, is caught in a vortex of trouble, probably caused by only a few officers who have put the enjoyment of personal pleasures ahead of their professional duties.

The current commander of the patrol probably has no direct responsibility for any of the specific personnel problems that have embarrassed his organization. But symbolically, at least, he is responsible for the culture in which the trouble festered.

Even though there may be legal challenges that make it difficult to install new leadership, Governor Perdue must find a way. Unless she takes a decisive step to bring new leadership that is charged and authorized to bring the culture in line with the high expectations of North Carolina’s citizens, the mess at the patrol belongs to her.

Sacrificing a loyal friend and subordinate may be just about as distasteful as the human sacrifice of earlier times. Most people have no stomach for it.

But presidents, governors, and mayors who want to succeed have to come to terms with the necessity to act when the occasion demands it.
•
D.G. Martin is the host of UNC-TV’s North Carolina Bookwatch, which airs Sundays at 5 p.m.