THE CHARACTER OF FRANK UNDERWOOD, played magnificently by Kevin Spacey in “House of Cards,” represents the kind of politician you love to hate. He is a strange combination of ruthlessness and charm — amorality mixed with a façade of likeability.

Churchill is credited with the line: “Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.” Frank Underwood has that political savvy. He is also the kind of person who, given a choice, you want fighting for you rather than against you.

Politics has always been a nasty business, not for the faint of heart — dirty tricks, prevarications, deceptions, slanderous comments and a “take no prisoners” attitude being the modus operandi. Both parties have long participated in such shenanigans; when accused they then feign innocence while simultaneously decrying such tactics. Hypocrisy is the norm, believability to 51 percent the goal — and to hell with the 49 percent.

No doubt this has been a major reason many despise politics and politicians. And who can blame them?

Historically such behavior was limited to campaigns, but campaigns now are virtually endless. In recent years we have seen a new development in the endless campaign: using grand jury indictments (or similar procedures) to taint an opponent. Guilt or innocence does not matter, as low-information voters will see the headline and ignore the facts. The real purpose is not to punish the guilty; it is to end the careers of opponents, by any means necessary.

This is exactly why the tactic is both effective and reprehensible — something that would make Frank Underwood proud.

A perfect case in point is one particularly vile character in Texas: Former Travis County Prosecutor Ronnie Earle.

Earle took it upon himself to go after several elected officials, including Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, state Rep. Mike Martin, Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox and, most famously, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

His record is spotty at best, but he succeeded in ending the careers of many of those he opposed, DeLay included.

The DeLay persecution was a classic case of retribution and vindictiveness. Earle’s “campaign” against DeLay began in 2002 and ended in 2007. In those years, Earle went to eight grand juries, all in the ultra-liberal stronghold of Austin, before he found one gullible enough to issue an indictment on specious grounds.

DeLay’s resignation, mandated by congressional rules, confirmed that Earle’s mission was accomplished. Later the Majority Leader was acquitted by judicial decree. The court of appeals decision stated in part that “the evidence shows that the defendants were attempting to comply with the Election Code limitations on corporate contributions.”

Justice was never the purpose of the persecution. Those who take pleasure from Earle’s actions represent a small but vocal cadre of ideologues who will stoop to anything to destroy opponents. Fairness and rules do not enter into the equation for such people.

These same reprobates may be celebrating the more recent indictment of Texas Gov. Rick Perry by Earle’s successor, Rosemary Lehmberg.

Perry’s own shortcomings had already ended his presidential aspirations. Now Rosemary may have sealed his fate for future higher aspirations — though her behavior may very well backfire, as it should.

Some background on the case: Lehmberg pleaded guilty in April 2013 to driving under the influence; her blood-alcohol content at the time of her arrest was measured at .229. To put that in perspective, that is three times the legal limit, the approximate equivalent of consuming nine to 10 shots of vodka (her beverage of choice) in an hour.

Fox News reported that in a 15-month period, Lehmberg spent $3,000 on 72 bottles of vodka. One thing that tells us is she was not buying the cheap stuff — that works out to over $40 a bottle. Then again, the size of the bottle is not given, so maybe she was drinking the cheap stuff, in economy sizes.

Perry, not wanting a perpetually drunken alcoholic representing the good (and bad) people of Texas, asked Lehmberg to resign. After she refused, the governor legally vetoed expenditures designated for a division of her office for which she was responsible. That was when the claws came out, and the slovenly drunk — a videotape of Lehmberg’s booking is available; it’s not a pretty sight — turned into a vicious attacker.

Perry’s chances of being elected to higher office, not that high to begin with, have been diminished to near zero as a result of her vindictive prosecution. But is this really the method of determining our leaders that fair-minded and reasonable people can support? Or is this the method that the unfair and unreasonable have been reduced to?

We hear a lot these days from those who ask for a healing of the divide between the political parties. This is a fantasy, and will remain such until people like Ronnie Earle and Rosemary Lehmberg are strongly condemned, and not cheered and encouraged as they are now.

It is not incumbent upon us as citizens to like those who hold contrarian views. But it is incumbent on us to expect that candidates will be treated equally.

People have fought and died for equal treatment under the law, yet such actions as described above serve to make a mockery of our laws.

Those who remain silent are in essence showing their approval. One has to wonder: What further actions would they also approve? And a follow-up question: Would they accept such actions from their opposition?

Dennis Lund is a mechanical engineer who lived in Benicia for more than 20 years.

Sharing is caring!