Recent events at the National Labor Relations Board are the latest vindication of the good book’s wisdom that the children of this world are wiser than the children of light. In U.S. politics, the Democrats play politics and Republicans play the nice guys, at least in their own minds’ eyes.

The imbroglio was whether the NLRB could pass a new rule to speed up the time between a formal union call for a vote to be selected as exclusive bargaining agent for an employer and the date of the election to certify union control – from the current 42 day standard to a proposed mere ten days. Unions wanted to prepare behind the scenes to build employee support surreptitiously and then spring an election before an employer had time to respond. With rapidly declining union membership and dues support, organized labor saw the proposal as a life and death issue and so brought tremendous pressure on the President and Democrats in Congress to act.

The problem was that only three of the five statutory members were then serving on the NLRB and new nominees could not secure the needed Senate confirmation or new legislation to shorten the time period. But with Democratic Congressional and White House support, Board Chairman Mark Pearce introduced a rule to the same effect, expecting to pass it with his vote and the other Democrat against the single Republican member. One obstacle was an NLRB precedent not to vote on critical issues with as few as three members and, more importantly, a Supreme Court decision that the Board could not legally issue decisions with only two members.

It naturally occurred to opponents that if the lone Republican member Brian Hayes resigned the “ambush election” rule could not pass. Hayes first attempted to argue that the Court decision meant that three votes in favor of rulemaking were required, allowing him to block the rule by voting against it. After all, a 2-1 majority was unprecedented to pass a rule that would bind parties for years without further NLRA nitpicking. Whether the Court had required a three person vote on rulemaking was an open question so resignation seemed the only effective remedy. Business interests in fact called for Hayes to resign and he apparently was seriously considering it. With the other Democratic member’s recess appointment to expire by year-end threatening his legal quorum, Chairman Pearce rushed to a Board vote on November 30.

Veteran Democratic Congressman George Miller leapt to action, not even being subtle in his intent. His November 23 public letter to Mr. Hayes charged him with intent to “cripple the Board” if he resigned and accused him of “objectionable motives or improper influence” if he took the perfectly legal step of stepping down from his position. The legislator specifically required that Hayes respond to the charge that he had received improper “enticements” to resign from a “special interest organization,” threatening him for not acting in “good faith” regarding his obligations as a NLRB member.

Immediately upon the publication of the letter, the union-dominated NLRB bureaucracy added its own muscle to Miller’s demand. NLRB’s Inspector General, Dave Berry, told the mouthpiece newspaper of the Congressional and agency staff world in Washington, The Hill, that “his office is aware of the allegations that the labor board’s lone Republican member, Brian Hayes, might have been offered something of value to leave his position. We are very concerned about the allegations, and we will take the appropriate steps to address them.”

Berry said if there were “substance” to the allegations, it could warrant an investigation by his office. He would neither confirm nor deny that an investigation is under way. “We are aware that there are allegations that member Hayes may have been offered an enticement to resign. If there is substance to such to an allegation, it would be a matter appropriate for an investigation by us and we will act accordingly,” Berry said

Of course, there is nothing wrong about resigning a politically appointed position to make a political point even if the request came from a “special interest.” It is not irrelevant to note that 19 of Rep. Miller’s 20 largest political campaign contributors were labor unions, a special interest if there ever was one. They had in fact demanded Hayes not resign and so informed the Congressman. Yet, in many governmental situations the only ethical position is to resign. As far as the argument that the Board would be immobilized by such action, during the Bush Administration in 2007 more than 20 union demonstrations had demanded the NLRB be “closed for reservations” until a pro-labor Board was appointed. The AFL-CIO’s Stewart Acuff specifically stated, “This Board needs to be shut down!” The Democratic Senate blocked George W. Bush’s NLRB nominees until 2009 when Barack Obama appointed union-friendly members.

The IG then began an investigation against Hayes. Even if nothing were proved (which is usually the case in such matters), this action alone could ruin one’s government career and perhaps an entire employment future. With all of this firepower from the left, where were the Republicans? The GOP House did pass a bill to override the new union-organizing election rule but there was not a prayer it would pass the Democratic Senate. It was a mere formality. There was no hardball from that side at all. Not one Republican publically supported Hayes much less offered him protection from the Inspector General. Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated they are too timid for such “crass” bare-knuckle politics.

At the end of the day, not surprisingly, Hayes did not resign. “It is not my nature to be obstructionist,” he said at the public meeting, claiming resignation would “harm the reputation of this agency,” even though voting with only three members went against a sixty year NLRB procedural norm. One could hardly blame the poor Republican, standing alone against both congressional and executive threats. The larger problem, however, was not the election procedure. Few certification elections were requested by unions because they feared losing them if employers or dissenting employees could present the other side of the story. The only solution was ambush elections where only the unions had the time to make their case.

Even though Hayes capitulated, the Inspector General began formal proceedings against him anyway, making a point against anyone thinking about offending the powerful unions in the future. This is precisely why it is so difficult for government to do anything correctly. At its worst, where big labor interests are involved, threats and muscle power act behind the scenes and they work to force the union position through. They and their allies in Congress and the bureaucracy have the daring to activate the power machinery while the other side is too pusillanimous to act in an effective manner. Even without strong-arm tactics, the special interests dominate the whole process so that nothing can be done properly. No wonder the real 99 percent of citizens do not trust government any more.

Donald Devine, the editor of ConservativeBattleline Online, was the director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management from 1981 to 1985 under Ronald Reagan and is Senior Scholar at Bellevue University’s Center for American Vision and Values.