Immediately after being sworn in as the country’s 86th attorney general two years ago, Merrick Garland pledged to his new colleagues, “Together, we will show the American people by word and deed that the Department of Justice pursues equal justice and adheres to the rule of law.”

Life hasn’t quite turned out the way Garland hoped, has it?

A new NBC News survey finds that 35 percent of Americans say they view the Justice Department in a positive light, while 36 percent say they view it negatively. In the aftermath of an indictment of former president Donald Trump, it probably isn’t surprising that just 13 percent of Republicans say they have a positive view of the department. But it’s a little stunning to learn that 40 percent of Democrats say they have a negative opinion of the department.

Garland may have wanted to appear above partisan politics, but highly charged cases involving the Trumps and Bidens keep ending up in his bailiwick. In March, Garland pledged to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he had left the investigation into Hunter Biden in the hands of U.S. Attorney David C. Weiss, the top federal prosecutor in Delaware.

But the Internal Revenue Service supervisory agent who helped oversee the investigation says the president’s son received special treatment, and that he, the agent, was repeatedly prevented from taking steps he would have considered routine in other cases. Gary Shapley, a 14-year IRS veteran, told CBS News, “Based on my experience, if this was a small-business owner or any other non-connected individual, they would have been charged with felony counts.”

Shapley told the House Ways and Means Committee that Biden-appointed D.C. federal prosecutor Matthew Graves refused to bring charges against Hunter Biden, and that Weiss told Shapley and others in October 2022, “I’m not the deciding official on whether charges are filed.” Shapley also contends that Justice officials blocked the execution of a search warrant for Hunter Biden properties ahead of the 2020 presidential election.

Weiss denies that anyone limited his investigation.

Garland didn’t help himself or his department on June 23 with his prickly contention that public criticism of his department represents something inherently dangerous to democracy.

“I certainly understand that some have chosen to attack the integrity of the Justice Department and its components and its employees by claiming that we do not treat like cases alike,” Garland said. “This constitutes an attack on an institution that is essential to American democracy, and essential to the safety of the American people.”

Yes, but those are verbal attacks, protected by the First Amendment. The nation’s chief law enforcement officer shouldn’t be suggesting that criticism of himself and his department represents some sort of threat to democracy. You could argue that such criticism is democracy, or at least that the freedom to criticize the government without fear of prosecution is a necessary component of democracy.

The positions of attorney general and FBI director are unusual jobs within the federal government, in that the occupants wear two hats — they’re appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but also enjoy the responsibility and privilege of investigating allegations of wrongdoing by all other federal officials. Perhaps it is inevitable that the opposition party will always see the attorney general as blind to allegations of crimes committed by allies of the president, and the president’s party will always see the attorney general as far too credulous about rumors and partisan nonsense unhelpful to the White House.

Since the 2016 showdown between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, it is not surprising that some of the most polarizing public figures — James Comey, Christopher Wray, William Barr, Jeff Sessions, Loretta Lynch — were in roles that required them to enforce laws and investigate lawbreaking by political leaders. In an era of extreme polarization, partisans always believe the opposition is getting away with murder while their own leaders get hassled for jaywalking.

And the road ahead looks even rougher. The 2024 presidential election is shaping up as a rematch between a president whose relatives have been cashing in on the family name for years and collecting generous fees from shady foreign business executives, and a challenger who sees federal law enforcement as an enemy to be destroyed.

Maybe some of this is on Garland, for naively believing he could be attorney general for four years and not step on any land mines of partisan politics, or that he somehow would be a figure that Americans across the spectrum would instinctively trust.

But we can also serve up a heaping pile of blame for the two major parties — especially if they renominate candidates who will guarantee that the Justice Department is a factor in the 2024 presidential election.

Jim Geraghty is National Review’s senior political correspondent, where he writes the daily “Morning Jolt” newsletter, among other writing duties.