Perfection should not be a prerequisite for public service. Bernard Kerik’s decision under pressure to withdraw his name from nomination to be secretary of the Department of Homeland Security is not good for New York or the nation. It does not make any American safer. He is the latest casualty of a lousy law that seems only to apply to potential office-seekers. He is also perhaps the first casualty in an effort to tarnish Rudolph Giuliani’s sterling post-September 11 reputation as the former mayor looks to the future.

First let’s look at Mr. Kerik’s stated reason for withdrawal and then collectively resolve to get over the “Nannygate” era.

During the Clinton years, the requirement to pay Social Security for part-time household help was used to sink the nominations of a Connecticut lawyer, Zoe Baird, and a New York federal judge, Kimba Wood, to serve as attorney general. We got Janet Reno instead. Democrats got their revenge in 2000 by ending the government career of Linda Chavez, who was nominated by President-elect Bush to be labor secretary. Now our former police commissioner has fallen under the same strange standard.

We’re disqualifying eminently qualified people from public life because they haven’t filled out all the necessary forms when paying their babysitter or conducted an extensive background check on household help. That is absurd. In the larger scheme of life, it is at most a misdemeanor – an innocent mistake that should not rear its head years later to derail careers.

Through this bureaucratic gauntlet we are holding senior government appointees to a higher standard than our elected officials themselves. If President Clinton had been a junior executive of a sporting-goods store – let alone a Cabinet secretary – he would have been fired for having an affair with an office intern. Instead, he kept his job and ended his second term with a job approval rating of more than 60%. In New York, David Dinkins failed to file his taxes completely for a four-year period and was sufficiently forgiven by voters to be elected mayor 15 years later.

Mr. Kerik’s financial indiscretion pales in comparison, and it would seem both logical and fair to allow him similar latitude: Admit to the mistake, pay the missing amount with interest, and move on.

But opponents of Mr. Kerik’s nomination are still eager to fan the flames despite his withdrawal, with the goal of permanently hurting Mr. Kerik’s credibility and, by association, that of Mr. Giuliani.

From the time of the nomination, the New York Times has been beating a negative drum, questioning the appointment of this native son. Almost immediately, headlines appeared hinting toward impropriety, such as “Kerik’s Move to Washington Could Benefit Giuliani’s Consulting Firm.” An editorial more plainly stated: “We’ve been puzzled by President Bush’s choice of Bernard Kerik. … Before the Senate signs off on his nomination, there are a lot of questions to ask about Mr. Kerik’s readiness for this job, and about some troubling parts of his record. If he is confirmed, Congress will want to keep a close eye on him and his department.” That was pre-emptive assault by innuendo.

The Daily News published a report yesterday that Mr. Kerik was linked via a friend to a New Jersey company with alleged mob ties. The report overlooked the very pertinent fact that within the period described, Mr. Kerik had successfully passed not one but two exhaustive clearances by the city’s Department of Investigation that are customary for appointments to positions such as commissioner of corrections and police commissioner. Moreover, in a city where layers of local government have often been tainted with ties to organized crime, the Giuliani administration was famously clean, due to the mayor’s career having been built on successfully breaking the back of the mob as U.S. attorney.

The escalation of allegations after Mr. Kerik’s withdrawal points to a more troubling impulse on the part of news organizations that have always resented Mr. Giuliani’s success as mayor and his elevation to national hero as a result of his leadership during and after the September 11 attacks. The Kerik nomination provided the first clear shot across the bow of a speeding Giuliani ship, as polls show he is the favorite among rank-and-file Republicans to be his party’s nominee for president in 2008.

Homeland security is serious business, and partisan politics have intruded on this process. These allegations after the fact are a distraction, a continued character assassination being carried out on front pages. Due to the withdrawal, we will be denied the Senate hearings that could have cleared Mr. Kerik’s name. Given the bipartisan support he received soon after being nominated, such hearings could have been an opportunity not only to right the record, but also to address successfully the inanity of “Nanny-gate” type infractions killing careers devoted to public service.

We still should have such a debate, even in the absence of Mr. Kerik’s nomination. How many careers will we allow to be stalled or ruined before we update the threshold to reflect reality?

The intense glare of public scrutiny and societal double standards already puts many young people off the notion of entering public service – the risk to reputation is seen to far exceed the rewards. Conversely, do we want to leave the door open only to those ambitious people who think defensively about every detail of their daily lives so that they might serve in government decades in the future?

People who serve in government should be held to a higher standard for their conduct while in office. But trolling through their past in search of minor indiscretions does not serve our nation well.

It is too late for Bernard Kerik. That is a loss for New York and the nation. But we should at least learn from this latest experience and resolve not to let distractions destroy another promising career in public service. Let’s keep a sense of perspective and justice as we judge a man’s career. As Mr. Giuliani said in a press conference soon after the withdrawal, “It doesn’t take away from Bernie’s heroism. It doesn’t take away from his decency. … He made a mistake. It cost him a job.”