Obama and other politicians speak of “a deficit of trust” in governmental institutions.
I have a little, old, dog. She is little enough and old enough that I generally can (must) carry her through the halls of my building, and out through the small back yard, until we get to the public sidewalk, before I can put her down without fear of prohibited incident.
I carry my dog on this journey like a baby, legs up. She is incredibly passive in my arms, motionless through the bounces of the few flights of stairs, through the turns in the hall and yard, through the plunge into the frigid winds of lower Manhattan. Her stillness seems to reflect an absolute faith that, as her person, the one who feeds and shelters and takes care of her, I will do the right thing by her, carrying her to her appointed spots, not dropping, dislodging, or otherwise discombulating.
People are not really like dogs. (Some may find this unfortunate.) Yet the bases for trust are similar—a relationship or experience of a person or institution that gives rise to a feeling that the trusted one is competent, well-meaning, and that the relationship is beneficial, even necessary, for the trustor’s well-being.
A belief in competence is paramount. My dog is downright wiggly in unsure hands. Babies are often like that too, fussing and crying when they sense inexperience.
Many adults do not seem to have an innate gauge of competence. (Many voted for George W. Bush, for example. Twice.) Still, they must, at least, believe in competence.
Integrity’s important too, a lack of scandal. But integrity is really a part of meaning well, of the trusted one looking out for the trusting.
Then there’s the question of benefits. And necessity. My dog (children too) trust me even when I have to do painful things to them, such as cleaning that yucky eye hair (that’s in the case of my dog), in part because they have been acutely aware of all I have provided– food, shelter, college tuition (that’s in the case of my children). It’s not as if the benefits are a quid pro quo for the painful treatment; it’s more that the benefits somehow prove that the painful treatment is not arbitrary or mean, but a necessary part of taking care. (Different versions of trust based on necessity/desperation arise in the case of a plumber, doctor, accountant.)
Because benefit/necessity is so important to maintaining trust, it’s difficult to understand how government can engender it simply by cutting taxes. For trust to be felt, value must be provided, not just reduced expense.
Of course, the urge for endless tax-cutting arises in part because of a disbelief in government competence. Then too, many refuse to believe that government benefits reach them. (These kinds of people shout that the government should “keep its hands off their Medicare.”)
Others simply don’t see a need for government. (I don’t know how these people plan to provide for fire departments, child labor laws, clean air and water.)
What to do? In order for a “deficit of trust” in government to be filled, people have to be convinced that a more secure, stable, educated, and unpolluted society is a particular benefit to them, a necessity for the future, and something government is capable of helping to provide.
A tall order.
Of course, getting rid of the scandals would help too.
ManicDDaily 
Recent Comments