[mikemike]

Is it just me or is skepticism of the government higher than normal or trust in government low?

It seems that with the patriot act, FISA, birthers, health care push back, federal reserve criticism, bailouts, demand for OBL death pictures and video, and other things the distrust is the highest I can remember. I actually trust Obama more than Bush and Cheney when it comes down to what is really important, civil liberties, although I don't trust him on budgetary issues although I didn't trust Bush in that regard either.

The funny thing is that at least for me on the local and state level we are getting much more honest and responsible government after decades of corruption but it seems that the crooks have made their way to washington. Maybe this kind of thing goes in cycles.

I have always been a cynic so its kind of normal for me feel like this but it seems the feeling is much more broad based. I have always liked the aphorisms that you shouldn't make a organization that an idiot couldn't run because eventually an idiot will be in charge (paraphrasing from Warren Buffet) and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. It seems like too much power is being concentrated in the hands of a few idiots.

[Nesster]

Let's do a quick exam of past presidents:
LBJ? Certainly his Viet Nam war policies divided the country and there was a lot of mistrust
Nixon? If LBJ was bad, Nixon's transgressions destroyed pretty any trust that was left
Ford? feh
Carter? Had the no-win position of coming after Nixon and during his time our trust in our ability to manage even external affairs went plunging
Reagan? Brought back trust, at least in the sense of confidence and optimism, but had a couple of things not so great
Bush Sr? lost the trust of True Republican Reaganites - and progressives during his and Reagan's years didn't much trust what was going on
Clinton? Now it was the Reaganite Republicans turn to howl, and depending on your politics what resulted was a sad farce or an absolute necessity... Yet irritatingly or gratifyingly the country seemed to actually work during these years.
Bush Jr? Now it was the Democrats turn to howl, and depending on your politics etc. Irritatingly the country seemed to stop working and start bubbling during those years.

I would also note that during this period, many who were swept into office as outsiders or with promises to clean up government... ended up doing just the opposite.

Finally, maybe it is the forceful market driven messaging we're subjected to these days that has to blow everything up as fodder for the 24 hour news and blog cycle.

[jeffkrol]

Not so great thing................

While President Ronald Reagan was a supporter of the Contra cause,[7] no conclusive evidence has been found showing that he authorized the diversion of the money raised by the Iranian arms sales to the Contras.[3][4][8] Handwritten notes taken by Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger indicate that Reagan was aware of potential hostages transfers with Iran, as well as the sale of Hawk and TOW missiles to "moderate elements" within that country.[9] Oliver North, one of the central figures in the affair, wrote in a book that "Ronald Reagan knew of and approved a great deal of what went on with both the Iranian initiative and private efforts on behalf of the contras and he received regular, detailed briefings on both." Mr. North also writes: "I have no doubt that he was told about the use of residuals for the Contras, and that he approved it. Enthusiastically."[10] North's account is difficult to verify because of the secrecy that still surrounds the scandal.

After the weapon sales were revealed in November 1986, Reagan appeared on national television and stated that the weapons transfers had indeed occurred, but that the United States did not trade arms for hostages.[11] To this day, it is unclear exactly what Reagan knew and when, and whether the arms sales were motivated by his desire to save the U.S. hostages. Notes taken December 7, 1985, by Defense Secretary Weinberger record that Reagan said that "he could answer charges of illegality but he couldnt answer charge [sic] that 'big strong President Reagan passed up a chance to free hostages.'"[9] The investigation was impeded when large volumes of documents relating to the scandal were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan administration officials.[12] On March 4, 1987, Reagan returned to the airwaves in a nationally televised address, taking full responsibility for any actions that he was unaware of, and admitting that "what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages."[13]

Several investigations ensued, including those by the United States Congress and the three-man, Reagan-appointed Tower Commission. Neither found any evidence that President Reagan himself knew of the extent of the multiple programs.[3][4][8] In the end, fourteen administration officials were indicted, including then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. Eleven convictions resulted, some of which were vacated on appeal.[14] The rest of those indicted or convicted were all pardoned in the final days of the George H. W. Bush presidency; Bush had been vice-president at the time of the affair.[15] Some of those involved in the Iran–Contra scandal who were convicted of felonies and subsequently pardoned later became members of the administration of George W. Bush.[16]

Leaves us w/ smoke and mirrors and Oligarchs in control of our government...... And felons in the gov.........
SIGH.............

[shooz]

I would have to say, still more than I trust corporations.
I trusted it even more before the corporations bought it.

[GeneV]

I would have to say, still more than I trust corporations.
I trusted it even more before the corporations bought it.

That is really the choice, unfortunately.

[Nesster]

It is true, as I think about this - as a citizen of a large multi national corporation, I have learned what management will lie about or omit, and what are the artificial 'culture' overlays that consultant-influenced management attempts to instill top-down... and also, absent any sociopathy, what management is good about and usually as honest and communicative as circumstances allow.

I've also seen (re. the finally found the answer thread) how one's sense of scale and problems changes as one's income and influence goes up. It's not that one loses one's empathy or caring, it's that one simply no longer shares the problem of meeting housing costs each month, say, and thus really has no idea what effect a pay cut, say, will have on people.

And the concerns of the very wealthy are yet different than those of the merely well to do.

And, I realize that as I apply the above to government, the same model works.

[jolepp]

I would have to say, still more than I trust corporations.
I trusted it even more before the corporations bought it.

I suppose the idea is that the electorate keeps an eye on the government officials it votes into office. As such, this should work well enough (and what else is there?). A substantial problem arises from corporate power / interests affecting the elections as well as the elected officials themselves (behind the scenes). The most important single aspect of this would seem to be campaign contributions. Maybe there should be one more branch to the division of state powers where the decisions (laws, e.g. pertaining to campaign contributions) concerning the interests of the legislators themselves would be made by a separate elected body dedicated for this purpose (with draconian restrictions to campaigns for there offices?).

[wildman]

"How Much Do You Trust The Government"

To do what?

[K7Man]

_________________________________

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.

This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking,

we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”

_____

From ‘Propaganda’ by Edward Bernays (named one of Life Magazine’s 100 most influential people of the 20th Century).


__

[newarts]

How Much Do You Trust The Government

I suspect that much of what my government representatives tell me is at best misleading. Unfortunately, absent data and information derived from it one cannot know truth.

The problem is especially severe when those doing the talking have an ideological mantra to defend. Everything is spun and twisted to support a talking point, avoid embarrassment, or deflate a critic. Data is twisted to support theory not to refute it or provide alternatives.

This behavior is endemic in the species and not unique to government; the only solution is sunshine and broadly written and enforced rules of behavior, both of which we are lacking.

Some government agencies are reasonably trustworthy I suppose; I think the Census people don't consciously lie to us for example. Regulatory agencies are more prone to being untrustworthy due to personal agendas or at least sloth.

On the other hand I think most people in our government tell us what they hope might be true; unfortunately there's little correlation between wishes and truth.

[newarts]

Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

I doubt it; we are all far too clumsy and stupid to pull such a thing off. The "unseen mechanism" to which you refer lies in plain sight; over-simplified ideologies that drift here and there driven by advertising of "Brand Name Ideologies" and essentially amoral behavior writ large.

[jogiba]

Do you trust the police ? Do you trust the Military ? Do you trust your Doctor ? Do you trust your religious leaders ? Do you trust ......

[ihasa]

No I think Bernays was pretty close to the mark. Look how all those corporations have connections to shady foundations like americans for prosperity. It's bizarre to see people like k7man attacking Obama in the face of this corporate onslaught. Classic misdirection.

[newarts]

Do you trust the police ? Do you trust the Military ? Do you trust your Doctor ? Do you trust your religious leaders ? Do you trust ......

I trust they will usually do what they think is the right thing as filtered though personal glasses fogged by expectations, fears, hopes, ideologies, and who is paying them.

[GeneV]

It is true, as I think about this - as a citizen of a large multi national corporation, I have learned what management will lie about or omit, and what are the artificial 'culture' overlays that consultant-influenced management attempts to instill top-down... and also, absent any sociopathy, what management is good about and usually as honest and communicative as circumstances allow.

I've also seen (re. the finally found the answer thread) how one's sense of scale and problems changes as one's income and influence goes up. It's not that one loses one's empathy or caring, it's that one simply no longer shares the problem of meeting housing costs each month, say, and thus really has no idea what effect a pay cut, say, will have on people.

And the concerns of the very wealthy are yet different than those of the merely well to do.

And, I realize that as I apply the above to government, the same model works.

Large, publicly held, multinational corporations are more like governments than they are like the corner hot dog stand. We are really talking about a choice between two kinds of governments.