Americans have grown apart from the rest of the world. Most of our sports are not played in most other parts of the world. We call it Soccer and not Football on the gridiron. We don’t use the metric system except in the academic sciences. We even have a political system that is unique in the electoral college. Just about everywhere else you usually have a parliament modeled from European democracy. So why do we demand to be so unique?
It’s something about the fact that we usually detest the government and live on the rights of the individual. Governments in other parts of the world have no bill of rights commonly. While there usually is a patchwork of rights across many nations around the globe, and our founding over 200 years ago was to set us on a different path.
This is not to say that Americans have always disliked government. During the Great Depression and World War II and its immediate aftermath there was more trust in government than usual for Americans. At the time it was the private sector which was the enemy in the minds of most voters. This is what led to the progressive movement and the lock on Congress for the Democrats for around 40 years starting in 1955. It seemed Americans wanted government.
This changed. Vietnam and the Kennedy assassination left many who trusted the government and fought for the end of global fascism against their children who feared being sent into a bloody pointless war. Boomers found out on television if the lottery called them to service and possible death in combat. What’s more, a best selling book found discrepancies in how the government divulged the case of the Kennedy assassination.
For the Baby Boomers, there was a fight against the government and even against the thought process of their parents who stood in the face of Hitler and imperial Japan during the Second World War. This was the beginning of the process that has led to where we are today in trust of government. Then came the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
9/11 was a seminal event that brought the country together as no event had since Pearl Harbor. In the immediate aftermath of the toxic cloud that descended over New York, President George W Bush reached the record approval rating of 91%. This was a nation that was headed towards war. A war that might have included the entire Middle East was planned. The taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan was the first step and didn’t seem to be the only step we were going to take given the level of terrorism and carnage that occurred that day.
Then the President decided to bring the war to Iraq. This was a nation that was ruled by a ruthless dictator. A nation that would easily fall to coalition troops and become a beacon to democracy in the Middle East. It was even thought in some circles that the conflict would make Iraq a Middle Eastern South Korea that would start a movement of democracy across the region.
We all know now that is not what happened. The Iraq soon fell apart. What’s even more stunning is that the purpose for the war were based on lies. By the end of the Bush administration in 2008, Americans had lost trust in their government again. The failure of the occupation and lies left many Americans in doubt of trusting anything the government stated. It also ended in failure due to the planning or misplanning of Iraqi democracy.
Without the candidacy of Howard Dean, and later the acceptance of the platform by John Kerry, things could have gone very wrong. The uniform acceptance of the war could also have caused a uniform unacceptance of a failed campaign. In other words, you might have had a Vietnam opposition that could have broken apart the country. Politically, it made America rise to the challenge that we could handle the attacks of 9/11 without a failure of democracy itself which was preserved. This was a large victory for a nation that might have lost its very essence in the light of all these events.
Without free speech the failure of the occupation could have led to a failure of the American government itself in my opinion. There would be no voice for opposition in the democratic system itself. It is hard to imagine but we could have also be dealing with fascism in America as well with the “permanent Republican majority” planned after a successful occupation. This is difficult ground to tread but not opposing the war in any shape or form is an even scarier prospect.
Therefore, we now live in divided government again mainly due to this chain of events. We also now have a distrust in government given the messaging of the Bush administration. With the opposition to the war to coalescing, the American system continued intact with the caveat that the war effort would not be harmed as it was in Vietnam. Even if it led to distrust in government that happened as the Iraq debacle unfolded. The fact remains now we live in divided government with a distrust of official “facts” that the government tells Americans. We were lied to. We lost trust.
While the Obama administration returned some trust back to government, it also brought about the rise of Donald Trump. As a reality television star, Donald Trump was notably lauded during the White House Correspondence dinner in 2011. An event where he was ruthlessly insulted by President Obama and known for another piece of history. During that dinner the President was also in touch with the situation room about the soon to be successful assassination of Osama bin Laden.
This led to the backlash that was brought by Donald Trump during his campaign. A campaign from a man who, like Obama, didn’t support the Iraq War. Donald Trump was also not a complete patriot and criticized the government with quotes like “are we that innocent?”. This was a wave of libertarianism and anti government sentiment that ultimately brought him to the White House. This also led to widespread distrust in government. The progressives on the left were disenchanted with the Iraq War. Now conservatives were joining the MAGA ethos of anti government sentiment.
Then there was a massive public health crisis where a lack of trust in government brought by Trump and traditional American sentiment became a very serious situation. The COVID crisis was a time of confusion and mistrust. Even the thought of social distancing and mask wearing were rejected by some of the American people.
Instead of following the advice of medical professionals like Dr. Fauci which spearheaded the response, he became a villain. Treatments that didn’t have medical backing were offered. At one point, the President of the United States suggested people drink bleach. Even hospitalized patients who were dying of COVID would state that it was a lie before they breathed their last breath.
Therefore, trust in government is at the mercy of events. When Americans are rising to a challenge they usually accept that challenge. The challenge of fighting Hitler or even King George III in the actual American Revolution. The challenge of preserving Democracy even in the face of terror. Yet, sometimes being skeptical is warranted. We have also been lied to and manipulated by imperfect leaders. So what is best?
Is it right to trust government or right to be mistrustful? Is the government only about its own good or for the good of all? It depends on the individual, but the certain thing is that we live in a democracy. A fact that itself became debatable in 2020. Without a peaceful transition of power, things can be lost in the process. Powerful things.
What are those things? Losing the right to oppose conflict and even restrictions or mandates that can turn into tyranny. The situation after 9/11 could have quickly shifted to this. On the other end, the situation of the 2020 contested election is a sign of what happens not if you trust government too much, but too little. There is a healthy balance and the integrity of the political process is paramount. It is the basis of the entire system of government and above all must be maintained for the sake of America itself.
We live in a world of different forms of government with different trust levels. Therefore, the need for foreign examples is not something one has to look for at great depth. As a viewpoint, I will go outside the American government and I will offer China as an example. In China, there is a collective spirit that is much different from the West and citizens largely trust their government and in no uncertain terms citizens must obey.
In China algorithms search the web and monitor any political speech even on Chinese equivalents of Twitter/X and offer bonuses for those who speak positively of the government. This might be seen as dreadful by Americans but there are advantages. Public works projects tend to be on time and on budget. Technological progress is more seamless when there is a collective spirit. These are the advantages of a system like that seen in China.
Of course, the problem with absolute control by the government is obviously the fact that it is repressive. The rights of the Chinese citizen are almost non existent. I couldn’t write this paper in China without authorities processing me and deciding my fate without due process or human rights guarantees. This is the problem of absolute authority. It gives arbitrary control of a government completely over its people. The way of life suffers more for the individual due to human rights being trounced.
In most of the West, you can believe what you want to believe. This is a freedom that gets taken for granted. This is probably also the largest reason to not trust the government. When you are not allowed to practice your own faith for instance you are living in a level of repression that no individual should have to endure. Making your faith a secret and punishable by the government was common practice in the USSR and therefore being mindful is definitely an advantage. The government telling you what to say or believe leads to tyranny.
Of course, there are times when the government needs to be trusted in certain forms such as the the disinformation that has proliferated on the internet. These problems are probably the biggest arch when it comes to trust and distrust. There are two main points I will make about this issue. The first is the fact that foreign governments and some internal actors have the “mens rea” or harmful intent to damage the democratic government purposefully with fake news and psychological warfare. Second is the fact that obviously the government doesn’t always tell the truth.
We know that countries like Russia used to devote extremely large resources to KGB disinformation campaigns. The employees of these bureaus went to over 100,000 agents in some estimates. There is even a KGB file library today with around 1,500 employees. This is the level of resources that Russia places on its campaigns for hearts and minds which continue today. Therefore, we know the existence of misinformation is very real. The fact is that Russia is only a piece of the puzzle as well. There are other actors. Only taking the Russian example, this is the level of their operations. It is of no small consequence that we can factually say that disinformation and foreign interference does exist.
But should we only trust the government then? What about the mainstream news? Obviously, completely trusting everything you read is probably also not the whole story. Just like the discrepancies of the Kennedy assassination story that became a best seller in the 1960s. Also, if you don’t act with skepticism, then real rights can be taken. This is the biggest problem with always accepting the government’s story. It can easily lead to tyranny.
This is not the entire story when it comes to free expression in my view. There are situations where freedom can cause great harm to others. This is called the harm principle in political philosophy. It was first brought as a philosophy traditionally by John Stuart Mill in his work “On Liberty” in 1859. It simply states that we should have freedom to the level until it harms others. This is a guiding principle that must be remembered when we direct democratic rights.
The Hippocratic Oath also states “first do no harm”. It is recited by every medical student when they officially become doctors. This should also be the guiding principle in political discourse as well when we interact in a free society. Do no harm and you will also probably have more success in your efforts than if you become forceful. Politics can be difficult but so is the lack of rights that doesn’t allow for opposition.
Therefore, the best society would be one where we could trust the government. In reality though usually we can’t completely. That’s the correction that must be made by the people who should rule sovereign. The consent of the governed is a guiding principle that requires trust sometimes and skepticism at other times. This will keep the government responsive and accountable. That’s the best we can do. For freedom to be preserved.