Trust the Government
 

I said this in another thread:
"For what it's worth, I trust my government and I do not mistrust those in power unless they give me reasons to do so. Those would have to be far more significant than the reasons typically referred to.

The common mistrust of government and of those in power is corrosive to both self and society."

.....................................................

I do see the fashion of mistrusting the government to be in large part unfounded. I know many of the reasons given sound defensible. However, I get a sense this attitude of mistrust goes much farther than any possible evidence could justify. This leads me to conclude that it is really carried on for psychological reasons that have very little to do with whether our safety, security, and common good are being provided for and protected.

And, in the end, I see mistrust of government as being just another way that we are eroding the very foundations which give us civilized life.

Re: Trust the Government
 

I disagree. Power corrupts, and the only way to ensure that a people will not be taken advantage of by a corrupt government is to question everything they do.

US citizens have an amazing amount of freedom, and the only people that are able to take them away is the US government.

Personally I distrust the government and it is not because we have....

" very little to do with whether our safety, security, and common good are being provided for and protected."

Rather I distrust them because if the American people do not question the acts of the government and analyze their actions then the government will take advantage of the ignorance of the masses. My distrust is to keep them honest. Do not get me wrong, I love my country, but they have manipulated the American people before and I would not be surprised if they did it again.

I do see your view point on this issue and I hope you found mine helpful.

Sure. I'm basically trying to encourage a positive and constructive approach to things like this. The fact is - I appreciate all the years of wealth, opportunity, safety, security, and common good I've experienced. I attribute a good bit of that to the fact that I am a citizen of a particular civilized nation with a comparatively quite excellent government. I also see many good people working for government and I am grateful for their work. Very little of it seems to me to be exploitative of anything.

the democratic process depends upon constant questioning of the government we elect to represent us. blind faith in leadership is the means to dictatorship.

as the man says, "in god we trust, all others pay cash."


also, societies do not erode, that is an unqualified statement as far as anthropology, sociology, and ethnography are concerned. therefore, mistrust cannot be corrosive to society per se. these types of reasoning lead to the misuse of terms like "primative" when associated with culture studies, for example.

anytime someone starts talking about how society is degrading or degenerating, you should start walking away from that conversation. what gives us civilized life is spare time, time that we don't have to spend hunting and foraging for food. we get that from division of labor and specialization of skills, plant cultivation and animal husbandry. civilization advances due to the transmission of and accumulation of knowledge.

none of these foundations are at risk. civilization is fine, but it won't ever be static.

Yes, well. I admire your spirited rhetoric.
I said, "eroding the very foundations which give us civilized life."

I didn't say anything that would lead down the paths you've laid out. As I said previously, I'm aware of these defenses. I intended to say something positive about the way of life that supports our freedom to engage in these dialogs.

Thanks.

The rejection and hostility to authority is a natural and healthy human state - the state, historically, has been so riddled with corruption and vice that it has forfitted any trust it may claim, the capitalist state has forfitted the right to exist. Only when we have a society of the government BY the people will we trust again, we will never trust those who govern for the people - we understand that they govern in the self interest only of the ruling class.

Personally, I don't see hostility to anything except an obvious enemy to be something healthy. Do you see what I'm trying to say here?

It is obvious to me that those who wish to exploit me are my enemies I guess.

Yes, I can see how you might feel that way. I guess I just don't think it helps anything to be angry all the time. I'm not saying you are, but sometimes the rhetoric in here gets pretty darn heavy and I wonder about it. I wonder what good really comes of it. I mean does this sort of typing actually change anything?

I'm interested in addressing the relationship between rhetoric and reality I suppose.

I've always considered TFPolitics to be another form of masturbation - satisfying, but in the end it's still you by yourself sitting at your computer. So no, I don't think, beyond pointing out actual misconceptions, any opinions get changed.

I like the avatar, ARTelevision. Old is New, Red White and Blue.

I am also interested in this pheom. Our collective distrust in government..

In the feudal days, people trusted the government (the lord, lady or collective crown) because there was a symbiosis between them. The leader of the people was responsible for defending them, and for looking out for the collective whole. In return, the people worked for that goal. The strengths of the Scottish clans is a good example.. The republic in its original form was the people representing themselves. The government was seperate in the fact that every person did not voice thier opinions, but rather they elected a senator to do so.. The people became the government...

Now with modern democracy the people are no longer represented.. Instead "issues" are represented. (either in the form of special interests or party dogma). The people have become so seperate from the government that alot dont understand it let alone trust it...

Well heck.
Just to further this along, because it does interest me in terms of our general dissatisfaction with - perhaps - our lives in general, that we may be displacing some anxiety and sense of helplessness and hopelessness and projecting it on an easy target.

I mean, as I implied earlier, if one feels "oppressed" then of course one might feel justified in harboring hostility or even lashing out.

Perhaps if I didn't see a bit of these ulterior motives seeping out into this sort of situation, I'd be more open to persuasion...

*Brrrring* Hello?
Uhuh, sure, I'll let him know.

Noble Ceasar! A fellow by the name of Alaric just called. Something about a bag or a sack or something. Said we should make sure we kept lots of cash on hand.

Athropology is overvalued, so is Sociology. Yes, they can both give insight, but they are both largely expressions of the politics of the practitioners as applied the the dynamic tension between the statements "Everyone is more or less alike" and "No two people are the same." Sometimes illuminating, but mostly bullshit. (Archeology excluded. That's forensic history in my book.)

As for trusting the government, I take it as axiomatic that a person who will fight to gain power over others is the one least suited to have that power. Given the nature of our campaigns, we are virtually assured of having the worst possible gang of cynical, self-interested scoundrels imaginable running the place. If they are not watch, question, and harassed at all times, they will sell the country right out from under us. Yes that's a bit hyperbolic, but it is the sense I get from the current occupiers of all three branches of government, by and large, both Democratic and Republican.

Wow - so there's no public-minded citizens in our population? No basically decent people who try - just like the rest of us can be said to try - to take their responsibilities seriously and to do their jobs to the best of their ability?

So there's a view of human nature behind this as well...

Very interesting.
Thanks.

Its very easy to blame the government. It can act as that phantom with which you can always claim is trying to take from you, or lock you up, or turn you into a faceless number, etc. etc. Personally I've never felt a reason to be afraid of such a spectre. I don't hear Ashcroft go bump in the night. I don't turn on the lights when I get home and expect to find Rummy sitting in my easy chair holding a loaded pistol at me. I don't open my eyes in the morning terrified that I might be waking up in Gitmo. I'm well aware that my government will, from time to time, do unethical things, they'll screw up, they'll ruin some people's unfortunately, but the almighty vote will smooth out these wrinkles. If that makes me fall into the old ignorance is bliss pidgeonhole, then so-be-it, while others are out acting out a Kafka novel, I'll be working hard, taking care of myself, voting every election, and doing it all with a smile. Lifes too short to be afraid of the boogieman.

I don't trust the goverment simply because the goverment is made up of people. I don't trust those people any more than i would trust any other group of people whom i have never met. I'm not saying that every public servant is untrustworthy, just that i have little reason to trust the motives of people whom i have never met.

Its not really been a huge issue that my life revolves around. I don't have a closetful of guns just in case the feds try to take me out. I just think that blind faith in any person or group is something to be avoided.

chuckle. good one. :) still, a good example of my case in point: the roman empire fell, but civilization didn't end. cultures and societies simply moved on to other things. i admit 'civilization is ending' talk rankles me these days, the degenerate state of the decadent roman empire is too loosely bandied about by gay marriage mouthpieces who don't know their history or context.

yet the disciplines are the integral foundations of political science, which we discuss here. culture, society, politics. bullshit begets bullshit, perhaps?

right on and well put. it is the self interest of the individuals in government that must be continually questioned and repeatedly challenged. the very nature of our electoral process and party politics seems to serve the people less and less, and special interests and business have figured out how to play it against us too well.

i trust our government, i suppose, if that means trusting our form of government. i am a big fan of its conceptual framework and the machinery of change built into the foundation. it is a flexible, dynamic system that can serve a wide population well for a long period of time.

i do not trust the individuals who are elected to serve within that government. they lie, and history has revealed them time and time again. we now uncover their lies much faster than we have in the past. we trust less, because we have come to expect them to lie to us. and the worst lie of all is that they are serving the people, when they really serve their own self interest.

art, just because we're well off, we shouldn't get complacent, should we?

gibingus, not at all. But being well off sanctions neither cynicism nor a sense of being oppressed. Nor does it become us to bite the hand that feeds us.

Re: Trust the Government
 

I came into this discussion a little late, but I tend to agree that mistrust for mistrust's sake is senseless. I do not, in general, mistrust my government. Perhaps because I have spent some time working in government and in politics. Virtually everyone I know who seeks office does so out of the belief that they can make things better. Yes there are those who serve only self interests, but in my experience they are not the norm.

We often grow suspicious of those whose ideology is different from our own, but this is faulty logic. I can disagree but realize that they are doing what they deem right and just. Rather than simply presuming they are out to undermine the fabric of our nation, perhaps it is better to try and understand their point of view to either learn from it or learn how to oppose it.

Mistrust of government is nothing new, and if fact it is a societal norm. All this being said, a little "revolution" now and then never hurts.

huh, maybe i'm starting to get it. if i am reading you right, it sounds like you just think people are being ingrateful when they express such feelings and concerns.

so, to answer that question (very rumsfeldish of me, huh?) for all the complaining and struggle to continually improve our government, i hope it is not lost on anyone that we have it better today than it has ever been. women and minorities, for instance, have more rights than ever in history, but that doesn't mean that there is no oppression in our society, our cultre or our government.

we need to jealously protect our hard won freedoms. people will always try to impose their views on others, as currently evidenced by the straight majority trying to block the gay minority from the basic human right of marriage.

i love liberty and appreciate how precious it is. the light of liberty is an eternal flame, but that does not mean it can be left to burn untended.

and i think i may possibly view the hand that feeds us from a different perspective than yours. i am one of the many hands that feeds goverment, it does not feed me, nor do i expect or want it to. it serves me because i empower it to do so when i exercise my rights as a citizen.

because i question and challenge the present government, i may be labeled a liberal and unpatriotic by some present on this board. however, i hope you see from these statements that i have no expectations of entitlement and feel that the true definition of patriotism is to put the nation above the state - that is the abstract ideal of america is not necessarily the government that serves it at any one time. this is why those who instigate revolution are called patriots . hardly a 'liberal' stance as it has been painted by such conservatives.

but really, i don't understand the use of the term 'liberal' as a slur. by strict definition, wouldn't we all benefit from being open minded, tolerant and respectful of views and opinions other than ours, and receptive to change and progress? regardless of political parties, that is the basic philosophical framework of our government. i will challenge any democrat as vigorously as i challenge any republican, and i hope everyone else will do the same. many have laid down their lives so that we could do just that, and we honor them by enjoying those rights to the fullest extent. perhaps this is a topic for a new thread?

and art, a somewhat late thanks for the nod to my spirited rhetoric. i love rhetoric just as i love sohpistry and oration, and i sorely miss its presence in our modern political arena where speech writers have attained celebrity and pr handlers carefully place sound bites in politicians' mouths. the great politicians of our past (lincoln, jefferson, and others) were beautiful orators and brilliant thinkers who spoke for themselves, and their words inspired and changed the world. today, rhetoric is used as a dirty word. how we could benefit by cultivating a healthier respect for it and demanding it of our representatives.

Is is Rusfeldish or Rumsfeldian?

I've always felt the US' general distrust of it's government was rather excessive. Perhaps it's just a culture thing, something that grew from the US (anti-UK) civil war? I doubt you'd see such a level of mistrust in my country, for example.

Generally, I'd say that mistrust of the government comes from previous bad examples.

I think (from my Poli-Sci classes) that this happened a little later. My profs always pointed to Watergate as the fall of public opinion of politicians. The true "end of Camelot"

Kicking this one back up for your consideration.
There are some interesting points here.

I'm still wondering what is good about the high level of general cynicism toward trusting the most enlightened and highly progressive govenrments - such as those in the Free World, whatever their stripe. On balance, I trust my government no matter which party is in power.

I do see some reason for the sort of questioning that a lot of people find fashionable and even the justification they give about citizens having some noble duty to question the government - although I think they push it way beyond what is useful or constructive.

1. i do not accept the notion that the material well-being of members of a particular social class functions to legitimate any political structure in general---ideology 1---capitalist governance is about the regulation of social life in general in the interests of a particular class. it pretends to operate in the name of all, but any analysis of the social system reveals this to be false.

actors who occupy positions of privilege within that present order are obviously inclined to support that order. the move to make that support general at any level, by generalizing their own situation to all, making of it something like a normative ground for thinking about how others might percieve that order, is simply a mirror of the dominant ideology.

2. you can confuse formal and substantive freedom quite easily if you reject modes of analyzing the social environment out of hand. it worked for stalinism. it works for americans.

the characterization of sociology posted above, for example, is simply idiotic. it is not uninteresting to think about social identity as constructed across processes of social differentiation, for example. it is not uninteresting to see how these patterns of differentiation function to obscure general questions about the operation of the political status quo. it is not uninteresting to see in these studies of social differentiation the effects of class stratification as they play out in, say, access to cultural capital, to educational capital, how economic class is diffused across cultural questions, how that diffusion tends to obscure the reality of class. it is not uninteresting to find in some sociology a window onto the gap between formal and substantive freedom in the states--- without some kind of window, you could actually come to believe crap like the argument that because in principle actors enjoy the formal possibility of social mobility, that it follows that everyone has equal access to the preconditions for such mobility, and that poverty, inequality, etc. are therefore and necessarily a function of some moral failing on the part of individuals. which works out quite nicely as a mode of self-justification for holders of wealth that derives from the material and cultural options that circulate within the system as a whole--but it says nothing about the system itself, nothing about anything except that those beneficiaries prefer to extend their self-congratulation to all spheres.

conservatives prefer to dissolve thinking about the social, to stay focussed on the level of formal freedom, and to dream about their world on that basis.

simple trust the dominant political system supposes that "everything works itself out in the end"----which is of a piece with the notion that the universe is rational because behind the scenes somewhere a benevolent god pulls all the strings. as a piece of fiction, that position operates quite nicely, but in fact it often functions to justify the inequalities generated by the order, to reduce the space of political thinking or action to nothing, because if history is ordered by some god, what is there to complain about?

there are real problems for nation-states in general that follow from the increasing globalization of capitalism for example--this is a period of extreme uncertainty in all sectors--what is the state to regulate? what happens to the already distorted regime of wealth accumulation that has arisen over the past say 6 decades of capitalism once the systems of economic and political power start to shift away from the nation-state as the center of policy making? "(this list could go on).....in the immediate run, how is the american state to deal with these problems if the worldviews of members of the political class are shaped entirely by the horizons of the nation-state? you can see much of neocon ideology in practice as attempts to run away from these problems by reducing the purview of the political (privatization) and to shift the main focus of the state to questions military (the iraq war a theater of the conflict between the american state and international or transnational institutions that are symbolized, accurately or not no matter, this is american damn it...)

at the same time, it is obvious that these are incoherent as responses. what to do then? assume the rational universe theory, assume that everything will work out in a way that does not affect you?

there are **real** problems, **real** questions to be considered if you like anything about the existing order of things. people should be informed, they should debate, they should think--if they dissent, they should articulate that dissent, put it out into the public domain, argue their position. and why not?

How are these for examples:

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:


1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,


2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,


3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,


4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,


5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

=============================================

Additionally, I read the other day that 47% of US children are born into "poverty." Not sure if "poverty" means lack of cable TV.

In my life, I've never gone wrong by following the money. When 47% of US children are raised to believe they are entitled to money taken from the rest of us, what do you think the end result will be?

Wow, if you think the US mistrusts its government, you should check out Australia. Its almost as though we lividly hate all our politicians, and we are deeply suspicious and scepticle of everything they say and do. This is both a good thing and a bad thing. I think it is ingrained through our convict heritage aswell as the huge proportion of anti-authoritarian Irish who imigrated to this nation in the early days. This type of cultural behaviour even has a name over here 'the tall poppy syndrome' (ie. If you stick your neck out you will get cut down to size). Generally speaking, we hate arrogance in any form, loathe being ordered around and always support the underdog. Somehow though, this hasnt kept us being involved in large conflicts all over the world for the last 200 years. In fact, for our size we have lost more men on forign soil than any other nation. Our small, but highly regarded film industry could never produce a film like Air Force One, because the thought of our PM being a super action hero would be laughed at long and hard. Personally ive always thought that the patriotism that the US seems to hold for its politicians is a romantic and admirable thing. Maybe sometimes though there is a bit too much glitz and a bit too much pomp and glamour. I guess youve gotta be sure youve got the right person(s) representing you.

I find it amusing that people distrust their government to this degree. I find it hard to believe that of all the processes that the government involved in only a few are enough to cause such alarm. Basically what I am saying is: Out of the million things that the gowernment does on a daily basis if 5 are bad and get media attention then we should believe that the government is corupt and distrust it. Yes there are dishonest people in government, but to have an unhealthy distrust for the entire establishment is completely paranoid (IMO).

I am much more critical if the cell phone industry or used car salesmen, out of the 100 deals that they make they completely screw 5 people (and they do it maliciously). Who would you rather deal with?

Your statements are overwhelmingly correct, Boo.
...
As for theoretical and philosophical discussions on the true nature of human freedom - they make interesting reading, roachboy, but - I'm addressing socio-political realities in the context of world history.

It would seem to me that the distrust here, is not of the government in its entirety. The issue I have seen stems from the belief that the top three officials in our current administration act as if they are either corrupt, of incompetent. The government of the United States is , in my opinion, currently the most productive and freedom loving availible.
That said.....I simply do not trust the president, or his administration to do the job before them, in a way that protects the rights and well bieng of myself, or those I love.

The cynicism people have about governement is a symptom of the mistrust modern people have for their neighbors. The people who trust and put faith in others as a default are more likely to give the government the benefit of the doubt. In effect, personal experience and values ae coloring our perceptions of not just the government but also each other. It's a bleak world out there today, probably because we make it so.

The way I see it, the government will interfere with our ability to know or understand that which they do not believe we ought to know or understand, and I've enver seen or heard a thing that would suggest overall that their ability to discern between good and the unacceptable bits of information is paranoia inducingly flawed.

I believe the key word is in fact "paranoia" - because fear of the US Government, including this or any other administration is unreasonable. No one here has had any freedom curtailed by this government have they?

I'm sure some will announce some minor curtailment of their freedom which is so abstract that it can not possibly justify the rhetoric - and yet, there will be no list compiled of the extensive number of human freedoms we all exercise every day. So I suppose it is paranoia plus a lack of appreciation that's behind this malady.

Is it really so hard to say constructive things about our way of life, our government and administration?

Since this issue is far more important than who is in the White House and which party or part of the spectrum is represented in government, I have an odd hope that their candidate wins the Presidency again. I will personally demonstrate how one can be supportive and appreciative and constructive about our government and its administration.

You can have my word on that and come November, you may even have the proof.

Why do I feel this way? Because this negative, cynical, and fashionable alienation from our ongoing political reality is damaging to our spirit, cohesiveness, and morale.

I know who our enemies are - and they are not in our government.

Man, I wish I had more time to post on this right now, but I don't. I'll have to come back later and see how the discussion fares. However, quickly I would like to throw out for consideration that I think that it's not only a mistrust of the American government, but a mistrust of all of the institutions of power existing - this would be the government, large business concerns and corporations, and other politico-sociological institutions such as the various religious instituations (I think respect for the Catholic Church has taken a little hit recently, for example). I think that one large reason contributing to this pervasive sense of distrust is attributable to the explosion in technology and the raw amount of access to information about individuals and control/access to their lives that never existed before. I think that this new age of Information Technology also gives the citizen a feeling of being deluged by information on all sides, such that he or she can not trust anything. There are no longer two sides to every story - there are ten. I think that we are in a period of adjustment, and that distrust is a natural reaction. I also think that a much larger portion of the American populace is educated than at any time in the past, and we are trained to question everything. I personally think this is a healthy attitude, but not the point that it makes you cold and cynical in every aspect of your life.

In short I would argue that a healthy distrust in our government is the responsibility of the American citizen, and although I don't have time to dig up quotes right now, I believe that I can find a number of them from Founding Fathers expressing just the same sentiments. I've been thinking about this a good bit since some of these Patriot Act threads kicked up. I guess I would essentially sum up a lot of things I would like to take the time to write with the old adage "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" and follow by saying that I think that most people have the feeling that our government has more power now than ever before. Whether this is true or not is another topic of debate, but everyone can see the Man over his shoulder.

Yes I'm aware of the quotes - there are many.

It's clear what is meant and what is not meant by such statements.These statements are not a license for negativity or bitter partisanship. They are not a carte blanche to bash a government or administration beyond all reason. They are not an excuse for paranoia.

The actionable point in my statement was the call for concrete examples of ways in which any freedoms have been taken away from individuals who post here. I'd like to see the list of grievances rather than the usual complaints from the usual partisan suspects.

With a very small percentage of eligible US citizens voting, I distrust the Government because we do not use our power to influence it effectively. Also, many decisions in government are influenced by the campainge contributions from the big corporations which, in my opinion, actually run our government.

Everyone has their own level of trust with the government - some trust it completely, others do not one bit, others are so-so

And even then they have their own reasons...

But for me? What do I see? I think it as natural to question those in authority. When one feels they have been lied to or injustices have occured that have not been brought to light, one begins to lose trust.

Watergate really lowered public trust in government - people realized they had been lied to. A glimpse at the tapes of Nixon revealed the real side of people running government. People then realized that there was more to it.

As for the U.S. general distrust of government - I think its a natural part of living in the U.S. Its true that much of its history has been in trust of the government, but, put it this way too - how much government was there back then?

Government has grown big in the last 50 years and indeed even efforts to cut it have only made it larger in the end. America was long founded on individualism and independence.

Simply put, living on a farm back then, one did not ever see the government. Maybe the mail once in a while, and most people were free of the government. Now that people have contact everyday with some insitution of government, one does begin to distrust those in power when one feels wronged or injusticed. Americans are naturally independent people and when they feel there are people controlling them, that rubs them the wrong way.

Well, at least that's my take... and yes I do support questioning the government to make sure its not corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And, once the government takes power away from the people, it will NEVER relinquish it.

I fully agree with Conclamo and Boo...

let me try to break things down for you, art--my apologies if my way of writing made what i was trying to say seem too abstract--but then again, you seem to be in adjudication mode yourself here, so i assume that being designated abstract means being marginalized....so one more try....

i am not sure, ultimately, what you mean by "trust the government"---trust is too often a synonym for passive acceptance, or a passivity legitimated with reference to some god. these days, trust the gvt would seem to entail accepting the current largely conservative ideology along with it, checking your intellect at the door in exchange for a flag, etc.

as for government, here too it is unclear--the state? which? all its functions, obvious and near-invisible? the delivery of services? the redistribution of wealth? does the system of social reproduction count as part of "government"? the various institutions of social control (e.g. the church, television, etc.)

when you think about government, are you thinking about the particular bureaucratic institutions, or do you include an idea of social reality, social consequences in your picture? do you really think you can consider the state apart from the social environments it interacts with? on what basis?

when you think about politics, governance, how do you define the terms? are you really thinking about anything? how do you know? a common sense notion of government is a ideological notion.....does trust mean that you are willing to have your understanding of "reality" sliced and diced and rearranged by the shifts in political wind? and why would you do that? because thinking is "corrosive of the self and society"?

these are not abstract questions, art--they get to the heart of things "in world history"--itself an absurd abstraction--why not think more about the immediate american situation?
since i work as a historian myself, i have a fair notion that when you collapse into a "common sense" understanding of the basic terms for analysis, you evacuate anything that you might have to say of interest---that "reality" is not something given in advance---that what you say and how you say it matter very much in staging a view of the past, of the present....there is no obvious, immediate definition of anything in the social world.

thinking is hard sometimes. it requires that you sift through your premises, check information, experiment with arguments, be willing to admit that you are wrong. being critical of the regime under which you live requires that you think--more often than not, to try to maintain a position that enables you to at least try to get a view of what is happening around you....in the states, you try to remain coherent in the face of the narcotizing influence of the vast american ideological apparatus that would reduce your world to a series of vacant slogans and divert your thinking to questions of which consumer durable to buy--to counter these require some effort, some struggle---and the result of these operations will often put you in opposition--i would say that if by trust the government you mean allow yourself to be lulled to sleep by the fact of your having benefitted by the way the current system is working, to substitute "it works for me" for analysis, then no i do not trust it, i would not know how to.

paraphrasing someone famous, an unconsidered life is not worth living, even in the context of nice things, a nice residence, etc. this gets to very personal things, that i would be happy to talk about--but am wary of getting shoved off to the side again and ultimately just talking to myself, so will stop here for the moment.

Yes, thanks for the lecture. My use of "abstract" might have been better discussed as "airy abstractions" or "tenuous, moot, philosophical, and not pragmatic notions of human freedom."

My statements hold up well as regards a reading of US and World History. I don't discuss things in the manner which you suggest. I appreciate your historical perspective. I don't apply the same sort of analysis at all.

My statements here are intentionally simple - aimed at US Citizens and not necessarily historians. The vast record of the US Government being trustworthy is clear from the weight of evidence, I believe. The several times the US Government has not been "trustworthy" are statistically insignificant in the large scheme of things.

Also, the idea that the government owes its citizens accurate information is not a position I espouse. I expect some information from the government, but not much. All the platitudes of a "well-informed citizenry" fall on deaf ears to me. They carry implications that are consistently misconstrued and are often used as rationales that would cripple any government in dealing with real politics - especially on a geopolitical basis.

This being the case, what I'm suggesting here is that it is a far better choice for a good citizen to trust our government than to not do so. I'm interested in constructive attitudes. As I have stated in several places on this forum, I will trust my government no matter which party or part of the spectrum holds power. I trust the Constitution and the constitutional checks and balances that are in place to steer our ship of state.

well, I was under the impression that a part of the discussion that you started here Art was to query as to why so many Americans have a strong sense of distrust for their government. So I was attempting to explain one of the reasons that I have come accross in my own thoughts, and in tallking to others.

Off the top of my head : actionable point of explicit freedoms taken away or excluded : Sex, Drugs and Rock 'n Roll.

Second, I believe that the substitution of "list a number of freedoms that the government has taken from you" and "list reasons why you don't trust the government" is straw man argumentation.

Well, it's a comparative argument.

In any event, not to make light of your assertion, but it looks like Sex, Drugs and Rock 'n Roll flourish to the point of excess here...

there are no pragmatic notions of freedom, art.
freedoms are defined legally. notions of pragmatic freedom are derivative. you will never get anywhere trying to understand the world around you---and it is on that basis that any coherent answer to your initial questions would rest---if you limit yourself to effects (pragmatic definitions). you confine yourself to turning in a very small circle.

"a reading of US and world history"? huh? which? what are you talking about?

i still dont understand what you mean by trust in this instance...could you explain it more please?

as for the raison d'etat argument--well fine, i agree with you on that--but i dont remember having made anything like the claim you seem to impure to me above, that the state is required somehow to be transparent to the public--how could it be when it is not transparent to itself?

finally, if the american "ship of state" (whatever the hell that is) has managed to not collpase into utter incoherence, it is largely a function of a mobilized and informed citizenery acting to force change. that information is not derived from the state is axiomatic. that the constitutional system is open to such change is one advantage the american system has--but this one feature is not enough on its own, and it certainly not a reason to go passive in the present based on a (seemingly arbitrary) version of american history.

as for my tone (the lecture swipe) well....i think when i try to write in shorthand, i generate the appearance of lecturing. i dont mean to do it, really, but there we are. no offense on that score intended either in this case or any other. to my horror sometimes, it appears that i write that way. maybe even talk that way.

Roachboy is right in pointing out that the thesis of this thread is ill-defined. There are as many reasons for mistrust of the "government" as there are citizens. Some people don't trust the police, others the IRS. What does an environmental activist's distrust of Bush's EPA have to do with a UFO theorists anti-Air Force ramblings? You can talk about broad social trends, but I was under the impression that we were focusing on historical "realities."

What, exactly, are we talking about here? Let's here some examples. Some posters mentioned "poverty," so does that mean the poor's traditional distrust of government? Artelevision's earlier mention of the November elections and the lack of praise for the Bush administration leads me to think that he is obliquely referring to the recent arguments about "irrational" citizens who "hate" Bush. If so, I must say that I find it a bit unreasonable to require me to praise a politician who seems to stand at polar opposites to 99% my beliefs, beliefs that were formed long before Bush came into office.

Art goes on to denigrate the idea of the "well-informed citizenry." Well, if a well-informed citizenry is crucial to the proper functioning of a democracy, doesn't it stand to reason that the lack of one produces an unhealthy democracy? To be frank, the idea that government should operate in secret is an unamerican one. Thomas Jefferson wrote that "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance." How are citizens supposed to make a reasonable estimate of the value of their government if they are not privy to the details of it's operation? I also find the notion that the government should always be trusted a naive one that fails to take into account the fluid nature of democracy. Yes, checks and balances exist to mantain a baseline of functional democracy, but such mechanisms can be circumvented or removed entirely. Witness the ballooning power of the executive this and last century. It says in the Constitution that only Congress has the power to declare war, yet the United States has not declared war on any of our enemies since WWII. Why have the checks and balances not corrected this?

No problem, roachboy, I do it too.

I prefer not to argue your points. I value your thoughts.
To me the issue of human freedom is a philosophical discussion.

I've stated my general views. As I'm not a professional historian, I can understand your urging a somewhat more analytical approach to these subjects. Ultimately this is a question for each citizen to decide for him/herself.

I note an implicit elitism in your methodology- especially in your previous two long entries. To presuppose that your own methodological standards are the sole guarantor of serious thought is quite undemocratic. It's not a big deal, but I'm not about to follow you down that path. I prefer instead to state my views in contrast to yours.

The Price Of Freedom Is Eternal Vigilance

sorry, art I find you point of view extremly naive and dangerous. Power corrupts, so I think our duty is to constantly check if the people who are in power are doing their job. and their job is to serve the people.
You demand blind obedience and forbit any kind of critique. You call it mistrust, I call it observation and control.
What if you wake up too late from your "all will be good" sleep? What if you wake up and see that the goverment used your sleep to build up a totalitarian regime? Would you like to wake up in the fourth reich?

If I had intended to say "blind obedience" I would have said "blind obedience."

Your rhetoric is hyperbole and massive exaggeration.

I made it clear that I trust in the Constitutional checks and balances that are in place.

I find your position to be equally dangerous to the one you erroneously ascribed to me.

You are right to trust in the checks and balances but incorrect in assuming that these mechanisms will alone suffice to preserve liberty. How do the checks and balances apply to a secretive government? One cannot check behavior that is not known. How is the balance of the judiciary affected by extraconstitutional exceptions to due process that are excused under the rubric of "national security?" As I said earlier, these checks and balances must be protected, and that requires an informed citizenry. Of course, these are not original thoughts...they are part of the democratic foundation of this nation.

As far as your "secret government" argument, of course. If something isn't known then you can't do anything about it. Fortunately though there are many ways that things become known. Whistleblowers, investigative reports, congressional investigations, etc are all tools used to uncover abuses.

As far as the statment I quoted above, there is nothing that can remain "extraconstitutional" since the process allows for changes to the constitution and changes to the judges who interpret the constitutionality of given provisos. While these checks and balances take time, changes such as these require time to fully process, be considered, and understood.

and who watches the watchmen?

Sure things can remain extraconstitutional if the congress and the judiciary go along...as I said earlier, witness the President's ability to fight war without congress declaring it. This is only allowed because euphemisms such as "police action" are used. Did anyone else notice the recent White House statement that the President is not subject to law when it comes to matters of national security? I don't seem to remember that power mentioned in the Constitution.

You are right in saying that it can take time for the "checks" to come into play, but that doesn't negate my statement that these protections must be zealously guarded lest they become weakened through legal manipulation.

As for, "and who watches the watchmen," it looks like there are large numbers of people who consider their role to be watchmen watchers. Among these are those who exercise their free expression and the entire range of freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights. Those of you who feel compelled to turn over every stone in pursuit of mistrusting the government will continue to do so, I presume.

The overriding issue of placing one's trust in the U.S. Government is a character issue, I think. If you are not comfortable with such notions, you won't be doing it. If you believe that doing exactly that is one of the hallmarks of good citizenship, then you probably will. The suggested vigilance that keeps being brought up here does not obviate a basic trust. Perhaps you believe that it does.

I trust the Postal Service, I trust Park Rangers, I trust many different departments and branches of my government. I do not trust the totality of the "US Government" in general, as that is far too vague and huge a concept to wrap one's mind around. Once again, it's worth pointing out that this thread is ill-defined and that almost no supporting examples have been named. Just because someone doesn't trust the White House doesn't mean that they have any fear of the highway department.

Art,

Vigilance was brought up because you spoke against the notion of an informed electorate. Others replied accordingly. How do you respond to these arguments?

What does that mean? Who are you talking about? Investigative reporters? Activists? Liberals? I pay close attention to the actions of my government because I want it to be the best government that it can be and I want it to stay true to the principles that it was founded on. Do you really believe that people gather evidence of government wrong-doing simply to fuel their mistrust in some circular vortex of cynicism? Just like you, everyone has an agenda and utilize different methods to achieve it.

It's my belief that this thread is really about attacks on President Bush, but that it is easier to speak of the "distrustful ones" than to get dragged down in policy arguments. When your argument is incredibly vague it is easy to dismiss anyone outright as one of "them." This straw man is beginning to bend under it's own weight.

I just feel, personally - for myself mind you - that I have a role to play in the division of labor that does not include intense scrutiny of the things that are done by my government. I am an engineer and an artist. I don't expect my government to pass all of my personal tests for perfection in execution, nor do I expect to be fully informed on matters that other people are elected and appointed to execute. My experience living in this country and my non-professional reading of history tells me that I can place my faith and trust in my government. That does not include an expectation that everything it does will be perfect.

I'm intentionally avoiding point-by-point disputation here because I feel that this is a character issue and an issue of human values. I'm quite aware that such terms are not part of the modernist or post-modernist cannon.

I believe the kind of mistrust of good government that is so fashionable in the population, as a result of many factors, is deleterious to our overall ability to feel united as a people and as a nation. It may very well have the effect of rendering us unable to execute strategy or warfare effectively.

I see mistrust of government run amok. It's an epidemic and if you don't see it - that's because of how you choose to look at things and how you have been programmed by forces that can render you as simplistic as you accuse me of being.

What we're running up against here is a clash of values. That's why I brought it up and that's why I have chosen to discuss it the way that I am. All of your comments are very welcome and do illuminate the issues well, I think.

I'm looking for your views. I'm not looking to debate those views. As I stated, they are a matter of how you conduct your life. I choose to conduct mine with a healthy respect for and trust in the U.S. Constitution, the system of government, and custodians that issue from it. I have seen nothing that would cause me to approach it with mistrust.

If you aren't willing to discuss the points of others, what is the point of this thread?

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I have been "programmed" by cultural forces. We may just have a difference of opinion that doesn't mean much of anything in the long run. I shouldn't assume that you're a Republican hack, and you shouldn't assume that I'm some sort of character deficient, fashionably cynical, postmodern caricature.
Both views are unfair and add nothing to the argument.

I've been discussing them, haven't I?
I'm not interested in debating them point-for-point or in the manner in which they have been set out. There is more to discussion than debate. There is the statement of personal views, the opportunity to be exposed to the views of others, and so forth. This and other threads here are here for debate for those who enjoy that sort of thing and they are also here for the other reasons I've stated as well as some that have not been stated.

As for the other point. I used the words "can render you" so as to avoid a blanket assertion.

I've noticed in other threads that you like to make very strong statements but rarely address the deluge of responses except to reiterate your original point. I have to admit that it's quite frustrating to produce what I feel is a good argument and then have it completely ignored.

Have you ever thought that the tendency to frame opposing arguments as culture clashes or character issues might be detrimental to an open dialogue or the free flow of ideas? You've mentioned post-modernism as the belief system of those you oppose...what is your belief system?

No. What may in fact be detrimental is this notion of debate that flies here. The majority of the good people on TFP - with their own views on politics - do not venture into this forum and the overwhelming reason they give is the endless and partisan argumentation and "debate" that goes on here is not a sensible, appealing, or attractive thing. This forum is therefore used by a very few of the same people - mostly those who enjoy a very specific and particular kind of point-counterpoint, attack/defend strategy that is not unlike that exhibited by obsessive video-game players.

Because you do not care to address an issue in the manner in which I frame it and because I have no interest in argumentation over points that do not address the basic human level on which I believe this issue exists does not mean that a thread like this has no value.

Many good people who used to post here frequently have stopped doing so for the reasons I stated above. Several times in the past I've addressed this and have started threads that were explicitly designed to elicit non-typical responses.

I'll continue addressing things from the perspective of a concerned citizen who has specific interests in framing political issues in a particular way. We'll see how things develop.

The practice of politics itself is that of argumentation and debate. I sometimes find myself tiring of the constant need to reiterate the same points over and over again but that is the nature of political discussion in a decentralized forum such as this.

Furthermore, what do you mean by "basic human level?" Your views are frequently partisan or exclusive, so I fail to see how they address some fundamental nature of humanity. If I am wrong, enlighten me.

Edit: here's a question...how could I answer a question in the manner that you frame it? What is acceptable? You enjoy "kicking the hornets nest" by posting controversial or inflammatory topics...how am I supposed to react to that?

I think we can do better than accept what might be the way in which political discussions are often conventionally framed - here or elsewhere.

What I mean by trust on a basic human level means that it will mean something different to you than it does to me. I suppose we could discuss the nature of trust but I don't think that's necessary. For me, to trust in something means that I have looked at it in my way and decided that it is for the most part - even overwhelmingly - good, decent, honorable, and trustworthy. These aren't complex or academic words. They can be discussed that way, I suppose. But I prefer ones which most of us are conversant with.

As for the type of threads I post. They are for the most part within some limits intended to move things toward what might be described as constructive dialog or less partisan than what is usually considered partisan.

You can scour my threads here from the beginning. You will find a movement away from a certain type of partisanship. You will not find the sort of attacks on the opposition that one finds in typical partisan posts. My views are personal.

I'll kick up a couple of the threads I started here that were specifically addressing my sense of what is constructive in political threadmaking.

I'm looking for some alternative ways to discuss politics. We do hear an awful lot from good people who describe the situation here in this particular forum as not constructive or interesting. I'd like to do something about that.

Your posts do lack from the worst of the vitriole that tends to grind political debate to a halt. I understand and appreciate any attempt to shape the dialogue in a more constructive direction. However, how is the discussion supposed to proceed after an inital statement of opinion if we cannot weigh our different beliefs?

As I mentioned earlier, I feel that framing arguments in black and white terms tends to freeze the dialogue and practically guarantees that you will receive the least constructive type of responses. I fail to see how accusing those different than you of character defects or of lacking insight can be construed as constructive. I may repeat facts ad infinitum, but I try never to demonize those that I politically oppose. When it comes down to it, most people are decent regardless of their belief system. Our lives had led us to different perspectives, but that does not mean that either of us is better than the other. The potential for bridge building is greatly diminished if we don't at least pretend to respect each other.

Well heck, it has proceeded through 61 replies and 470 views. That's pretty good in itself. Along the way people have had an opportunity to post their thoughts and reactions. And there has been some good discussion and some very insightful posts.

Sometimes I post things that may seem contentious but this one and most of the others are in the way of general responses to trends I see that go unchallenged in broad ways - even while they are being debated in specific ways.

I agree about respecting each other. There's no evidence we don't. Thanks.

Two words that should make everyone be very interested in the motives of government: imminent domain.

Simply put, I do not believe that the current "administration", as they are often referred to, is moving in a direction I agree with or support. It seems to me, from my common-man point of view, that they have overstepped their bounds to get where they are and have used the heart-strings of Americans to piggy-back into favor.

Without 9/11, the invasion of Iraq would not have taken place for the reasons originally given, if at all. I am disappointed in the lying about WMD's and the crucial role they played in green-lighting this "war", given that there apparently never was such evidence, any evidence was "assumed", exaggerated, or flatly falsified. When I hear, "we have proof of x, y, and z" and no such "proof" is ever to be supported by fact, what else am I to think?

I also put distrust in any organization that seeks out to intentionally disregard fact or people's desire for, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The so-called "War on Drugs" has done NOTHING but pour literally billions of dollars- every year- down the drain. Nothing says "imminent threat to national security" like some people relaxing at home smoking pot and enjoying each other's company. Oh, what a horrible, horrible thing it is to allow someone to do what makes them happy, and has nothing to do with anyone else. I distrust a government that will not let it's people be happy, when doing so would harm no one and prove to be helpful in ways you can't count. This government perpetuates this farce, and that is another reason I have distrust in it.

Some say it is "easy" to distrust your government- if this is the case, then it seems it is equally without difficulty to put blind faith in them. I can't fathom saying that I trust them implicitly that they are "doing the right things". I just honestly can't see how anyone could say that.

Some injustices have been done in the name of eminent domain. It has also always been a part of the power of government throughout history because it allows government the power to execute in the general public interest - even when it may conflict with personal or individual interests. It's an inevitable part of living in a complex society.

I would say that locking up millions for non-violent drug crimes constitutes a significant restraint of freedom with little tangible gain for society.

regarding elitism: political life in an actual democracy would be about argument--it would be about laying out your position and the critique of alternative possibilities--because much would be at stake in the taking of a decision, there would be an expectation that all positions be able to articulate themselves clearly.

if you read plato--who hated athenian democracy btw---you can see one of the consequences of democracy----there would be a problem with arguments that appealed too directly to the emotions, with arguments that employed obviously false logic, because they could persuade the polis to act on faulty grounds.
and if the polis acted in error, on false grounds, there was no-one to save them from the consequences of their actions.

conflict--debate--is eminently democratic. it is a conflictual system. of course the americans do not have a democracy and probably would not want one, though their reactionary leaders these days like to talk about democracy.

so, art: if i understand your position as leading to an inability to think about the material effects of government actions, say, or that your tendency to short out argument by making political moves into the result of a series of (arbitrary) subjective attributes, and i react by countering with an alternative viewpoint (the premises of which i try to lay out--whether i manage it or not is another question) there is nothing elistist about it. if the langauge fails to persuade, then fine....

i do not think it outrageous or elitist to point out that the logical consequences of conservative ideology is the dissolving of social problems--well the social tout court. i do not think there is anything elitist about arguing that the only way you could really "trust the government"--particularly now in the midst of the political and intellectual squalor that is bushworld---is to ignore or arbitrarily limit the meaning of the words you use (still no definitions, e.g. as a way to normalize bushworld by flattening into an ill-defined continuum of "history"), to reduce your vision of the exisiting political order to purely formal properties (the first long post tried to argue this), and to assume that your particular experience is somehow a paradigm for thinking about the situation endured by all actors within this society. yours is a position that is almost inconceivable without some religious linking term.

and it is historically false to think that the formal mechanisms of governance worked out by the americans have been or are capable of operating coherently without feedback loops--and those loops are provided by conflict. hell. you can look at the development of almost anything, from elements of the state apparatus to the design of basic consumer goods, and find that the result you enjoy today is the result of intense social conflict condensed around particular spaces/questions.

there is another problem, however, art: what i think you are really arguing around is the question of what to do with real dissent in a direct-democratic situation after a decision has been taken. if you shifted your position to here, it would at least be clearer----personally, i think the notion that once a decision has been taken, the minority should submit to the majority---one outlined in tocqueville's "democracy in america"---is wrong, in that it assures incoherence precisely through the elimination of feedback. but it seems to me that this is the core of your argument--it rests on an illusion (to my mind) of proper democratic procedure, the legitimacy of a particular outcome (that bush actually won the last election, say [although this is far far from the only reason to oppose him], and that therefore bush represents in some meaningful way represents the [really problematic fiction of a] "general will") and that therefore those in opposition should just shut up because they already had their chance to debate (obviously absurd) and lost and further that they should not worry about having to shut up because everything works itself out in the end.

to paraphrase (because i dont trust my memory) public enemy (and by doing that align myself with the older folk in the grand scheme of hip hop history outlined in "ghost dog):

"dont worry be happy" was a number one jam/
damn if i say that, you can slap me right here.....

Distrust THE government, or distrust THIS PRESENT government?

This present government has demonstrated time and again that it cannot be trusted. Trust is earned, not bestowed.

/Seen on a bumper sticker: You can trust the Federal Government. Just ask any Indian.

roachboy, thanks for your cogent comments.
I'm thinking them over and am planning to reply.

roachboy,
An actual democracy? - I've read Plato - the democracies we have in the free world are pragmatic representative democracies of various stripes. I don't see a lot of point in discussing democracy as a theoretical concept.

That charge of elitism comes in the requirement that matters of political discussion meet academic standards. There's no practical reason why that should be so - since no one lives or is ruled by academic standards.

I simply prefer a statement of views over the process of debate - which I find pointless. No one's views are ever changed by debate. Debate ossifies positions. Decisions are made by power brokering not by rhetoric.

I haven't said anything about conservative ideology in this thread. I believe a good citizen places his or her trust in one's government by a matter of personal choice.

I accept "feedback loops," "checks and balances." and the mechanisms of free expression as part of the process of governance and citizenship.

One can oppose one's government and still place one's trust in it.

The issue of trust that I am applying here is available to any of the dissenters, rebels, and others who've posted here. The fact that they don't like the idea of placing their trust in the government that governs them is a problem. That's my position.

ok, so:
on plato---he was opposed to direct democracy--to athenian democracy as it existed during the period he wrote---you can see it in a variety of registers, all of which cluster around the notion that there are essences that determine social being, and that these essences are hierarchical....i could talk more about this but it seems like a burgeoning non sequitor.

academic standards===not arguing for those standards, art---i **am** using elements of how i see things that lean on my academic training to critique your position. not the same thing. as for the latter, i really dont see how i could do otherwise; as for the former, i would have to make an entirely different argument, one that would try to rule out your ability to speak if you did not do so in a particular way. which i did not and would not do.

on debate: i wonder about your position---without wanting to let this devolve into a debate about debate (the obvious next step) all i'll say is that if you combine real debate with civility, the making-rigid of positions need not occur. at least i like to think debate can go that way. personally, i treat argument like a chess game, at a certain remove, so i do not often get upset about the way the arguments go--animated sure, but not upset---partly because it is harder to see how to make the next move if you are pissy, and partly because it triggers defensive reactions all around. i dont think it is inevitable. but i dunno--maybe in spaces liek this you are right--i hope not simply because it would make me wonder what exactly we are all doing here....

on conservative ideology---well, art, the way you frame your positions is inconceivable outside that framework. so i oppose an alternative framework. which requires moving into a more debate mode. otherwise, you find yourself trapped within a frame of reference that you cannot control and about which you can say nothing. not only does this cut off the possibility of thinking in a philosophical or quasi-philosophical manner (which often takes off from questions about defining terms) but also anything like a counterposing of real views.

i wish you would react to the last point in my previous post--i really think that it is a better characterization of your position than what floats about now.

and as for trust the govt--frankly, i still dont know what you are talking about really. it would seem to me that arguments that are not explicitly revolutionary presuppose some degree of investment in the existing order. you might think that the current version of that order falls short on almost all grounds, but the fact that one still thinks about the matter and is willing to talk about one's position indicates that there is at least a tacit acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the order. i am not sure if opposition to bushworld, even fierce opposition, presupposes a total withdrawal of consent from the govt itself. if you are really arguing otherwise, art, it seems that you are saying that any substantive critique of bushworld (say) amounts to treason. arent you?