Change, Trust, and the Frustration of Not Following Through

Adam Bass

Adam Bass is an aspiring reporter and broadcaster from Massachusetts. He graduated from Wheaton College in Norton MA. Bass was general manager, and head of the political news coverage department of WCCS Wheaton College, where he did extensive coverage of the Massachusetts Senate Primary Race and The Massachusetts 4th congressional district primary race, as well as reporting on other National and local news. He now works as an intern for Newton News at NewTV where he has covered the 2021 municipal elections, hosts and produces The Cod Cabin where he and three of his colleagues podcast about Massachusetts politics and news, and has been working part time at WCRN 830 AM in Worcester Mass.

Related Post Roulette

36 Responses

  1. Philip H says:

    Really well written. Hits several nails I keep whacking at though perhaps with a different hammer then I would choose.

    The loss of trust is huge, but its not a recent phenomena, nor is it by chance. There are dedicated political and economic forces who have worked hard for most of the last 40 years to break trust because they believe doing so preserves their political and economic power. They will not go quietly into the night, and so we do, in fact have to fight to get trust back in the public square.Report

  2. Dark Matter says:

    If the solution is “we need to make it easier for my side to cram down what we want on the other side”, then that’s not really a solution, that’s victory.

    Getting rid of the filibuster seems that.

    Big picture a lot of the stuff that “NEEDS” to happen doesn’t really need to happen.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Dark Matter says:

      DO we NEED to protect voting rights? Yes we do, as they are being actively restricted across the US. Can we protect voting rights and keep the filibuster intact as a procedural move in the Senate? I doubt we can, because while the 50 Democrats in the Senate represent 41 Million more Americans then their Republican counterparts, those same Republicans are more focused on consolidating power then legislating. So there’s a problem that one half of the system wants to break the system intentionally for parochial reasons and a majority of Americans expect the other half of the system to fix the system.Report

      • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H says:

        DO we NEED to protect voting rights?

        This is making a binary argument. It’s like asking someone if they have “food” right after you give them a peanut.

        How many people are you going to protect with this? How many people are in “danger”? To what degree is this simply virtue signaling and an issue that the parties use to gin up fights with each other?

        My impression is this issue is very small in practice which means it’s almost entirely virtue signaling. That brings us back to getting rid of the filibuster because your side needs to win, not because there’s a lot of substance here.Report

        • Oscar Gordon in reply to Dark Matter says:

          The number of voters impacted might be small, but the impact to trust in the system may very well be oversized.

          When we look at new restrictions or expansions of voting, we need to look not at the stated goal, but at the practical effect. Will a given restriction actually improve election security, or just make it harder/more inconvenient for certain demographics to vote? Will a given expansion actually improve turnout, or just enable fraud?

          Now, I have not looked at the various expansions or restrictions for every state, but from what I do know about (which may very well be colored by my information sources), very few, if any of the proposed or enacted restrictions will measurably improve election security, but they will make voting more difficult for certain areas/demographics. Likewise, very few of the expansions pose any significant risk to election security.

          But I’m happy to be proven wrong.Report

          • Dark Matter in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

            Insisting on voter ID probably prevents close to no fraud. It’s also what other countries do to virtue signal that the vote is secure. Ergo it’s reasonable for one side here to signal that the vote is secure.

            The two sides put lots of negative spin on what the other side does. Ergo it will also be spun as “suppressing the vote” and may well have the effects you mention.

            Given that we just had widespread accusations of fraud, we should expect the politicians attempt to make the election “more secure”. We should also expect the other side to spin that into voter suppression.

            Big picture there is no serious fraud and there is no serious voter suppression. We also have a working court system which would be willing to step in.

            I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the “outsized effect because my side will have less trust” argument because it’s self created/inflicted and it leads to “my side needs to be able to virtue signal but yours does not”.Report

            • Oscar Gordon in reply to Dark Matter says:

              In general, I’m a fan of voter ID. But at the same time, it requires a robust and accessible means of getting acceptable IDs for voting. If you enact voter ID, and then make it difficult to get an ID, then you have, in fact, suppressed a demographic from voting. It’s important to look at the whole picture, not just a slice of it.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                If you enact voter ID, and then make it difficult to get an ID, then you have, in fact, suppressed a demographic from voting.

                Ideally we’d pair v-ID with free v-ID… which would help lots of people that Team Blue claims exist although I’m less sure.

                In reality, since it’s just the two teams pointing at each other over nonsense, there’s no reason to offer to pair those two since there is no problem.

                Which implies there’s also no need to blow up the filibuster over this either.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Dark Matter says:

                claim exist although I’m less sure.

                To expand:

                My grandmother died when she was 92(?). If we treat her as 92 different people ages 1-92, then the percentage of people who don’t have ID matches up pretty well with what is claimed.

                The root problem at the end of her life wasn’t that she didn’t have an ID, it was that she was so mentally infirm that she couldn’t use one.

                Subtract that population and I expect our “no ID” issue looks a lot smaller.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Dark Matter says:

                I agree that voter ID is a BS solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. Having said that, as long as the required ID is free, easy to get, and of a type that doesn’t discriminate, with “surgical precision” or otherwise, among identifiable classes of voters, I’d accept it in a package deal of other reforms. It won’t happen, and we know why and who.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to CJColucci says:

                Likewise.
                I’m actually in favor of having a secure ID that is available at any point of contact with the government like post offices. Social welfare agencies, DMV, etc.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I’d be ok with this . . .
                but then we’d have to do other common sense things like letting the Post Office offer basic banking services like every other developed country . . .Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Philip H says:

                Having deeper and more points of contact between the government and the citizens would deliver a tremendous boost to the liberal project of trust and cooperation.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                the liberal project of trust and cooperation.

                Yes, position yourself out front. This will communicate to everybody how trustworthy you are.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I would have a lot more trust if the gov were willing to review/terminate non-working programs and if other people failing weren’t viewed as an ethical failure on my part.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Dark Matter says:

                I would have a lot more trust if the gov were willing to review/terminate non-working programs and if other people failing weren’t viewed as an ethical failure on my part.

                Think about all the nasty stuff Trump did as President. Add to that FBI taking a Team Blue smear campaign and treating it seriously. IMHO all of that should undermine our faith that the gov is a force for good and trustworthy.

                Or if you want to narrow the scope to me personally; every time the local school system has mishandled my kids’ education and I’ve needed to step in, that’s another proof that the level of expected competence shouldn’t be very high. Me needing to visit the Dept. of Motor Vehicles 4 times to get a license plate should be another example.

                The issue isn’t that I don’t trust the government, the issue is that I shouldn’t.

                The gov is a neutral force like a force of nature.

                Other countries have high trust in the gov because [their team] is always allowed to run things, i.e. they’re mono-cultural. If you understand why Team Blue didn’t unify in following Trump, then you understand why we can’t be high trust.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Dark Matter says:

                I would have a lot more trust if the gov were willing to review/terminate non-working programs

                The civil service would be happy with this too. We actually do these review all the time, send stuff to congress and get told no. Because Congress doesn’t get points for shutting stuff down.

                I know I’m getting into dead horse territory, but your beef is not with “government.” your beef is with Congress.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I’d be very careful to qualify the type of contact, because right now, there are certain demographics who have considerable contact with the government, and it’s not building the kind of trust you envision.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Dark Matter says:

      I think the main point of the article still stands, but you’ve got a good point here. “Lack of cooperation in getting things done” is a good measure of lack of trust, but only if you believe that there are a lot of things to get done. Also, most of the things I’d like to see get done are directly opposed by about half the country. To the extent that there’s well-reasoned disagreement on an issue, it’s not a trust problem, although the frustration of persistent disagreement can lead to diminished trust.Report

      • Dark Matter in reply to Pinky says:

        Thank you. We also run into limits of the government here.

        Example: What does “cooperation in ending gun violence” even mean?

        If it means “the left gets to virtue signal at the expense of the right”, then yes, there’s no cooperation.

        If it means, “we get criminals to not kill and the mentally ill to not commit suicide”, then it’s less a lack of cooperation and more a lack of ability that gets blamed on a lack of cooperation.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky says:

        Pinky, the fact that you aren’t expressing a Flight 93/ Jan 6/ Big Lie point of view, but are willing to achieve your policy goals through the process is an example of the trust being discussed.

        In the world I grew up in, that was a given, but in 2021 it isn’t.

        About a third of the country (and I believe maybe a majority of Republicans) are not willing to do what you’re doing here.Report

  3. DensityDuck says:

    “If you want change to happen in this country, then there needs to be a building of trust. But how does one do that?”

    What do you mean by “trust”?

    Do you mean “I can trust that if I say something you think is racist, you will quietly speak to me about it later instead of making a public scene, and that when I reply ‘well I didn’t mean that in a racist way’ you’ll trust that I’m telling the truth?”Report

    • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck says:

      That’s certainly one interpretation and that sort of trust is lacking.

      I think its a large meta issue however. Lots of people no longer “trust” political or economic systems and institutions to deliver for them on things they care about. Take jobs in the US – my Boomer parents grew up in a day when we manufactured most of what we consumed, fueled by coal we mined and gas we refined. All of those things have changed in my now 50 years, and that has had devastating economic impacts on real people in real places all over the US. Political and economic systems have sped up that change because it gives a small segment of the populace outsized financial and political power gains which they believe they “deserve.” But that speed and its attendant “profits” have come at a price for a lot of people and so those people are now lashing out at those systems, which they have been told in a variety of ways for 40 years not to “trust.”

      I think the OP is after those meta issues, and I wish him good luck getting that addressed one person at a time.Report

      • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H says:

        people no longer “trust” political or economic systems and institutions to deliver for them on things they care about.

        This is the perception, in reality income has gone up, we were at full employment before the virus, and what you can buy for your dollar has gone up, and tons of stuff is now free like most of the information the planet creates.

        The perception doesn’t match the reality.Report

        • Philip H in reply to Dark Matter says:

          It may be perception, but its powerful perception that no amount of statistical fact has broken. People in Ohio who lost jobs when auto plants closed prepandemic perceived that the plant’s owners didn’t value their labor. They perceived that the politicians they elected didn’t protect their jobs. They perceived that the rest of the US shrugged at their plight. And so when Donald rump came along they jumped in whit him because they perceived that he would change all that. He didn’t. But now they perceive they have no choice but to stay down the rat hole with him because they don’t perceive anyone else helping them.Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Philip H says:

        Coal needs to go the way of the dinosaur and the reason we did all this stuff in the United States is because half or more the world was shut out of trade from the cold war, non-industrialized, or rebuilding from getting bombed out during WWII. I also think it overstates the amount of trust present in mid-20th century America.Report

  4. Jaybird says:

    If you want to talk about game theory, I think that the best play is some variant of collaboration. Explain that you’re going to collaborate, explain why, and then collaborate. Mention the expectations of collaboration. Expect (and forgive) some defections at first. Talk about the defections. Odds are that the explanations for the defection will be some variant of “you’ve been defecting for a while”. Listen. Nod. Then explain that you’re going to collaborate, explain why, and then collaborate.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

      That still requires two willing collaborators. And the OP is right that the supply of willing collaborators on opposite sides of most issues is vanishingly small.

      And FWIW – this is a really clear, not-trollish comment. Stick to this approach and you might make some headway here.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

        Part of the problem is that “willing collaborators” are very easily made “defectors” after a handful of conditions are met.

        One of those conditions is “I got defected against”.

        If you are unwilling to listen to someone explain that they got defected against, that pretty much prevents the trust necessary for future collaboration.

        Also look out for giving (or thinking) “I didn’t defect against you, I collaborated with a much more important game and defecting against you was merely a by-product… now it’s your turn to collaborate with me by telling me that you understand why I defected against you.”

        I mean, if you want more collaboration.

        If you don’t care, hell. Eff those unwilling to collaborate. We may want to figure out how to replace them, if we can. Get some collaborators who agree with us on what the important games are.Report

  5. Oscar Gordon says:

    To the list, I would add “Hot Takes” and social media engagement algorithms (goes hand in hand with “Taking breaks from social media is imperative, I think, as it gives us fresh information at lightning speed and we don’t know how to process it quickly, causing mass chaos and absolute statements that backfire in our face.”).

    I’ve personally decided I will no longer engage, or even read, a hot take. Not only are they usually overly hyperbolic, and often wrong, they erode trust, and frankly, they erode the ability to enjoy things. If we don’t feel like we are permitted to enjoy something, because someone, somewhere, writes a hot take saying the something is problematic, it’s gets harder to find enjoyment in life, and that will erode our ability to trust (trust is a positive emotion, and IMHO it requires a well of positive emotion to fuel it – unhappy, pessimistic people are less able to trust that happy, optimistic people).Report

  6. Chip Daniels says:

    Your point about social media is spot on. One of the best things I ever did for my mental health was quitting social media somewhere back in 2014 or so, and cable news as well.

    Both of them have the knack for the constant triggering of attention and alarm and fear.Report

    • DensityDuck in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      An important part of becoming an adult is the realization that you can see someone be wrong and not try to correct them.

      And social media is a bad place for people who aren’t adults.Report

  7. Saul Degraw says:

    1. I am not sure how much trust Americans ever had in each other and the 20th century might have been an exception and there was still plenty of rage. We had a whole bloody civil war in the 19th century and the first part of the Republic was a slow boil of mutual rage to the civil war. The second half of our history is working out the aftermath.

    2. There are lots of reasons for many people to feel discouraged now. Despite the alleged worker shortage and new flexing of labor power, it still feels like the ultra-wealthy have all the money and power and are not concerned about the current moment that much. Blackstone is buying up private homes which are not being built at the pace needed because NIMBYs have too much power.

    3. The Congressional system of government is clearly breaking down and causing paralysis of legislation which leads to # 2 and empowers it.Report