Change, Trust, and the Frustration of Not Following Through
There was a story my father would always tell me around Yom Kippur about a Rabbi who wanted to change the world. It went like this:
“When I was a young man, I wanted to change the world. I found it was difficult to change the world, so I tried to change my nation. When I found I couldn’t change the nation, I began to focus on my town. I couldn’t change the town and as an older man, I tried to change my family. Now, as an old man, I realize the only thing I can change is myself, and suddenly I realize that if long ago I had changed myself, I could have made an impact on my family. My family and I could have made an impact on our town. Their impact could have changed the nation and I could indeed have changed the world.”
What that story means is simple; the world, the nation, the community, and even your family might seem impossible to fix on your own, but the possibility of taking the opportunity to make yourself better can create a positive influence on the world around you.
This still resonates today with me as I have tried to turn my writing, reporting, and storytelling into forms to help make not only myself better, but the world better. So as you can imagine, for someone with not that big of a platform, it distresses me that those with huge platforms and followings don’t take that opportunity of action.
Allow me to explain.
With the COVID-19 pandemic feeling as it will never end, an uncertain economy, and worries of more climate disasters, it is easy to see why many would say the United States is heading in the wrong direction.
Most interestingly, however, is that a majority of Americans from both major political parties say that Democracy is in danger.
Per a Marist College poll, a majority of Americans are worried about Democracy, whereas X is not. The kicker however is that 87% of Democrats think that Republicans are the ones responsible for this crisis whereas 88% of Republicans think Democrats are the ones to blame.
In short, there is a major trust issue in American society.
You can see it online, where multiple people will get into arguments about a single poll and whether or not to believe it. In the open where some don’t trust getting medicine based on information they were given by media outlets, and overall, more people are feeling safer in their own social bubbles to interact with like-minded compatriots.
Some have believed that because of this decline in trust and norms in American Society, that there must be dramatic change and reforms in our system. G Elliot Morris, a political analyst of the Economist, and Rick Hansen, a Law and Political Science Professor are two great examples of those sounding the alarm regarding the Republic.
Both have called for dramatic reforms such as eliminating the filibuster, and have been tweeting and posting about the fact that there must be changes quickly, lest this falls to pieces. Both are incredibly smart and are masters of their respective trades.
Morris is known for his data analyzing abilities and was able to pinpoint the 2018 midterm elections with ease. Hansen meanwhile is known for his law blog and did extensive analysis on the Supreme Court in late 2020 and the election lawsuits they received.
While sounding the alarm is great, there is a component the two of them lack that falls flat: a lack of taking action.
Let me be clear: I am not advocating for either of these two to be superheroes, or start rallies to get more people to understand what’s going on in our country. I am also aware that the two have dedicated followers and listeners, especially Hansen who is a professor and teaches students for his job.
With that said though, there does come a point where I question: what is your next step?
The ideas of great reform and beefing up guard rails for our Democracy are needed, one hundred percent. But there does not seem to be a general urge from the public to beef up those norms and government structure.
I’m not even referring to HR1 or the John Lewis Voting Rights Act; no, I am talking about factions, and Madisonian thinking, and federalism… all things people of the United States of America don’t think about on a daily basis.
In reality, I think the reason the United States Government has managed to stay around for so long is that people trust the system. There are times where the system needs to be rebooted, or upgraded with amendments like the holy trinity that is the 13th 14th, or 15th amendment, or even patch amendments like the 21st! Trust is such an important component in our Democracy and Republic that it is the glue that holds people together.
You can talk about how Madison had this great vision, or how the Supreme Court having judicial review was a mistake, but the bottom line is that American voters don’t have an extensive thought process or knowledge of our three branches. In fact, the author Stephen King made an error on Twitter by saying that Democrats control all three branches of Government, the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, when in actuality it is just two branches.
There’s also the issue that people with large platforms, especially on the internet, are operating through social bubbles. You may get the intellectual voters of some areas, but people who are just thinking about what kind of job they want? I’m not sure.
If you want change to happen in this country, then there needs to be a building of trust. But how does one do that?
You can’t just force political leaders to hold hands. That is ridiculous.
Let us go back to the original story I related at the beginning of the article:
“When I was a young man, I wanted to change the world I found it was difficult to change the world, so I tried to change my nation. When I found I couldn’t change the nation, I began to focus on my town. I couldn’t change the town and as an older man, I tried to change my family. Now, as an old man, I realize the only thing I can change is myself, and suddenly I realize that if long ago I had changed myself, I could have made an impact on my family. My family and I could have made an impact on our town. Their impact could have changed the nation and I could indeed have changed the world.”
Change and trust-building for our country does not come through retweets and clout; it comes through making changes within yourself.
I remember how I thought that I could save local news by just tweeting about it and having a large platform. But that is not going to save it. Instead, I decided to be a part of the local news ecosystem at NewTV as an intern, and write for local news magazines and news blogs such as Western Mass Politics and insight. What I did was change my habits and my ethic to make some sort of positive impact on myself and the world.
So what can you do?
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.
Setting up events and just talking to new people is also helpful. We need to get prepared to go back to a social face-to-face life, even with the curtain of COVID-19
Go with the flow. Life is random, and history has not been finished. Sometimes our analysis can blow up in our faces in less than a year.
And learn to trust yourself and others. That is the building block we need in order to ensure a safer and healthier republic.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
the liberal project of trust and cooperation.
Yes, position yourself out front. This will communicate to everybody how trustworthy you are.Report
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Have you noticed that this discussion has had some good points and agreement when people don’t make accusations, but descends into the usual nonsense when they do?Report
“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
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
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
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
That perception is a product of a broken political system, where voters reward politicians not for what they do, but what they promise, even if they can not reasonably deliver on those promises.Report
Yep – that’s part of my central point.Report
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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