Reducing Trust in the US Government: A Fact-Based Analysis

Introduction:

Trust in any social or political group, including the government, is often based on assumed commitment to the best interests of the group or its members. However, when this trust is misplaced, it can lead to widespread skepticism and mistrust. The following article aims to explore the extent to which one can, or should, trust the United States government, particularly in light of certain historical events and practices that may erode public confidence.

The Fundamentals of Trust:

My understanding is that individuals and groups will, in general, serve the best interests of their members. The question then arises, in the context of trusting government, whether these institutions are genuinely aligned with the public good. As someone who evaluates information critically, particularly that from governmental sources, I would argue that the level of trust one has in government should be carefully considered based on the nature of the service or the department in question.

Exceptions and Explanations:

Weather Reports, Medical Research, and Environmental Protections

When discussing trust in the government, it helps to break down the elements into more specific departments. For instance, the National Weather Service, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offer services that most people inherently trust. These organizations work to provide accurate information, conduct vital research, and protect public health and the environment respectively. It is the politicization of specific agencies that can undermine this trust.

The Impact of Political Influence

It is the politicization of certain parts of the government that I don’t trust. Agencies involved in overt political activities, such as the United States Department of State, often become subject to corruption. For example, in the 1950s, the State Department played a role in the coup against Jacobo árbenz in Guatemala. This was orchestrated to benefit the United Fruit Company, a powerful American corporation where two of the most influential figures in government had previously worked.

Since World War II, the US intelligence and military operations have often been driven by the ambitions of individuals who manipulate information to serve their interests. This trend has occurred in almost all major military interventions of the last 70 years, except possibly the Korean War. The disclosure of the Pentagon Papers revealed that the Defense Department lied to the American people about the progress of the war in Vietnam. Similarly, Colin Powell misled the public about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Case Study: The EPA and Political Interference

The case of the EPA highlights the real dangers of trust in government. When Anne Gorsuch, former EPA administrator, was appointed after working on Reagan’s transition team, she withheld funds from a Superfund site in California to benefit the political campaign of Jerry Brown. Her assistant Rita Lavelle was involved in blocking enforcement to help her former employer, Aerojet General. Both were later imprisoned for lying to Congress about their actions.

Regulatory Capture and Self-Interest

Another factor that can undermine trust in government is when regulators are appointed from private industry. For example, when a President appoints individuals from the industry they regulate, these regulators are more likely to prioritize the industry's interests over the public interest. Similarly, when a President appoints loyalists to his party, the agency is more likely to support the President's agenda than the American people.

When evaluating the actions of a federal agency, one should always ask: 'Which Americans are going to benefit from this? If the answer is not 'a great many of us,' it is wise to be suspicious.

Conclusion:

While certain government agencies and departments provide essential services and protections, it is crucial to be aware of the potential for political corruption and self-interest. An informed and vigilant public remains the best defense against unwarranted trust in government institutions.