Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedCan Americans trust their government officials?
Results so far:
| Yes | 14% | 8 votes | Total: 58 votes | |
| No | 86% | 50 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesBefore directly answering the question, we must first look at the function of government, in particular the American democratic system. The representative government's function is to put into action the voice of the public, who ideally have the ultimate say in what policy is put into practice. By electing the officials in office, the public actually determines the kinds of people who make the decisions. So, we can move forward from the idea that, if democracy is working, the officials in power are only in their positions because the public has asked them to step up.
Another point that needs to be made is that progress is inherently a product of trial and error. Assuming that all the decisions made by an individual will be perfect is requiring a level of perfection that is impossible. The democratic system puts into place officials that are qualified to make educated decisions, so it is the responsibility of the American public to give them the freedom to exercise the faculty that we elected them to use. Trust, used here as a way of saying, "You are in a position of power, now do something meaningful," is what truly enables an official to make any significant changes, and therefore progress. Because fundamentally, it is public support that drives policy making. The current Obama administration has recently been making this more and more relevant, like with the prosecution of officials involved in torture used in the Bush administration.
Answe ring "no" to the question of whether we should trust our government officials is inherently counter-productive. The very people that don't trust the people in power are implying that they want change, but to bring about change officials need the support of the public. This cycle can only be broken by trusting the system, and letting democracy work. Only when the cycle is broken can problems be solved, the very issues that the non-trusting citizens complain about.
Naturally, trust should only go so far. I am not saying that we give complete trust to the people in power. That in itself would defeat the purpose of democracy, in which each citizen must be critical of the administration. We must trust our officials enough that they have free reign to make significant changes, but not to the point that they can do anything they want. In this case, it is most appropriate to assume the good intentions of our officials. While this is not saying that officials are inherently good, but it is saying that we have an historically effective system of checks and balances at work which, coupled with a constituency that intelligently trusts its administration, allows for positive progress over time.
Learn more about this author, Vishrut Srivastava.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Does anyone remember the debate in Congress about whether or not the big telecom companies deserved retroactive immunity for cooperating with the government and allowing federal agents to listen to everyone in the country's phone conversations? Many of our representatives made grand gestures and speeches about how this was wrong and they should have known better, etc., etc., but then several months later when the public furor had died down and their campaign funds had grown thanks to a few hundred thousand dollars donated by those same telecom companies, strangely enough they voted to grant them that immunity.
Have you noticed recently the way that the government has funnelled trillions of dollars to failed and failing banks all under the guise of saving the world from financial disaster? Have you noticed perhaps that many of those officials used to work for those very same banks? Would any of you trust your children with a thousand dollars if you'd watched them light it on fire and dance around the flames? Of course not, but our representatives are doing just that through both the TARP program and by allowing the Federal Reserve and the Treasury to hand out sweetheart deal after sweetheart deal to these enormous financial institutions because they are "too big to fail." Of course there was public furor over their bonuses and even Congress got into the outrage act but then they went away for recess, they got to hang out with some of their banker friends (who also contributed a few bucks here and there to campaign funds) and strangely enough, they dropped the issue upon their return.
If you read "The Quiet Coup" by Simon Johnson in this month's Atlantic magazine, you will get some idea of the way that outsiders may look at our current government and who they see that is really in charge. You may have heard of the word "oligarchy?" At some point we can stop kidding ourselves and accept the fact that once our representatives are voted into office, they cease to serve the public interest except during campaign season when they have to woo the voters again. In the meantime, they serve their new pals in Washington and the interest groups that fund their campaign and help make their lives more pleasant with gifts and "fact-finding" trips and other sorts of perks. It is always great to grandstand about CEOs flying on corporate jets and paint them as evil and corrupt when you are off doing the very same thing days later...
The fact is, Americans can't trust our government representatives any more than we can trust ourselves. We clearly can't be trusted to make sound financial decisions, look at how many of us purchased homes we knew we couldn't afford! How many of us have used credit cards without consideration for the future? Why should our representatives be any different? If the key to their continued existence in their cushy and very respected positions in congress is money for campaigning, why should they think more about their consituents than their big donors? Why should we trust them to act in our interests when their own are so very different?
Learn more about this author, Zeke Allen.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Political Values
- Does having socialized medicine make a country socialist?
- Should Native American continue to receive Federal Aid?
- Could a smoking ban affect your housing choices?
- Would you be more proud of an American athlete who came home from the Olympic games as a champion of their sport or as a champion of human rights?
- Gun control: Will less macho men make guns obsolete?
- Art that mocks faith: Freedom of speech or slander?
