Sheesh. What have you guys been doing while I’ve been away? The Gallup Organization has found that Americans’ faith in the ability of the federal government to handle either foreign or domestic affairs is at an all-time low:
PRINCETON, NJ — Americans’ trust in the federal government to handle international problems has fallen to a record-low 43% as President Barack Obama prepares to address the nation on Wednesday to outline his plan to deal with ISIS. Separately, 40% of Americans say they have a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in the federal government to handle domestic problems, also the lowest Gallup has measured to date.
[…]
Gallup has never measured lower levels of trust in the federal government to handle pressing issues than now. That includes the Watergate era in 1974, when 51% of Americans trusted the government’s ability to handle domestic problems and 73% trusted its ability to deal with international problems, and also at the tail end of the Bush administration when his job approval ratings were consistently below 40% and frequently below 30%.
The key question going forward is whether Americans’ trust in the federal government can be restored. Although there have been short-lived increases in recent years, including in Obama’s first year in office and in his re-election year, these were not maintained. The general trend since the post-9/11 surge has been toward declining trust. Simply voting new people into office may not be sufficient to restore trust in government. Rather, given the public’s frustration with the way the government is working, it may be necessary to elect federal officials who are more willing to work together with the other party to find solutions to the nation’s top problems.
I don’t believe that the federal government is less able to handle domestic or international affairs than it was six years ago. President Obama, however, seems to have succeeded in convincing Americans that is is.
Why? Is this related to expectations? Or President Obama’s bad habit of musing out loud?
I think the operative word here would be “frustration,” in how many people view the policies, acts, and focus of government these days. Polarization has been on an upward trend for years, no matter which party is in power. However, the current administration has produced an extra layer of distrust and uneasiness through it’s pettiness, divisiveness, and blatant lies, which it either denies, dismisses or simply rationalizes.
One thing that constantly gets to me is how pro-administration partisans attack Congress as if both branches were controlled by republicans! Rarely, if ever, though, is a critical word offered towards the democratically-controlled Senate, where some 300+ House bills sit, ignored and unattended by Harry Reid’s chamber. Instead, the label of “obstructionists” is flamed only on republicans — and that’s primarily because the House opted out of dealing with the Senate-passed version of CIR.
Then we have the long list of controversies ranging from blurred, conflicting accounts in Benghazi, the IRS targeting of conservative organizations and donors, the dismissal of F & F with Holder being held in contempt, the AP and NSA scandals, the unilateral repairs and misinformation surrounding the still unpopular PPACA, the innumerable mistakes/missteps in the ME, and the lies and obfuscations dealing with so many aspects of both domestic and foreign policy.
Where the frustration part really gets heightened is when the government rides events like Ferguson into a frenzy, while it shrugs off even more brutal racial incidents elsewhere, like in Chicago. Basically, government, these days appears to attack, cajole, side-with, defer to on the basis of ideology and political advantage, rather than choosing to fairly articulate and then advocate for what is right versus wrong.
Oh, God help me! I’m watching CNN in the aftermath of that worthless speech.
Time to take my meds. I see unserious news panelists taking an unserious man’s statements seriously. And people think I live in an alternate reality.
At least my life is not a farce.
You applied for that job at McDonald’s yet, Michael? Remember, it’s a pretty strict corporate atmosphere there — uniforms and all. They even recommend what socks to wear.
I’m sure they applied my stats to the training failure rate overall with age as the dominating factor.
I suspect age and weight would work against you in that environment.
But because I failed, it’s just that much more likely that you won’t even be considered. Numbers, you know.
Yes jan. We should hold the police to the same standards as we do criminals.
Steve
Rather, given the public’s frustration with the way the government is working, it may be necessary to elect federal officials who are more willing to work together with the other party to find solutions to the nation’s top problems.
Let’s see, the parties both agree that the big financial institutions must be bailed out at the expense of everyone else.
In the face of declining wages and high unempoloyment both parties agree that we should import tens of millions of new workers from the third world.
In the face of international crises, both parties agree that someone should get bombed. There is a diference, however, in that Republicans also want to invade the countries we break, while Dems don’t.
Where are those big differences again?
“Rather, given the public’s frustration with the way the government is working, it may be necessary to elect federal officials who are more willing to work together with the other party to find solutions to the nation’s top problems.”
The problem is that neither party is interested in government reform.
The problem is that neither party is interested in government reform.
Perhaps mitigating party differences, inspiring different sides to compromise rather than hold firm to their ideological-driven beliefs, would be the job of a less prickly WH leader — one who was able to put aside their own ego and politicized rhetoric in order to stretch repeatedly across the aisle for jointly reached solutions.
However, a President who harshly and oftentimes unfairly attacks his political opponents, at every public function, should hardly expect these same rivals to compromise their own stances, that oppose his, for the sake of being viewed as less obstructive and just going along to get along.