I often quote Talking Points Memo, which is one of the most reliable–and intelligent–sources of political reporting on the web. A few days back, the site’s Morning Memo had a very good essay on our era of distrust, which it preceded with what I think was an absolutely perfect characterization of the deluge of diagnosis and advice in the wake of the election as “variously half-baked, hyperbolic, histrionic or merely silly.”
I couldn’t agree more. We’ve been inundated with un-self-aware pontifications and nit-picking, which I’m sure soothed the angst of those issuing these pronouncements, but that generally were–as the essay accurately noted–half-baked, hyperbolic, histrionic and (usually) silly.
The essay then turned to a subject that didn’t fall into any of those categories–widespread public distrust. (A subject I addressed in my 2009 book, “Distrust, American Style: Diversity and the Crisis of Public Confidence.”)
A key reason that many people are Democrats today is that they’re attached to a cluster of ideas like the rule of law, respect for and the employment of science and expertise, a free press and the protection of the range of institutions that guard civic life, quality of life and more. On the other side, say we have adherents of a revanchist, authoritarian politics which seeks break all those things and rule from the wreckage that destruction leaves in its path. So Democrats constantly find themselves defending institutions, or “the establishment,” or simply the status quo. Yet we live in an age of pervasive public distrust — distrust of institutions, leaders, expertise. And not all of this distrust is misplaced. Many institutions, professions, and power centers have failed to live up to their sides of the social contract.
In short, Democrats are by and large institutionalists in an age of mistrust. And that is challenging place to be.
It sure is. The essay pointed out that defending an institution shouldn’t include defending flawed examples of that institution. A free press, for example, is a vital institution in democratic systems. Democrats largely agree that it’s critical to support the press rather than tear it down. But that has often meant supporting and protecting flawed examples that routinely shortchange them on basic fairness. (The New York Times is a good example. Its coverage of Trump served to normalize a distinctly abnormal–and dangerous– candidate.)
When it comes to the establishment press, I think Democrats need to get used to running against the press. I don’t mean that simply because it’s good politics, though it probably is in many cases. I mean it because in many cases the way establishment press covers political news is very much part of the problem. You can criticize and yes even bash bad news coverage without in any way questioning the centrality of press freedom. A lot of people really seem to think they’re the same thing. They’re not. It’s stupid and wildly counterproductive to think otherwise.
But often it’s not as simple as that. The country needs an at least relatively disinterested Department of Justice. It needs scientists and clinicians studying and safeguarding public health. It needs a robust press and all the other infrastructure of civil society that together make up the soft tissue of civic freedom. If one side is saying “Burn it down!” and another is saying “We’re rootin’ tootin’ mad and we have many questions!” well then it’s definitely going to get burned to the ground because there’s no one taking up the defense. So often it’s not that simple.
Adding to the complexity is the fact that different institutions require different approaches. The essay references the people who lament every latest Supreme Court travesty because it reduces faith or trust in the Court. But–as most observers have come to recognize– the current Court is thoroughly corrupt. “Respect for the Court’s decisions and the Court itself is a problem to be solved, not a rampart or castle wall to be reinforced.”
Being the party of institutions in an age of distrust is an inherent challenge. It’s at the heart of why Democrats often think and talk in ways that don’t connect, break through to big chunks of the electorate. Democrats aren’t going to stop being the party of institutions because they want the rule of law; they want elections where votes are counted; they want real medicine over quacks. This is the foolery of those people whose response to the election is to fire Democrats’ voters. That’s not how anything works. But being a party of institutions and expertise in era of pervasive distrust is, again, an inherent challenge. You don’t surmount that challenge without giving the issue some real time and thought.
Yep.
To me, this blog today is proof that humans have yet to grasp the concept of governing themselves. As one of my favorite authors, Rebecca Costa, says in her book “The Watchman’s Rattle” – and I paraphrase – humans are trying to manage/govern themselves in highly complex, over-populated societies using a mindset from 200,000 years ago when humans evolved in small community units, i.e., tribes.
In our country we lurch back and forth from highly civilized, progressive and purposeful times to primitive, “it’s all about me” self-serving, angry and tribal times. We are about to enter the bottom end of the latter lurch. And like drug addiction, the body has to hit bottom before it can begin recovery. Our body politic is about to sound like a stone dropped into a deep, empty well.
The term “widespread public distrust” took me to the shooting of the CEO of United Healthcare and the national manhunt that is going on. What is a more important “Talking Point” than our lives and the possibility/probability of losing our health care, our lives, jobs, homes and all we have worked for? Was that CEO even the target; has that been proven yet? People are posting on Facebook stories previously talked about personally about the failures of United Healthcare and others; the cost is far more prohibitive than availability of care. I had my own problem of a different kind with them. Killing is not the solution and healthcare is of a magnitude today which is unbelievable due to the cost which can be traced back to President Richard Nixon in 1973 when he repealed the final protection preventing our health care from becoming the for-profit corporations we face today. This is NOT regarding the ACA which gave us more and better protection and more and better of anything does cost more…but not to the level of losing our homes or our lives as it has reached today.
“Democrats aren’t going to stop being the party of institutions because they want the rule of law; they want elections where votes are counted; they want real medicine over quacks.”
We also want to be able to pay for medical care and continue feeding our families and paying all other bills to maintain our homes and our lives. Statistics show the numbers living at poverty level or below is steadily rising; how much of that can be laid to making health care provides listed among the wealthy in this country.
I have yet to see statistics on how “poverty” votes in this country. How do the poorest counties / towns in this country vote? What percent of people who are considered “poor” are voting? Just askiing to see how the “poor” respond to issues. Looking solely at poverty – not race, not gender, not suburb/town.
When I was a newly minted engineer and a new husband, we moved to a new place, and I started in a new corporation on a new career in September 1964.
That seems so long ago.
I’m a natural loyalist, so those attachments continued for the next 40 years except for one: I retired.
I respected all of those relationships and was loyal to them and them to me.
While we were fortunate enough to travel to exciting places, I remained loyal to the place we moved to that month and almost everything about it, including the nested governments, the people, and the Constitution.
No relationship rides bumps smoothly, and loyalty requires acceptance of both the good times and the bad.
I don’t give up on mutual relationships, and I will not give up either. Loyalty received must be accompanied by loyalty given.
I was back then and still am and always will be, and I expect that from all my partners.
Again, Sheila, thank you for bringing enhanced vision to what was becoming a more narrowed viewpoint .
The article didn’t mention the distrust in our political parties. Notice how the Kochs reshaped the GOP, making it ripe for a populist (outsider) like Trump. The DNC ran Hillary, Biden, and Harris—all insiders, all deep-state institutionalists, loyalists to those entities the people have no faith in. Make sense? Of course not!
As for JoAnn’s comment, United Healthcare’s CEO made $10.2 million annually. He pushed an AI program that denied claims even though he knew it was faulty. His death has opened the eyes of many Americans to a system that is nothing but fraud and corruption.
The billionaires, Vivek and Elon, got a rockstars welcome in Washington as they all gathered to discuss the programs to be axed and cuts to be made in what they keep referring to as “entitlement programs” and regulatory bodies that protect consumers.
I say start engraving more bullets with the names of our billionaires who want tax cuts to make them richer at the public’s expense. Protests and marches are good social projects for participants, but if you want to capture the oligarch’s attention, start a lottery with the names of our billionaires and the millionaire political puppets. Instead of peasants used in the Hunger Games, we should use billionaires. Maybe the UHC assassin will start a trend since he’s already become a folk hero to many. Even if people know who he is, they say they will protect the guy instead of turning him in.
Meanwhile, keep one eye on the unelected billionaires who formed a non-government agency to shrink our government to increase their wealth.
“Silicon Valley poured more than $394.1m into the US presidential election this year, according to a Guardian analysis, the bulk of it coming from an enormous donation of about $243m Elon Musk made to Donald Trump’s campaign.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/07/campaign-spending-crypto-tech-influence
I get it that there is an underlying distrust of government in this country, and it rests mostly in the hands of the right wing political side of our country. My belief is that it has always been this way, fluctuating somewhat, quietly underground when the Dems are in power and now, as in the past, fearlessly surfacing under maga leadership. This time, in this year’s election, the pathetic voter turnout – 64%? come on! – and a massive domestic and international disinformation campaign squeaked out a victory, and now, as in 2016 and in 2021’s treacherous assault on the Capital, the angry, disinformed populists are at it again. The “mandate” pronounced by trump, where more than half the voters did NOT vote for him, was a razor thin victory, but alas, a victory nonetheless. At this point we can only grit our teeth and grease the machinery to produce an overwhelming 2026 Congressional victory, thus thwarting the thrust of the autocracy in power. It will flow the other way; you can count on it.
A while back Eduardo Porter offered some words on why an “Institutional Party” can no longer succeed: “To steer voters away from a “blow it all up” approach will require figuring out how to invite them into a country that feels alien to so many — a society that is continually changing to embrace new peoples, cultures and technologies, products, environmental constraints, languages, religions, forms of expression, gender identities, sexual affinities, and so on. Voters’ disgust might appear as though it is aimed at venal leaders out of touch with the salt of the earth. But it amounts to a rejection of what America is becoming.”
Poverty might be the key. The fact is that red states are significantly poorer than blue states. There are more poor people in rural counties than in urban counties. Bishop William Barber, who has led the Moral Monday protests, has nailed it. The new chair of the DNC should go to North Carolina and learn from him.
Mainstream press could do us all a favor by having a regular column (every day!!!) with the headline “Following the money”
I know there is already a website that does that, but having such a column on the front page of the New York Times or the Washington Post would be an eye-opener. (Jeff Bezos wouldn’t mind, I’m sure.)
Yes, JoAnn, Nixon, opened the door to the massive greed that has come to characterize health care corporations. But, compared to Trump, he was an ordinary sleaze ball.
Todd, there is some bit of value in your comment: had the DNC got behind Bernie, in a serious manner, we may never have had Trump 45, nor 47! Not that Bernie may be clean as the proverbial whistle, but no one at that level of politics is.
Sheila, that Morning Memo makes a lot of sense, but, will the DNC pay it any attention?
Todd; my United Healthcare problem was totally different and a legal problem. I live 5 minutes from Community East Hospital, know people who have United Healthcare provided at that location. Needing a doctor closer to my home I started an application on line for United Healthcare but stopped when informed the additional coverages they provided (which I did not need) would have have the additional cost of Late Enrollment Penalty (LEP) for prescription coverage by Medicare Part D which I had not subscribed for when it was initially offered. I didn’t complete the application, received requests to do so several times and ignored them; about 2 weeks later I received a letter from my years long IU Health Plan coverage asking why I had cancelled their service…I HAD NOT. It had been cancelled by United Healthcare with their name replaced as my service provider. It took 2 months and much help from organizations and my Medicare and Medicaid (which I do not have) to resolve the problem and return my IU Health Plan coverage. I received a letter from them telling me if I had any health care during the problem period that they would cover it. I never received a bill from United Healthcare but for 3 years received all of their letters of service and changes. BUT…I have a close friend who received excellent care from United Healthcare when she received a double lung transplant about 4 years ago. No explaining how, why or if any of our health care plans provide service or not.
This analysis is not invalid, but
like almost all I have read, it ignores one basic truth: people on the left tend to be educated and intelligent, and their motivations can be understood by employing reason, while voters on the right are emotional actors, less educated and intelligent, relying on subconscious emotional cues to make decisions. Lefties are puzzled by the apparently animalistic behavior of the right, while righties laugh at the useless eggheads of the left.
We talk about institutional trust, blah, blah, blah, and Trump gets them riled up and feeling like part of something greater. We talk policies and they activate emotional triggers.
Democrats need to stop thinking like intellectuals and start thinking like Don Draper.
Over it – award for best stereotyping of the week! KUDOS
JoAnn, you are bright and alert enough to catch their shenanigans, but most of the elderly are struggling and easy prey to these slimy efforts. Stockbrokers do the same thing as the insurance industry. When I took over my dad’s finances and other affairs, I found all kinds of crap where companies took advantage of him. Even though he was old, he still had his ego intact and didn’t want to ask for help.
Due to the CEO’s death, more people are now aware of UHC and the insurance industry. Even Fox News is informing their viewers about it. Meanwhile, nobody is pointing out that Musk wants to slash regulatory departments that “oversee” these corporate profit centers. Without the little regulatory oversight they receive now, imagine the games they will play.
By the way, UHC’s denial rate was twice the industry’s rate at 32%:
“The company dismissed about one in every three claims in 2023 — the most of any major insurer. That’s twice the industry average of 16 percent, according to data from ValuePenguin, a consumer research site owned by LendingTree that specializes in insurance.”
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/12/05/data/unitedhealthcare-claim-denial-rates/
If Magas equate US institutions with liberals and democrats, they’ll be more agreeable with the trump administration tearing them down. Misplaced blame gives those in power aid in combating checks and balances against their aim for unlimited money and power.
The top of the right’s regime, Congress and Majority of Supreme court, are to blame for being corrupt and going rogue from US constitution and rule of law, allowing a convicted con man with questionable contacts with world dictators to assume the presidency.
Seems were going into a dark age where reliable information will be more difficult to attain. The spin and gaslighting will be extreme and citizens will have to be alert and aware to make the best decisions they can.
It’s obvious that for profit health insurance takes too much out of the healthcare equation. Medicare advantage plans almost are the employers of doctors and demand restrictive care. Insurance executive salivating over skimming insurance pool monies for their profits/bonuses interferes with the power of insurance to cover claims and keep premiums down. HCI is going the wrong direction in US, but that doesn’t justify the killing of the UHC executive.
Don’t get me wrong, I love Bernie, but for the life of me I don’t understand why people think the Democratic National Committee would or should have thrown their support to a candidate who is NOT a Democrat. At the same time he was running as a Democrat for President, he was running for the Senate as an Independent. Yes, he caucuses with the Dems, but he refuses to be a Democrat. Am I the only one who understands the position of the DNC?
Lester, have you ever read a marketing text? They don’t call it stereotyping, of course, but that is exactly what they do. Guess who buys certain products you won’t find in Carmel? The “urban” market. Guess where they put the billboards for that? Where the “urban” people live.
Guess who wins the battles for marketshare? People who understand the market segments, the demographics, and how to sell to an audience , which requires knowing that audience.
You want to sell the median voter a mixed-black woman as the Big Boss? You need to understand that voter and what he wants to hear, which levers and buttons to use. Believe me, those buttons and levers are attached to his subconscious mind, not his capacity for reason.
Ds, fire the consultants and just read George Lakoff.