Trust, but Verify! (Part 1)Trust, Risk, and Obama

If you’re playing a game of word association and someone says ‘politician’, the word ‘trust’ isn’t likely to be the first thing that comes to mind. Yet, in statements at the December council meeting, in the newspaper, and in a comment on this blog, more trust in government, presumably on the part of the citizens of Geneva, is exactly what Mayor Einstein is calling for. Additionally, our recent post on President-elect Obama’s cabinet appointments generated some feedback that we wanted to consider on a broader level. We were asked by readers, “Why don’t you guys, or why can’t you guys trust Obama?”

So the Mayor and other readers got us thinking about trust, and its role in what scholar Mark Warren refers to as a deliberative democracy. (Check out Miller’s thinking here).This part of the post will deal with issues of trust on the national level, while Part II brings it back to the local scene.

Did our Founding Fathers believe that an active trust in our government was necessary for its proper functioning? Well, yes and no. In drafting the Constitution, they sought to create a system of governance which the people could trust to pursue their best interests, with our collective benefit the result. But, they also recognized that power is inherent in government, and that power can be corrupting, and not conducive to good government.

That’s why they included a system of checks, balances, separation of powers, and other remedies to protect against concentrations and abuses of that power. In addition to the three branches of government, the Constitution, by virtue of the First Amendment, guaranteeing freedom of speech, ensures a 'fourth estate,' that publicizes and reflects upon the acts of government. As James Madison declared, “To the press alone...the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression”. So, while the Founding Fathers wanted us to trust the system and probably hoped that we could trust our public officials, they provided a mechanism of verifying and correcting the actions of public officials who had gone astray.

They put their ultimate faith in the people. So, while the Federalist papers state “if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary,” they go on to support the Constitution, which articulated a system of government by the people, and mechanisms for public information and communication, as the institution that can be trusted to correct any misdeeds.

More recently, political scientists have explored the role of trust in contemporary political life, particularly as it relates to relations between the people and their representatives. In his book, Trust (1994), William Bianco assumed “constituents look for ways to increase the chances that their representatives will act in their [the constituents] interests.” He found two main ways: (1) “retrospective evaluations,” which judge outcomes and for which there is a reckoning at the next election; (2) “trust,” which assumes their representative is better informed than they, and ought to be entrusted. The basis of trust is either the representative’s “presentation of self,” making the case that he/she is to be trusted on the basis of personal qualities (integrity, etc.), or “traceablity,” the idea that constituents can eventually get to the bottom of decisions. This, of course, assumes that elected representatives come to meetings prepared and do the appropriate research and deliberation so that their knowledge base can be reasonably assumed to exceed, or at minimum match, that of their constituents.

In “Democratic Theory and Trust,” Mark Warren emphasizes the relationship between trust and risk. He defines trust generally as “a judgment to accept vulnerability to the potential ill will of others by granting them discretionary power over some good.” What’s strange about trust in the specific realm of politics is that once you’ve entered the political realm (as opposed to familial, social, or community relations) trust is already on shaky ground. That’s just the nature of politics.

However, there are good reasons for wanting trust. For instance, you might accept the risk of trust in exchange for the benefits of cooperation that could follow. Paradoxically, though, the greater the need for trust, the greater the risk involved. Or, expressed another way, the conditions which are best for trust, are the conditions where trust is least needed. For Warren, then, you want to become involved in trust, because of its benefits, but yet, you want to limit the risks entailed by trust.

So, for Warren, how is trust created? For him, it is through open and honest government with good communication. Here’s what he says:

“A stable background of trust is unlikely if there are consistent and pervasive conflicts of interest in the society…what maintains a background of trust, rather, is my knowledge that I could monitor and challenge authorities or trusted others, as well as the other’s knowledge that I can do so. One of the ironies of modern forms of trust is that they are more robust when they can be challenged.”

We think the sentiment is best captured in President Reagan’s phrase “Trust, but Verify.” Of course, the whole thing gushes with irony, for to trust, is never needing to verify.

Warren concludes that “trust thrives when institutions are structured so as to respond to communication." This requires access to information and deliberations so as to ensure transparency, and also an "institutional means for challenging" authorities and 'trusted' individuals.

When it comes to Obama, so far, we trust his judgment, in part because of what we know about him as a person (though we also trusted Spitzer, but who could have known what he was really like?). But does that mean our role ought to be merely that of a ‘cheerleader’? Our basis of trust in Obama is both Bianco’s notion of “presentation of self,” i.e., his character, and Warren’s concept of transparency, i.e., the potential verifiability of all his claims. Part of trusting someone’s judgment is trusting that s/he makes decisions based on sound reasons and that s/he is open to information and deliberates thoroughly.

In short, trusting the government is actually trusting the political process that we all participate in. By vigorously participating, which includes open and responsible debate, you are demonstrating that trust. Think of it this way: If we didn’t trust our politicians (be they local or national), what would be the point of writing this blog or of voting or of even paying attention at all? If they are sinister and corrupt, then nothing we say or do would matter, would it?

And, more importantly, the blog itself is ultimately an instrument of trust, in so far as it demonstrates, in its fact-based point of view, that what government says and does is ultimately verifiable