Evidently, the realization that the government has not solved our problems has hit home and a frustration has set in. Polling data indicate that our trust and confidence in government is on shaky ground: Gallup surveys show that less than 15 percent of the public report confidence in Congress and fewer than 20 percent say they trust government. Both have been falling for quite some time and are now near all-time lows.
A competitive presidential race is about to come to a close, but it lacks the enthusiasm of the 2008 election. There is little of the passion for either candidate, despite heightened worries over the economy and an unemployment rate that has been near or over 8 percent since 2009.
An important factor in this growing distaste for politics can be summed up in one word: cronyism. It seems everywhere now, but is not really new. Of course, cronyism wastes resources on boondoggle projects and encourages squandering effort on lobbying the government. But it also has the potential to shatter the public’s trust in many of our institutions of government. Will either party or presidential candidate do anything about it?
If so, the lesson that needs to be learned is that government should nurture the public’s trust and cooperation. Big government is often viewed as a solution to numerous problems. But a smaller, narrowly focused government – allowing few opportunities for cronyism – is the best prospect for regaining the public’s trust and ensuring the effectiveness of government.
Why be concerned about the public’s engagement with and trust in government? Abraham Lincoln said, “With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed.” In other words, the public’s buy-in is needed for many functions of government to work as intended. This is true of the government functions that nearly all agree on: enforcement of personal rights, protection of persons and property, prevention of fraud, assisting in enforcement of mutual agreements and contracts, and promoting competition and preventing monopoly. Public cooperation in these endeavors eases social interactions and also raises economic productivity, while noncooperation does the reverse.
Public cooperation comes from the public’s trust, and it’s a trust that must be earned. A government that repeatedly engages in improper activities and squanders the public’s money on ill-conceived projects and on favored interest groups—as cronyism does —loses the public’s trust and cooperation and augments the slide into social discord and economic stagnation.
Can a government that squanders money on ill-fated “green” energy initiatives be trusted to approve energy-saving appliances? If government airport screeners are caught stealing iPads, can they be trusted to implement airport safety measures? What if the same members of Congress who oversaw regulation of the financial sector during the meltdown also designed new regulatio
EXPERT COMMENTARY
Cronyism Is Destroying the Public's Trust
Evidently, the realization that the government has not solved our problems has hit home and a frustration has set in. Polling data indicate that our trust and confidence in government is on shaky ground: Gallup surveys show that less than 15 percent of the public report confidence in Congress and fewer than 20 percent say they trust government. Both have been falling for quite some time and are now near all-time lows.
A competitive presidential race is about to come to a close, but it lacks the enthusiasm of the 2008 election. There is little of the passion for either candidate, despite heightened worries over the economy and an unemployment rate that has been near or over 8 percent since 2009.
An important factor in this growing distaste for politics can be summed up in one word: cronyism. It seems everywhere now, but is not really new. Of course, cronyism wastes resources on boondoggle projects and encourages squandering effort on lobbying the government. But it also has the potential to shatter the public’s trust in many of our institutions of government. Will either party or presidential candidate do anything about it?
If so, the lesson that needs to be learned is that government should nurture the public’s trust and cooperation. Big government is often viewed as a solution to numerous problems. But a smaller, narrowly focused government – allowing few opportunities for cronyism – is the best prospect for regaining the public’s trust and ensuring the effectiveness of government.
Why be concerned about the public’s engagement with and trust in government? Abraham Lincoln said, “With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed.” In other words, the public’s buy-in is needed for many functions of government to work as intended. This is true of the government functions that nearly all agree on: enforcement of personal rights, protection of persons and property, prevention of fraud, assisting in enforcement of mutual agreements and contracts, and promoting competition and preventing monopoly. Public cooperation in these endeavors eases social interactions and also raises economic productivity, while noncooperation does the reverse.
Public cooperation comes from the public’s trust, and it’s a trust that must be earned. A government that repeatedly engages in improper activities and squanders the public’s money on ill-conceived projects and on favored interest groups—as cronyism does —loses the public’s trust and cooperation and augments the slide into social discord and economic stagnation.
Can a government that squanders money on ill-fated “green” energy initiatives be trusted to approve energy-saving appliances? If government airport screeners are caught stealing iPads, can they be trusted to implement airport safety measures? What if the same members of Congress who oversaw regulation of the financial sector during the meltdown also designed new regulatio