Poll: 4 out of 5 Americans don't trust Washington

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Poll: 4 out of 5 Americans don't trust Washington

Apr 19, 8:04 AM (ET)

By LIZ SIDOTI

WASHINGTON (AP) - America's "Great Compromiser" Henry Clay called government "the great trust," but most Americans today have little faith in Washington's ability to deal with the nation's problems.

Public confidence in government is at one of the lowest points in a half century, according to a survey from the Pew Research Center. Nearly 8 in 10 Americans say they don't trust the federal government and have little faith it can solve America's ills, the survey found.

The survey illustrates the ominous situation President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party face as they struggle to maintain their comfortable congressional majorities in this fall's elections. Midterm prospects are typically tough for the party in power. Add a toxic environment like this and lots of incumbent Democrats could be out of work.

The survey found that just 22 percent of those questioned say they can trust Washington almost always or most of the time and just 19 percent say they are basically content with it. Nearly half say the government negatively affects their daily lives, a sentiment that's grown over the past dozen years.

This anti-government feeling has driven the tea party movement, reflected in fierce protests this past week.

"The government's been lying to people for years. Politicians make promises to get elected, and when they get elected, they don't follow through," says Cindy Wanto, 57, a registered Democrat from Nemacolin, Pa., who joined several thousand for a rally in Washington on April 15 - the tax filing deadline. "There's too much government in my business. It was a problem before Obama, but he's certainly not helping fix it."

Majorities in the survey call Washington too big and too powerful, and say it's interfering too much in state and local matters. The public is split over whether the government should be responsible for dealing with critical problems or scaled back to reduce its power, presumably in favor of personal responsibility.

About half say they want a smaller government with fewer services, compared with roughly 40 percent who want a bigger government providing more. The public was evenly divided on those questions long before Obama was elected. Still, a majority supported the Obama administration exerting greater control over the economy during the recession.

"Trust in government rarely gets this low," said Andrew Kohut, director of the nonpartisan center that conducted the survey. "Some of it's backlash against Obama. But there are a lot of other things going on."

And, he added: "Politics has poisoned the well."

The survey found that Obama's policies were partly to blame for a rise in distrustful, anti-government views. In his first year in office, the president orchestrated a government takeover of Detroit automakers, secured a $787 billion stimulus package and pushed to overhaul the health care system.

But the poll also identified a combination of factors that contributed to the electorate's hostility: the recession that Obama inherited from President George W. Bush; a dispirited public; and anger with Congress and politicians of all political leanings.

"I want an honest government. This isn't an honest government. It hasn't been for some time," said self-described independent David Willms, 54, of Sarasota, Fla. He faulted the White House and Congress under both parties.

The poll was based on four surveys done from March 11 to April 11 on landline and cell phones. The largest survey, of 2,500 adults, has a margin of sampling error of 2.5 percentage points; the others, of about 1,000 adults each, has a margin of sampling error of 4 percentage points.

In the short term, the deepening distrust is politically troubling for Obama and Democrats. Analysts say out-of-power Republicans could well benefit from the bitterness toward Washington come November, even though voters blame them, too, for partisan gridlock that hinders progress.

In a democracy built on the notion that citizens have a voice and a right to exercise it, the long-term consequences could prove to be simply unhealthy - or truly debilitating. Distrust could lead people to refuse to vote or get involved in their own communities. Apathy could set in, or worse - violence.

Democrats and Republicans both accept responsibility and fault the other party for the electorate's lack of confidence.

"This should be a wake-up call. Both sides are guilty," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. She pointed to "nonsense" that goes on during campaigns that leads to "promises made but not promises kept." Still, she added: "Distrust of government is an all-American activity. It's something we do as Americans and there's nothing wrong with it."

Sen. Scott Brown, a Republican who won a long-held Democratic Senate seat in Massachusetts in January by seizing on public antagonism toward Washington, said: "It's clear Washington is broken. There's too much partisan bickering to be able to solve the problems people want us to solve."

And, he added: "It's going to be reflected in the elections this fall."

But Matthew Dowd, a top strategist on Bush's re-election campaign who now shuns the GOP label, says both Republicans and Democrats are missing the mark.

"What the country wants is a community solution to the problems but not necessarily a federal government solution," Dowd said. Democrats are emphasizing the federal government, while Republicans are saying it's about the individual; neither is emphasizing the right combination to satisfy Americans, he said.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100419/D9F64DD80.html

[Ali G. 37]

"It's something we do as Americans and there's nothing wrong with it."

[sarcasm]No nothing wrong at all. It's actually quite productive to distrust your government. That is, the same government the democracy voted into office.[/sarcasm]

A hell of a lot of people here vote along ideological lines. Not to mention, clearly fall for the cliches and song & dance. Yet are then shocked when this stooge you voted in does not perform.

However, that is not the problem here; the problem is with the system. There is a reason why only second and third world countries, that are poor and corrupt, are left using the presidential system; over the first world choice of the parliamentary system. Will anyone ever admit or discuss this here, of course not, as it goes against the indoctrinated prime directive of anything the US does must (by default) be the best approach.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

[sarcasm]No nothing wrong at all. It's actually quite productive to distrust your government. That is, the same government the democracy voted into office.[/sarcasm]

A hell of a lot of people here vote along ideological lines. Not to mention, clearly fall for the cliches and song & dance. Yet are then shocked when this stooge you voted in does not perform.

However, that is not the problem here; the problem is with the system. There is a reason why only second and third world countries, that are poor and corrupt, are left using the presidential system; over the first world choice of the parliamentary system. Will anyone ever admit or discuss this here, of course not, as it goes against the indoctrinated prime directive of anything the US does must (by default) be the best approach.

The Presidential system "as founded" works fine. However as I have pointed out numerous times, the moment we allowed the President to be elected Democratically, and the moment we allowed the Senators to be elected Democratically, things were bound to go to the ###### can. - That was NEVER the intentions of the original form of the constitution and for good reason...

[Ali G. 37]

The Presidential system "as founded" works fine. However as I have pointed out numerous times, the moment we allowed the President to be elected Democratically, and the moment we allowed the Senators to be elected Democratically, things were bound to go to the ###### can. - That was NEVER the intentions of the original form of the constitution and for good reason...

People tend to copy, clone and adopt proven models that evidently work best. Hence, the extensive use of the parliamentary system or a form of it by most first world countries. Accept it or not, that is reality. America is using a system that is at best outdated and at worst detrimental to the country's success and progress.

Are you suggesting neither the president nor senators should be elected democratically? The true mindset of libertarians is coming out daily. First you want zero government programs for the country and its people - by means of collecting taxes. Now you want to get rid of democracy and basically allow those with the deepest pockets to buy off the senate and president; which is inevitably with what you propose.

The "constitutional" card does not work with me. With a background in engineering, only logical opinions and discussions gets through.

Edited April 19, 2010 by Ali G.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

People tend to copy, clone and adopt proven models that evidently work best. Hence, the extensive use of the parliamentary system or a form of it by most first world countries. Accept it or not, that is reality. America is using a system that is at best outdated and at worst detrimental to the country's success and progress.

Are you suggesting neither the president nor senators should be elected democratically? The true mindset of libertarians is coming out daily. First you want zero government programs for the country and its people - by means of collecting taxes. Now you want to get rid of democracy and basically allow those with the deepest pockets to buy off the senate and president; which is inevitably with what you propose.

The "constitutional" card does not work with me. With a background in engineering, only logical opinions and discussions gets through.

Here's The "Logic" and the ORIGINAL intent.

US House Of Reps = Elected Democratically By the People

US Senate = Two Members From Each State Picked As Reps of the State by the legislatures.

US President = Chosen by the electoral college

The whole idea and original intent was so that the people were represented, the states were represented, and then the President wasn't really skewed by being a part of the main elected groups.

Represenative Republic. Where everone's interests are represented.

It makes perfectly clear sense when you look at the breakdown.

That is no where near what our system is today.

[Niels Bohr 72]

I don't trust a Republican nor a Democrat. Unlike some people here on this forum.

[Ali G. 37]

Here's The "Logic" and the ORIGINAL intent. US House Of Reps = Elected Democratically By the People US Senate = Two Members From Each State Picked As Reps of the State by the legislatures. US President = Chosen by the electoral college

The whole idea and original intent was so that the people were represented, the states were represented, and then the President wasn't really skewed by being a part of the main elected groups. Represenative Republic. Where everone's interests are represented.

It makes perfectly clear sense when you look at the breakdown. That is no where near what our system is today.

The problem in the US is not how someone is elected, far from it actually; rather, it's the system and process that is the issue. It's the systematic disconnect of the president from the senate and so on. The term limits of the presidents but zero limits on senators. Then again, having the house of reps reelected every two years, while keeping senators in for six is quite illogical and useless.

Off-topic, were you born and raised in Texas?

Edited April 19, 2010 by Ali G.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The problem in the US is not how someone is elected, far from it actually; rather, it's the system and process that is the issue. It's the systematic disconnect of the president from the senate and so on. The term limits of the presidents but zero limits on senators. Then again, having the house of reps reelected every two years, while keeping senators in for six is quite illogical and useless.

Off-topic, were you born and raised in Texas?

I agree on term limits/time in office as well. Won't get any arguments from me there. How they are elected though does effect the system. When you have so many people that vote just straight party tickets. So President + Senator A + Represenative A get a vote just because someone picked the "party" that's complete bullshit in my book and why the Senate and the President should be taken away from the people once again... It's very toxic.

Indeed, I was born and raised here and then lived in Minnesota for 3 1/2 years.

I like the sytem here in Texas, because our legislature only meets for a couple of months bi-annually. So there's less time for them to screw things up. On top of that the Governor has jack ###### for power. On top of that, there is NO financial incentive as far as salary goes in being a member of the legislature. They only get around $6-7,000 a year for their salary. Other than that, they have to be working people/doing things on their own. --- Also if there's ever any emergency that needs to be handled, the Governor can call a special session to get things done, so we never lose out on anything.

[Ali G. 37]

Indeed, I was born and raised here and then lived in Minnesota for 3 1/2 years.

I like the sytem here in Texas, because our legislature only meets for a couple of months bi-annually. So there's less time for them to screw things up. On top of that the Governor has jack ###### for power. On top of that, there is NO financial incentive as far as salary goes in being a member of the legislature. They only get around $6-7,000 a year for their salary. Other than that, they have to be working people/doing things on their own. --- Also if there's ever any emergency that needs to be handled, the Governor can call a special session to get things done, so we never lose out on anything.

The reason I ask is because it explains the mindset. Folks from down there have an interesting way of viewing things, in particular the rest of the world. Ideally, I would need to live in Teaxs to fully understand it. While you would need to live in Sydney or Melbourne to understand my own.

[luckytxn 2,265]

I don't trust a Republican nor a Democrat. Unlike some people here on this forum.

See we can agree.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The reason I ask is because it explains the mindset. Folks from down there have an interesting way of viewing things, in particular the rest of the world. Ideally, I would need to live in Teaxs to fully understand it. While you would need to live in Sydney or Melbourne to understand my own.

Well, especially in my experiences living in the 'bluest' of blue states of Minnesota really just re-affirms how I feel about certain aspects of government.

Minnesota's cost of living is higher. Housing costs higher, etc. Tax rate is higher. Yet their infrastructure is a joke in many places. -- Now don't get me wrong though. Minnesota was a great place to live overall, but the over-taxation up their withour proper represenation was a joke. It's a blue state through and through that keeps trusting government to clean things up, yet never does... The housing costs up there is what really irked me though. I could literally buy the exact same house here for $140,000 that would cost me over $200,000 up there. It was honestly disgusting lol.

[Ban Hammer 13,671]

I don't trust a Republican nor a Democrat. Unlike some people here on this forum.

yet most of the time you're railing against republicans.

[TBoneTX 46,311]

Minnesota was a great place to live overall

Q: Why doesn't Iowa slide into Missouri?

A: Because Minnesota sucks, si man! (Go Hawks)