In November of 1963, the American public’s trust in its government stood at over 75%. The previous President had been a revered general who guided the Allied forces to victory over Japan and Germany. We were united against a sinister, common enemy, world Communism, led by a shoe-banging dictator who promised to bury us. The new President was a young, glamorous and inspiring man of wit and vision, whose signature policy initiatives embraced American exceptionalism and virtue—the Peace Corps, space exploration. Even in a city with more JFK foes than fans, the President and his wife drove through the streets of Dallas in an open limousine. And on a bright and beautiful fall day, two rifle shots blew John F. Kennedy’s brains out.
Today, 48 years later, public trust in the government is below 15%, an all-time low. Protesters are in dozens of American cities, challenging the foundations of American progress and success. Large numbers of the public believe that the U.S. Supreme Court assisted in a successful plot to steal a presidential election, and that a U.S. President planned the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001; that the CIA invented AIDS to kill African-Americans; that Barack Obama’s presidency is illegal; and, of course, that there was a massive government cover-up of a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy, a conspiracy that might well have involved his successor, Lyndon Johnson.
It is the lack of trust, more than any single factor, that feeds the ruinous hate and partisanship that has made American government impotent at the worst possible time, with crises intentional, domestic and spiritual surrounding us. We have had weak presidents and inept Congresses before, but once there was a presumption of good faith, both on the part of the politicians who stumbled, and the critics who called out their failures. Today, Democrats are accused of trying to demonize American values; Republicans are accused of wanting to kill seniors. The President, it is said, doesn’t like America and Americans, and, naturally, his critics are all racists.
It really wasn’t like this on November 21, 1963, or on November 23, either. The week that JKF was assassinated, Judy Garland gave the performance of her life on national TV, saluting the aspirations of her martyred friend, in a tribute so painfully passionate that it would probably spark a Saturday Night Live parody if it happened today. But November 22 started a chain of events that nobody but Stephen King could have predicted (interestingly, his current best-seller is about a man who goes back in time to try to stop the killing in Dallas), a horrific sequence that included the assassination of Kennedy’s assassin on live TV, Vietnam, the Johnson administration’s efforts to deceive the public, the social and political upheavals of the Sixties, the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, the election of Richard Nixon and his resignation after Watergate, when his aides attempted to subvert the electoral process and the justice system; Nixon’s unpopular pardon by Gerald Ford; the inept administration of Jimmy Carter; the arrival of TV-produced government under an actor-President, the feckless Bush presidency, President Clinton–slippery, deceitful, effective and (rightly) impeached; the 2000 election fiasco and 9-11, followed by a badly-managed foreign war justified by the presence of weapons that were never found, and now Obama, who promised hope and change only to deliver incompetence, contradictions, and excuses.
Is it any wonder that President Kennedy, who was himself an ethically-compromised man with more than his share of lies and betrayals, is consistently ranked in polls as one of our greatest leaders, though he accomplished little of lasting substance and almost blundered us into nuclear war? His shocking death marks the beginning of our long, deep slide from optimism, confidence and trust into doubt, suspicion, despair and distrust. All that is left is to hope that the slide has hit rock bottom, and that some event, some person, some inspiration, some thing will start America on the path back to trusting our leaders, our government, our national traditions, and most of all, each other.
November 22, 2011 would be a good day to start.
Ethics Alarms 
Nice Job Jack – ! Way to deal with the opinions rather than the facts – because we all dispute the exact “what” that is happened, but that it has happened none the less. The Butterfly Effect truly can apply. As the Flaming Lips and myriad other leaders and mystics say over and over – “All we have is Now.” I am trying harder than ever myself to make a difference in this weary world – even though we disagree about many things, I’m glad to see that you feel the same way.
Wow – I can’t believe I’m the only responder on this post so far.
There are so many other times that public opinion could say that the distrust of government started. Here’s a hint. It didn’t start with Kennedy. Of course there are poll numbers to indicate otherwise. I seem to recall there were loyalists in the U.S. during the Revolution. Then there was the confederates during the Civil War. At one time the democrats were the racists. Another time the republicans were the progressives. The fight for health care reform goes back at least a century and then maybe before. Were the immigrants from the countries we were at war with have their opinions polled? They weren’t trusted to give their opinions. Many of them were outcasts of the country they now believed in. Some were put in ghettos and internment camps. Now I wonder how many Muslims are polled? I don’t agree that the polls have been scientific for that long and many opinions have escaped the pollsters throughout history.
I understand the critics of the occupy movement. There are too many issues. Some of the protesters don’t have a clue to what they are protesting. Some are going beyond civil disobedience and committing crimes against the welfare of others. For that they should be brought to justice. Then there are others who are peaceful law abiding citizens. They don’twant their loans paid for. They don’t want government handouts. They don’t want to take
away from the successful. They are against corporate money in politics. They are sick of their representatives who are more interested in corporations welfare. The arguement hasbeen made that these corporations create jobs so they shouldn’t protest them. The corporations have shut down their domestic industries, packed them up and taken them toother countries. They did this not because of tax incentives alone, but it is cheaper labor, lower standard of living for the workers, and less of a burden of insurance and other
compensation. These corporations don’t care how they make a buck. They don’t have to deal with the laws of safety, polution, child labor as long as they have their bottom line. A profit that they can reward the CEO’s and the investers who have a dispensable income. Some ofthat money coming from deceptive practices (derivatives, ponzi schemes, subprime loans etc.) and even more from tax loopholes that high paid accountants find. Accountants that most of the 99% can’t afford. Then, some from bailouts and other government subsidies that the working populous paid for. The population that lost their jobs and then their homes. Yes, some of them made unwise decisions. Spending decisions and such. Homes and toys they couldn’t afford to afford. I just can’t help but to think there were many who were collateral damage. They lost their benefits and jobs so the corporations could continue to pay their CEOs, high management, and investors a high rate of return. The jobless then weren’t able to pay for their homes and their necessities. Some sucked up their pride and became underemployed. Some graduating from college and had loans to pay off couldn’t find jobs paying high enough to be able to live. They felt they were jipped of the dream the colleges and society had marketed to them. Is some of the 99% delusional that the American dream can be attained by a college education, hard work, and a pretty little resume?
The question of leadership? Where are the leaders? Recent events have shown that regardless of background, education, intelligence, and values, people will find a flaw, and then exploit it to the extent that they become ineffective. The media storms in on trivial stories that interrupt the governing process. The politicians look as though they are constantly campaigning. The critics say the president is campaigning. That may be true but what are they doing? The other party is always campaigning as well. The ideas and bills that are for “the people” get ignored or disposed of before they even enter committees because special interests and lobbiests. The general public doesn’t even get to lobby their representatives. The representatives are only interested in staying in office, padding their pockets, retiring to profit in the private sector and write a book or two. Every one of them wants a plaque to put on their “love me wall”. An “attaboy”. A place in history without having courage to do what is truely right in the eyes of their constituents. Corporations are literally writing the history books, not the government by the people for the people. Who wants to lead when courage isn’t going to get them anywhere but impeached or exploited for flaws having nothing to do with effective governing? They are seen as arrogant and out of touch. How can they be in touch with all the money around them? And money has always been power. The middle class and poor don’t have a chance because they don’t have the representative power promised to them through the Constitution. Corporations have the power. How can one lead against big money? They all say they want to while campaigning. But after the election they are bribed, and not just with money but political clout on issues that affect the general public. They cheat the voters and themselves. Sorry for the rant. A place to start is today. A leader with the courage to do what is right rather than what “money” tells them to do is one way to start.
The fact that public trust in government has waned before is not really responsive. Nothing before 1900 counts—the US was still an experiment, and didn’t even know what it was. I’d start paying attention around TR’s term, and with periodic dips, trust increased through Ikes term and into JFK’s. There is no precedent for today’s attitudes since the last days of Hoover’s administration.