The Government, Once Scorned, Becomes Savior

At the moment the first fireball seared the crystalline Manhattan sky last week, the entire impulse to distrust government that has become so central to U.S. politics seemed instantly anachronistic.

The erosion of faith in the federal government has been probably the most profound change in America’s political landscape over the last generation. In a 1964 University of Michigan study, 62% of Americans said they trusted the federal government to do what’s right most of the time. By 1994, that figure had dwindled to 19%. The number has rebounded some since, but those with little trust in Washington still exceed those with much.

From Vietnam and Watergate to Iran-Contra and fund-raising scandals in the 1990s, the federal government has contributed plenty to its own declining esteem. But from every angle, Americans have been bombarded with messages that stoke their skepticism. Reporters search through every cranny for signs of waste or scandal (while saying little about programs that produce positive results.) Business lobbyists joke that the scariest words in the English language are: “I’m from the federal government, and I’m here to help you.”

Maybe those weren’t the scariest words for survivors stumbling out of lower Manhattan on Sept. 11.

Routinely along the way, political leaders--especially on the right--have hacked away at these fraying bonds of trust. Ronald Reagan made a career of belittling the government he headed: “Government,” Reagan famously said, “is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Similarly, House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) has been fond of saying: “The market is rational and government is dumb.”

President Bush isn’t that instinctively hostile toward Washington, and he’s been a unifying figure in this crisis. Yet in the past, even he drew a corrosive line between the American people and their government. During last fall’s general election, that division was at the core of Bush’s case against Al Gore: “I trust the people,” Bush insisted in his biggest applause line, “he trusts the government.” Last month, Bush reprised that line to contrast himself with congressional Democrats. Only days before the attack, Bush was arguing that the shriveling of the federal budget surplus was a good thing because it meant Washington would have less money to spend on public programs.

Yet in the attack’s dizzying aftermath, where did almost all Americans turn for answers if not to the federal government? That instinct extended far beyond the actual physical defense of the nation--a responsibility that almost all Americans, left, right or center, accept as a legitimate function for Washington. More telling has been the instant push in both parties for the federal government to replace the airlines in providing airport security. As soon as Thursday, a bipartisan coalition led by Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) plans to introduce legislation to make that shift. “It is the most efficient and effective way of guaranteeing the security you want,” Kerry says.

Consider that a moment. For decades, the message to the public from much of the media and political system has been that Washington is awash in waste and corruption, especially when compared with the sleek efficiency of private industry.

Yet given the critical responsibility of safeguarding the skies, private companies apparently have cut corners and cut costs as they inevitably balanced concern about the general welfare with their need to generate a profit. Now, the widespread assumption is that the federal government, unconcerned with profit, will provide a more thorough and effective defense against hijackings or bombings. “It’s the public policy equivalent of a flight to blue chips in a turbulent stock market,” says Bruce Reed, the chief domestic policy advisor under former President Clinton.

The lesson is twofold. While government indeed can learn about efficiency from the best businesses, some public services--education comes to mind--are still best provided by public institutions that don’t need to turn a profit. And while U.S. industry has proved brilliant at creating wealth and inspiring innovation, it’s naive (or disingenuous) to expect private companies to operate entirely in the public interest. It will be worth remembering last week’s breakdowns in airport security the next time some politician condemns federal environmental, workplace or food safety regulations and insists industry should be trusted more to police itself.

The point isn’t that big centralized government programs are the solution to all American challenges. In both parties, the most innovative programs over the last decade have tried to use government with a lighter touch, as a catalyst to help other institutions (such as local governments or faith-based charities) confront problems. In many cases, it makes sense to expose public institutions to some level of market pressure--by increasing competition for the public schools with charter schools, for instance. But on some critical needs, like educating our children, safeguarding our retirement or, now, policing the skies, there may be no alternative to government shouldering the central responsibility.

It’s times of tragedy that expose the hollowness of the manufactured disdain for government. In 1995, the Oklahoma City bombing exploded the illusion that government was filled with “jackbooted thugs” bent on stealing our liberty. The dead and maimed government employees at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building spent their days processing Social Security checks or the health care needs of veterans. People whom politicians might have described with a curled lip just a day earlier as bureaucrats turned out to be the men and women next door.

This crisis should teach a similar lesson: It’s simply misguided to see the federal government as something divisible from America, when it is in fact the tool through which we meet collectively the challenges that we can’t handle alone. It obscures that basic truth to suggest we must choose between trusting government or the people. “In time of crisis,” notes Reed, “we realize that the people and government are one and the same.” The tragedy is that it took so much private pain to remind us that sometimes public actions through government aren’t the problem--they are the solution to our problems.

See current and past Ronald Brownstein columns on The Times’ Web site at: www.latimes.com/brownstein.