Good morning,
I’ve been thinking more about institutions and the importance for them to be nurtured, respected, and shielded from unwarranted denigration. To do so requires a new commitment to fairness and an acknowledgement that they are works in process—that they, like us, are not perfected and are not infallible. It requires a commitment to educating our children regarding their essential value to a just society, and then working to make them more just.
WHAT EXPLAINS THE LACK OF TRUST IN OUR INSTITUTIONS?
I think there are a few reasons for the trend to delegitimize institutions. The first is that those who sit within and are responsible for these institutions have shown a greater commitment to their own desires and less to the institutions that they serve. This undermines the stature of the institution. This can be seen in the corporate world, where the CEOs continue to make more and more money, responsible less and less to their companies, their shareholders, and their employees. This can be seen in the Supreme Court, where people like John Roberts are termed “institutionalists” if they simply are following the rules—both written and understood. It is as if being an institutionalist—valuing that institution and what it represents—is holding a political position, rather than simply a respect for the system of government and the importance of stability. Meanwhile, people like Clarence Thomas wield their power and benefit from their position, without regard for the rules (whether written or understood)—both in the perqs they receive (and many of the Justices are guilty of this, albeit not as blatantly—and in the intermixing of their politics and that of the spouses, unwilling to recuse oneself when the conflict becomes obvious). It can be seen in the universities, where salaries and perquisites of the administration explode, while the cost of tuition has been increasing at more than double the rate of inflation. The growth in personnel at our institutions of higher learning is most rampant not in the classroom, the library, or the research lab—but in the offices of administration.
A second factor undermining trust in institutions is the power of money. Corporations and, to a lesser degree, unions are able to fund political campaigns and lobbyists to sway legislation in ways that often seem nonsensical, leading leads to results that often belie credulity. But it runs deeper than simply swaying legislation through the presentation of arguments backed by data. That power in politics is exacerbated by the prevalence of “super PACs,” whose fundraising is without governor, whose contributors often are undisclosed, and whose primary mission is not building arguments, but in tearing down others. Most insidious than the fact that the people have accepted that large contributors “own” the legislators. This is reality is corrosive of belief in, and support of, democracy. When people begin to conclude that their primary participation in the democratic enterprise—the vote—means precious little, the system is endangered. It is not enough that others have greater impact to undermine the institution, but that others perceive they have little or no way to generate any impact. Once people believe they no longer are part of the institutional framework, they have little reason to support it.
There is a third factor undermining the legitimacy of, and trust in, these institutions. There is an increasingly growing group of politicians who see the tearing down of existing institutions as feeding a political narrative and creating political advantage. In the immediate term, vilifying an institution for political gain might be tactically advantageous. But in the long term, the undermining of institutions necessarily must have a negative impact on our society. An example of this is the Conservative media, which was not created to maintain journalistic standards, but as a counterweight or response to the perceived left-leaning mainstream media. It rails against the FBI, the IRS, the Justice Department and others who are pursuing their assigned roles within our government, or, when in power, try to politicize and weaponize these institutions to their own ends. Instead, if one feels the institutions are lacking, why not address the perceived, honor the guard rails on institutions’ behaviors, and strive to make them better?
There is a fourth factor, which is that those who are left behind by the society, who perceive the institutions are not there to further their own personal, economic, and societal interests. They perceive that the system is “rigged” against them and doesn’t speak for them. Who might these people be? Start with those who are imprisoned for long periods of time for relatively minor, often not even malum in se, offenses. Then there are those who see no chance to improve their socio-economic position. We have a taxation system, which appears designed to further the economic interests of “the haves” against the interests of the “have nots.” Then there are those—for better or worse—who perceive the system actually is working to lift others and leave them behind. In its most insidious incarnation, the “replacement theory” rears its ugly head as a narrative that takes away personal agency, fails to acknowledge systemic advantages, and provides a theory of victimization that is all too comfortable—rather than addressing possible causes and solutions for the plight of those displaced by globalization, technology, and the lack of education. The Democrats learned the hard way in 2016 that this group cannot be ignored and we all learned in January 2021 that they pose a threat if their concerns continue to go unaddressed.
Finally, that is an even darker factor, and one that I fear may be at play here—at least among some minority of those seeking to malign our institutions (including foreign “bots”). Tearing down institutions may be the political objective of some movements, regardless of their perceived shortcomings. One might have suggested that the SDS or the Weathermen in the 60s as those who might use the failure of national institutions as a means of strengthening their position and perhaps fuel their thoughts (however misguided and low-odds) of gaining control. These days, there seems a concerted effort of some to challenge the legitimacy of our institutions and undermine the people’s sense that our democracy stands for fairness. I think the “big lie” is but a manifestation of a narrative supported by fringe media that our fundamental institutions are illegitimate. In so doing, these people would seek to create a void where autocrats like Donald Trump can step in, bending institutions to their own purposes (as he already attempted with the Justice Department). Along with the “big lie” is the “deep state” (which never has been proven or explained effectively), the “weaponization of the FBI” (which curiously is exactly what those complaining loudest actually attempted to do in the Trump administration), and “mainstream media” as “the enemy of the people.” Once in power, the very institutions they sought to undermine could then be repurposed and reconfigured to serve the purposes of the autocrats.
THE LESSONS OF HISTORY
In his book On Tyranny, the great Yale professor Timothy Snyder lists his twenty lessons for the 20th century, which can serve as bulwarks against tyranny. Number 2 is labeled “Defend Institutions”:
“It is institutions that help us to preserve decency…Do not speak of “our institutions” unless you make them yours by acting on their behalf.”
He goes on to note that many Germans thought their institutions were impervious to the manipulations of authoritarians, believing Hitler could be constrained by the institution he was chosen to lead:
“The mistake is to assume that rulers who came to power through institutions cannot change or destroy those very institutions—even when that is exactly what they have announced that they will do.”
It is fine for us to complain about institutions and actively engaging in their diminution. Rather than vilification, we need to join in their improvement and enhancement. Otherwise, others will seek their emasculation, dilution, and destruction.
Happy day,
Glenn
I would love to see you take the "other" side of where you usually write. Please create a musing of supporting Mr. Trump in this current situation. I know you can and would love to see your response.
Mark