WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 (UPI) -- The UPI Think Tank Wrap-up is a daily digest covering brief opinion pieces, reactions to recent news events, and position statements released by various think tanks.
The Cato Institute
WASHINGTON -- Americans Don't Trust Big Government on Home Front, Says ABC Poll
By John Samples
Just after Sept. 11, Washington pundits pushed a new conventional wisdom: the terrorists' attacks had increased support for Big Government. Andrew Kohut, a public opinion analyst, gave voice to the wishful thinking of the political class:
"The American public feels it needs the federal government much more than they have in a long time."
Indeed, polls at that time showed that the percentage of Americans who trust the federal government to do what is right doubled immediately after Sept. 11.
The proponents of the new conventional wisdom predicted a sea change in American politics. A new era of federal activism, not unlike the 1960s, was at hand. The public had finally come around to support liberal aspirations.
Now a new poll by ABC News gives us a better picture of public trust in the federal government. Most polls on this issue simply ask respondents if they trust the federal government to do what is right. The ABC News poll took a different tack: they asked separate questions about national security and domestic policy.
The responses are markedly different. Sixty-eight percent said they trust the government to do what's right "when it comes to handling national security and the war on terrorism." Only 38 percent had the same trust "when it comes to handling social issues like the economy, health care, Social Security, and education."
Americans trust the government a good deal -- but only about national security issues. This trust is perplexing. After all, Sept. 11 represented an enormous failure by government to provide national security. Upcoming congressional investigations may well bring down the public's trust in government on national security issues. In any event, the public's newfound trust does not support an activist domestic agenda.
The poll's findings about public trust should be put in perspective. As it happens, the 38 percent is close to the recent trend for trust in government generally: in 2000, 44 percent of Americans said they trust the federal government to do what's right "most of the time" or "just about always."
Trust in government has been rising lately, up from its historic low of 21 percent in 1994. The recent rise is the second one on record. Trust in the feds also jumped during Ronald Reagan's first term, only to hit bottom in 1994. The data support three conclusions, none of which are favorable to the cause of activist government.
1) Expanding government undermines public trust. The clearest trend in the data on public trust is the steep decline from 1964 to 1980. These were years of an expanding activist federal government.
Why would expanding government lessen public trust? The 1960s suggests some answers. Believers in activist government tend to promise too much and inevitably deliver too little. Lyndon Johnson promised to end poverty by 1966 while winning a war in Vietnam. Declining public trust in government is a rational response to government failure.
2) Republican revolutions raise public trust in government. The only two times trust in government has gone up immediately have followed conservative "revolutions," the first one led by Reagan in 1980, the second by the House Republicans in 1994. Promises of smaller not bigger government seem to increase public trust.
3) Trends don't go on forever. Before Sept. 11, trust in government had risen back to the same level it had reached in 1984. But public trust may be on the edge of the same cliff it teetered on in 1984. Who's to say the next trend in trust won't be downward?
The ABC News polls suggests that any enduring rise in public trust will be driven by faith in the Pentagon or by promises of less government by a Republican president or Congress. Republican candidates might keep that in mind during this year's elections, but partisans of activist government can't be pleased.
Public trust in government may well return to its pre-Sept. 11 level of around 40 percent. That's well above the bottom hit during the first two Clinton years, but well below the 76 percent support registered at the start of the Great Society.
In the end, terrorism may not change the flow of history and resuscitate activist government. We still live after the death of liberalism in a world where most Americans doubt that the federal government will do the right thing most of the time.
(John Samples is director of the Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute in Washington.)
Institute for Public Accuracy
(The IPA is a nationwide consortium of policy researchers that seeks to broaden public discourse by gaining media access for experts whose perspectives are often overshadowed by major think tanks and other influential institutions.)
WASHINGTON -- A Tale of Two Summits: World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil, the World Economic Forum in New York City
Comments from:
* Walden Bello, the executive director for Focus on the Global South:
"Porto Alegre, site of the World Social Forum (WSF) last year and again this year, has become the byword for the spirit of the burgeoning movement against corporate-driven globalization. Galvanized by the slogan 'Another world is possible,' some 70,000 people are expected to flock to this coastal city. The WSF has been established as a counterpoint to the World Economic Forum (WEF), in timing as well as in spirit."
* Soren Ambrose, policy analyst for the 50 Years Is Enough Network:
"As protesters bring the urgent demand for economic democracy to the streets in Manhattan, those of us in Porto Alegre are digging into the difficult, but necessary and inspiring, work of discussing practical alternatives -- economic, social and political -- that will win popular support by serving the interests of the people. While the WEF, for the 32nd consecutive year, gathers wealthy corporate executives, high-ranking politicians and celebrities to its closed-door sessions, here at the WSF we are open to all participants and to the multitude of practical ideas for a just and sustainable world."
* Eric Laursen, activist with the Another World Is Possible coalition:
"The WEF would have us believe that this is an occasion for high-minded people to come together to solve the world's problems. In reality, this is a collection of corporate CEOs and elected officials meeting to figure out how to further enrich themselves and disempower communities."
* Yvonne Liu, member of Students for Global Justice, which has organized a counter-summit to the WEF in Manhattan:
"We contacted the WEF and invited them to our summit. They replied that they were too busy and did not invite us to their forum. It's completely misguided that the police are deployed against the activists who simply wish to exercise their First Amendment rights."
