It is natural that Democrats trust the government more when a Democrat is president while Republicans trust government more when a Republican is president. However, a new study confirms something we've seen before: Republicans are far more partisan than Democrats. Here's the basic chart, helpfully colorized by me:
This partisan difference among Republicans became even larger starting in the Bush era:
This is yet another demonstration of the malignant effect of Fox News. Before 2000, Republicans were somewhat more partisan than Democrats in their trust of government. After 2000 they went absolutely bonkers. This is what Rupert Murdoch has done to us.
The effects are real, but what's going on with the y-axes?
I don't trust scholars to present honest visuals when they want to criticize (implicitly or explicitly) GOP voters.
Did these "scholars" share their inner most intentions with you, or do you just hate statistics that clearly indicate what everyone with two synapses to rub together already knows: the the GOP base has been radicalized to the point of insurrection by blatantly obvious propaganda.
Under the advice of his attorney, Mitchell Young will not answer that question, as he is currently fighting at pretrial against a count of being at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
How are they definining "trust" and "confidence"? I don't have access to the study, just the abstract. Under Bush I, Republican confidence rose but trust dropped. Under Clinton, Republican confidence starts about where it ends, with a small dip in the middle, whereas trust goes up -- indeed, the differential from the start to the end of his administration is greater than under Reagan.
Whatever responsibility Fox News bears for the way Republican trust has cratered since 2000, even before then Republicans were given to wilder swings than Democrats, both in their enthusiasms and their dislikes. Other studies have shown a greater tendency towards dichotomous thinking (black and white, either/or, for us or against us) in conservatives than in liberals. How much of this asymmetry is a reflection of that?
I also wonder about a possible Republican tendency towards optimism at the beginning of Republican administrations, following by disillusionment. Trust dropped under Nixon and both Bushes. The increase under Ford could have been a dead cat bounce. Even under Reagan, it appears to plateau after an initial rise.
I'd like to see this series through the Trump administration. There's probably be some interesting weirdness there, too.
Republicans have always been an excitable bunch. In the new millennium their excitability has increased. Whether Fox News is reponsible for this increase, or is merely positioning itself to benefit from it is unclear.
Well, they certainly aren't a considered bunch, are they? And quick to take sides too. And as far as getting them to change their minds as new evidence presents itself? I'm very much afraid that 'You cannot reason people out of positions they didn’t reason themselves into', as the old saw goes.
Yes. Blaming everything that is wrong with Republicans on Fox News is displacement activity.
Fox has clearly worked hard to erode whatever trust in institutions Republicans have. Id be curious to see this mapped against recessions and stock market performance. It sure looks at first glance like Republicans really base their trust on their pocketbooks.
What's the likelihood Cheney, Romney, Kinzinger, and maybe Murkowski, Collins, declare they are independents and caucus with the Dems? I would think if a bunch of them did that all at once, Biden would work with them to give them some goodies they could use to get re-elected.
If that were the ultimate result of Murdoch's crusade against democracy, it would be a fine comeuppance.
They are all from deep red states (except Collins), so they would probably lose the next election if they did that.
I think Murdock is the leader of a terrorist organization. Send in the drones!
I think that any analysis of trust in government over time, by party, needs to take account of the fight over homosexuality: the very vigorous demonstration that the government is not constrained by stability, votes, or statute between 2004 and 2015 really destroyed trust in government generally among conservatives.
You could say the same about the Civil Rights movement; Prohibition and then its repeal, the small-p prohibition of hemp/marijuana and its repeal; legalizing birth control, legalizing inter-racial marriage; expanding the vote first to men who didn't own property, then to black men, to women, and to eighteen-year-olds ... about every change throughout history that any conservative has ever felt unsettled by, or tried to pass laws to prevent happening. I don't see anything unique about the gay rights movement.
Stability is a good thing to the people in power, not to the people they are suppressing. Taking away unfair privileges, or extending them to everyone, is always unpopular among the people who had them.
To take them in groups:
Prohibition and its repeal, voting rights for black men, women, and 18-year-olds
All these happened after getting sufficient support to pass an amendment to the Constitution (although admittedly, in the case of black men under conditions that don't meet usual standards for democratic decision-making; it still had majority support from voters.)
Marijuana prohibition and its repeal, inter-racial marriage, legal contraception
All these had laws passed through normal legal processes, in most states, permitting them (or they were never prohibited at all).
It's not just "lack of stability" that makes the contest over homosexuality different: it's the fact that every time it came up before any sort of democratic body, it was rejected - by Congress (DOMA), by state legislatures, by referenda.
Funny, I remember states passing pro-gay marriage statutes several times. Didn't stop the homophobes from losing their tiny minds.
The fact that you don't consider homosexuals to be worthy of Equal Treatment Under the Law (a Constitutional Amendment that must surely cover legal unions of any kind), and prefer instead to also violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by having us be governed by radical religious beliefs, show just how twisted your concept of "proper government" actually is.
It's positively Conservative. So it's not trust in government that was lost, but trust in the constancy of Tyranny of the Conservative Minority that was lost. And yes- that has absolutely driven the right-wing bonkers, to the point of violent insurrection. With the help of right-wing propaganda, of course....
Why do the charts cut off in 2016? It arouses my suspicions.
I'd never thought I'd see a MoJo writer write (or strongly imply) that distrust in the government is bad and that the government is to be trusted.
But the real story here is that GOP loss of trust in government began under George Bush and has simply continued...and that's probably just good judgement.
I'd map it to Reagan, who was fond of saying that government isn't the solution, it's the problem.
'I'd never thought I'd see a MoJo writer write (or strongly imply) that distrust in the government is bad and that the government is to be trusted.'
That is a terrible over-simplification. Not trusting the CDC and Dr. Fauci has cost a hundred thousand lives or more. So, YES- trusting government expertise and dedication in a measured and open-eyed way is necessary to even functioning as a nation.
I think the jury is still very much out on Fauci. It's not like a health bureaucrat has any different incentives and weaknesses as other bureaucrats. Expand your domain, go with what you know. And I believe that up until late Feb 2020 Fauci was still downplaying the virus and warning against wearing masks. At any rate the top four Covid deaths per capita, across states, are all those super smart Northern Eastern Seaboard states. I'm especially disappointed in Mass.
Derp. And you're no Greg House.
"And I believe that up until late Feb 2020 Fauci was still downplaying the virus and warning against wearing masks."
Do you think this is a strong argument or did you suffer a massive head injury as a child?
Maybe the northern progressive republicans need to go home. Kevin can now announce he is a Republican and join hand in hand with Rick Wilson for a consensus candidate, the progressive, libertarian and conservative can agree on, leaving populism to the Dems, who support anti-sjw, anti-rich policies.
'northern progressive republicans'
LOL
Is Christopher Shays chopped liver?
He ran to the left of Democrat vice presidential nominee Joe Liebermann!
Partisanship has increased because Republicans have made increasing it on irrational racist and religious grounds their main strategy for over 50 years. These are very fundamental motivations and when aroused can completely overcome reason. Republicans had to win over the white working-class which had voted Democratic up till the Civil Right era and they weren't going to do it with plutocratic economics. Fox News has played an important role but the change in media started before Fox arose. Reversal of the Fairness doctrine caused the rise of right-wing talk radio. If Murdoch had not come along and taken advantage of the spread of cable TV, someone else would have done it. There have always been rightist media moguls and there will be others to take the place of Fox if it is somehow suppressed or countered.
Republican have definitely had a media strategy since Goldwater, but Democrats have not. Maybe Democrats should think about this.
Pingback: Tucker Carlson, a rich man from California, makes $Millions as a cable TV entertainer – democratic impasse.com
I mean, you got to a point under Trump where they would rather believe in Q than the actual President of the US. Isn't that like negative trust in government?
I think Fox is just along for the ride. Without fundamental conservative/repub constant talking points about how government is a joke Fox would have no content.
Note, by the way, that Fox itself does not really create any content.
Derp. And you're no Greg House.
Ryan Reilly on Twitter:
"Attorney for Capitol defendant Anthony Antonio said his client had 'Foxitus' and 'Foxmania' from watching six months of Fox News and started 'believing what was being fed to him' by Fox News and the president." -- https://twtr.in/3DGS
Pingback: The Fox News Effect?