Here’s something funny about the discourse around distrust of the government. The problem is often framed as a being about the distrust per se: “we want the public to trust the goverment but they don’t. Why is that?” But this provokes the question: how trustworthy is the government, objectively speaking?

At first it might seem like there is a hidden premise: yes, the government is trustworthy. But there’s also another alternative: that’s besides the point.

Are Corn Flakes really healthy? Well that’s not a concern for the marketing department. But it is their concern if people don’t think that Corn Flakes are healthy.

So, the funny part: the discourse around distrust-of-government might betray a manipulative agenda. The talking heads want people to trust the government but they don’t seem concerned with whether or not it is rational to trust the government. But any honest assessment of trust has to compare two things:

1. How much the thing is trusted

2. How trustworthy it is (by some standard)

How rational (1) is is based on how much it differs from (2) -- there is no way to assess trust in a vacuum (without (2)).

The old phrase “manufacture of consent” comes to mind.