Institutional Context and Accountability for Political Distrust

Published date01 December 2021
Date01 December 2021
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920968634
Subject MatterArticles
2021, Vol. 74(4) 1097 –1110
https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920968634
Political Research Quarterly
© 2020 University of Utah
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1065912920968634
journals.sagepub.com/home/prq
Article
Our politicians put their personal agendas before the national
good . . . . I have seen firsthand how the system is rigged
against our citizens.
Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump, July 21, 2016
A little skepticism is healthy. But when people distrust
politics, they come to distrust institutions. They lose faith in
their government . . . We can acknowledge this. But we don’t
have to accept it. And we cannot enable it either . . . [Our
country] can be a confident America, where we have a basic
faith in politics and leaders. It can be a place where we’ve
earned that faith. All of us as leaders can hold ourselves to
the highest standards of integrity and decency.
Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, March 23, 2016
Heading into the 2016 elections, there appeared to be a
rhetorical split within the Republican Party regarding the
relative trustworthiness of government. One side of this
split was epitomized by Donald Trump’s speech accept-
ing his party’s nomination for president. As evident in
the quote above, this side did not hesitate to demonize
American government and the politicians who serve in it.
Republicans in this camp railed against the incompetence
and corruption of Washington. They characterized the
political system as rigged or broken. They counseled
Americans to be wary of everything that government
does and to expect the worst. In short, these Republicans
sought to foster public distrust in government.
The other side of this split—as seen in the quote from
former Speaker Ryan—projected a comparatively opti-
mistic tone. According to Republicans in this camp, poli-
ticians are not inherently corrupt. They choose politics
not for the primary purpose of enriching themselves, but
rather to serve the country. The political system and its
institutions are not fundamentally broken. The govern-
ment of the United States, and the people who work there,
can be worthy of respect and our faith. These Republicans
encouraged the public to reject cynicism and embrace a
measure of confidence in their government.
Although part of this divergence was perhaps rooted in
differences in philosophical outlook and personality
traits, another part may have been rooted in perceived
self-interest. In 2016, Donald Trump was a candidate for
the presidency who, by his own account, values winning.
In this light, he and others in his party may have been
calculating that Americans who distrust government
would be more likely to vote against the (Democratic)
968634PRQXXX10.1177/1065912920968634Political Research QuarterlyJones
research-article2020
1Baruch College & The Graduate Center, City University of New
York, New York City, USA
Corresponding Author:
David R. Jones, Department of Political Science, Baruch College, City
University of New York, Box B 5-280, One Barnard Baruch Way,
New York, NY 10010, USA.
Email: david.jones@baruch.cuny.edu
Institutional Context and
Accountability for Political Distrust
David R. Jones1
Abstract
This project investigates how voters hold government electorally accountable for perceived untrustworthiness, and
particularly how this accountability is conditioned by institutional context. Studies show that political distrust is
associated at least as much with attitudes toward the legislative branch as with attitudes toward the executive. With
this in mind, I consider two contextual factors. First, whether a party that controls both branches of government may
affect the degree to which its candidates face electoral accountability for distrust in government. Second, whether
voters who are being asked to elect a representative to the legislative branch as opposed to the executive may affect
which institution’s ruling party is more likely to be held accountable. I analyze these relationships using survey data
from the American National Election Study covering over half a century. The results demonstrate that institutional
context conditions both when and whom voters hold accountable for their distrust in government.
Keywords
political trust, electoral accountability, divided government, clarity of responsibility

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT