By Dr. Bruce Smith ——Bio and Archives--August 14, 2023
HeartlandLifestyles | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
The loss of trust can happen in our daily lives and in the wider world around us. Sometimes we act foolishly or impulsively or unthinkingly, calling into question the trust others have placed in us to act responsibly and be dependable.
Any loss of trust affects personal relationships. We see this in addictive behaviors. When people become addicted to alcohol or drugs, they sometimes behave impulsively or break the law to feed the addiction. They are driven to do things they normally wouldn’t consider. They may take advantage of those around them by betraying the trust or exploiting the safety and security built up over time. In the worst cases, those lost in addictive behaviors will endanger their own lives and the lives of those who love them.
When addiction runs out of control, there are no easy solutions. There are Twelve Step programs, sponsors, and group therapy. There are inpatient and intensive outpatient rehab programs, and many community support groups. There is individual counseling and group therapy. There is the cold turkey method.
Regaining trust in personal relationships, once lost, is extremely difficult. It cannot be done quickly because it takes time to prove that trust is warranted again. It requires a flawless, blameless effort because any return to the addictive behavior, no matter how long one has followed the straight and narrow path to restored trust, is disastrous. The clock has to be reset to zero, and the process of building trust has to begin all over again. With just one relapse we get a new sobriety date. All the old doubts and assumptions about the destructive behavior return. People resume being suspicious and skeptical, as well they should. Their trust has been betrayed, AGAIN! The betrayal of trust tells everyone that the addictive behavior is in control, not the person we used to know. The relationship that was there has been shattered into very small pieces, and even when everyone wants to rebuild the relationship, it’s an agonizing process. First we have to locate (acknowledge) all the pieces/problems, then we have to turn them all right side up, then we have to work to fit them together again. It’s not for wimps. It can take years, decades, or a lifetime. One slip returns us to the pit of despair at square one.
If we seek an end to addiction and the destructive behaviors that accompany it, we must actively work at solutions. Ignoring it or minimizing its consequences usually means it will get worse. It’s a path to increasing destruction of trust. Above all, ignoring or dismissing destructive behavior as trivial or inconsequential is what those who wish to continue the behavior prefer. Funny how that works.
A loss of trust can affect societal relationships like government and the rule of law. Under the Confederation Government (1775-1789) the Land Ordinances of 1784 and 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 established a system for establishing new states and territories in the new lands west of the Appalachians. The Ordinances also provided systems for surveying land, selling it, and getting it into private hands. When the new republic was founded after the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the rules and guidelines established during the Confederation period were codified into the federal and state constitutions and by legislation.
Before that time the centers of towns tended to be built around churches and common grounds like the village green in the central location. In the old days, different and sometimes confusing land ownership systems were the rule. As a new system of land ownership and documentation took effect, towns established west of the original colonies became organized in a different way.
Support Canada Free Press
In the new republic, town centers were built around court houses. The court houses were the places where land ownership was documented. Documentation meant that property could be held securely, with confidence that it could not be taken by force or by deceit, whether by a king or by a scammer. Local courts could address any disputes based on common law and state statutes. The new Constitution provided that when property must be taken for public use that such takings must be compensated fairly. The Ordinances and the new Constitution enshrined the security of private property. Private property is a key to civic virtue and societal prosperity.
Property ownership has been a foundation of American government and society ever since. When individuals or governments decide they can just take private property on a whim, there’s a problem. Because it causes people to doubt that the legal system is trustworthy, the Founders established many ways to settle such disputes. Predictability, certainty, fairness, and trust are fundamental underpinnings of the American legal system and of all legal systems based on the English Common Law.
Trust can be weakened or destroyed by allegations that are not true. Accusations by themselves can be devastating. Cynical accusations are a major weapon in many divorce cases. The effect is instantaneous, but if proven false, getting one’s reputation back is almost as elusive as in cases of addiction. Once made, the process of confrontation and trial may eventually result in a verdict of innocence, but clearing one’s name is extremely difficult when not impossible. Deliberately smearing an adversary with an accusation known to be false tends to be a tactic of the powerful. If they didn’t think they could get away with it, they’d probably try something else.
Since the 1990s it’s been called the politics of personal destruction. Still, serious accusations must be examined and settled one way or the other. The more serious the charges the more important it becomes to get the matter sorted and adjudicated. If accusations turn out to be false, especially if deliberately false, trusting the accuser ever again will be most difficult. The chips must fall where they may.
Accusations made with solid evidence behind them can’t be dismissed, either. After all, serious charges combined with solid evidence of law breaking or ethical violations are damaging to public trust if there’s a failure to pursue it. The more evidence and witnesses there are, and the more serious the charges, the more important it becomes to get the matter sorted and adjudicated. Those fairly judged guilty must find it hard to regain trust. The chips must fall where they may. Courts are supposed to settle disputes, not ignore them, especially when the institutions involved are instruments of public, fundamental trust. When courts become politicized or negligent, there is public danger afoot.
Perhaps most devastating to the public trust is when law enforcement agencies themselves come under suspicion. Law enforcement agencies must always be above any hint of corruption or bad faith. If anyone works against the people or against legitimate governance, nothing will erode public trust faster than when agencies cynically ignore or cover up what’s happening. A lesson is being taught.
The public learns that even when there’s the appearance of justice, they’re probably just not seeing the bad part that’s hidden. It’s devastating. This is why gripping police dramas often include issues of official corruption. Everybody knows it’s crucial that law enforcement be above board.
It’s the very definition of corruption that the powerful insulate themselves from all efforts to get at the truth. That’s not the same as defending oneself. Corruption means that efforts to find the real truth are thwarted at every turn and perhaps by any means. A pattern of corruption indicates that the perpetrators have been at it for a while. Once discovered, this cannot be allowed to stand. If wrongdoing goes unpunished, then it’s only a matter of time and strategy before others will act on the premise that they can get away with it, too.
Government requires the consent of the governed. In a republic, the people get to choose those who legislate and govern. ANY APPEARANCE OF MANIPULATION OR CORRUPTION OF AN ELECTION IS DEADLY SERIOUS. It cannot be tolerated or excused, and it certainly cannot be dismissed by either side.
The official reaction or defense cannot be “that’s not true,” or “trust me, I would never do that.” They can’t just reply, “We won, get over it.” We can’t have a situation in which the courts just say “We won’t take the case.” Statements like these mean they don’t take the issue seriously, or they look at it politically. They want to dismiss any concerns, avoid talking about it, and will keep on doing what they’re doing. Oh, the irony! Those in power should be first to demand that all suggestions of corruption be cleared so confidence can be restored. It isn’t acceptable for someone to say, “we’re in charge, so get over it.” The cry should be, “We’re going to get to the bottom of this, and everybody must agree that it’s been done fairly.” Then do it.
When the public can see that things are just wrong, then silence or distraction isn’t good enough. A public agency can’t refuse to talk about something because it’s a public issue. The public has a right to know, at least if this is still a representative republic. And the definition of fairness means that the same rules must apply to all, regardless of circumstance. Unequal justice is no justice at all.
View Comments
Dr. Bruce Smith (Inkwell, Hearth and Plow) is a retired professor of history and a lifelong observer of politics and world events. He holds degrees from Indiana University and the University of Notre Dame. In addition to writing, he works as a caretaker and handyman. His non-fiction book The War Comes to Plum Street, about daily life in the 1930s and during World War II, may be ordered from Indiana University Press.