The Advocate - May 2005 Index

The Cult of Institutions

Tony Monchinski

Americans harbor a long-standing anti-authoritarian streak (consider our birth pangs in revolution against Mother Britain), yet we are also a patriotic people. At first glance, this might seem contradictory, but a closer look reveals how such a stance is possible. When Americans consent to accept authority, to whom or to what are we consenting to obey? Americans consent first and foremost to the institutions we cherish. But institutions, as John Dewey and others remind us, are composed of individuals. Individual acts thus add to or detract from the sanctity of the institution.

Americans harbor a certain skepticism when it comes to political leaders. When asked how they felt about the statement “Most government administrators can be trusted to do what is best for the country,” a majority – 51% - of respondents to the 1996 General Social Survey (the latest GSS where that question was asked) disagreed or disagreed strongly. Only 19% of respondents agreed or agreed strongly. It appears that good numbers of Americans are cynical about the ability of our elected leaders to do what it is we think they should be doing in office, and rightly so.

Anecdotal evidence bears this out. In November, 2004, the United States emerged from a nearly year long campaign of divisiveness, pitting red states versus blue states, liberals versus conservatives, “heartland” versus “Hollywood” values. Criticism of John Kerry and incumbent President George W. Bush abounded. At his first inauguration in 2000, President Bush’s limousine was pelted with eggs as protestors were kept at bay by police. As far back as 1796, Federalist John Adams had to be snuck into the back of the presidential mansion following his inauguration to bypass protestors. How can we account for American patriotism and the existence of irreverence towards those in authority?

It may be helpful to think of the leader as a parental authority figure. Consider September 11, 2001 and its effect on the president. 9/11 is recognized as a rallying point for President Bush, with his job approval ratings rocketing 35 to 40 percent following the terrorist attacks, reaching 90%. The attacks that September rallied Americans around the flag; nationalist sentiment skyrocketed. The US had been attacked and Americans came together. We looked for assurances and answers from the offices that traditionally provided them, or are expected to provide them, first and foremost being the office of the president. George W. Bush happened to be the man in the office at the time, and, as his approval ratings suggest, he benefited from America’s unity in our time of need.

However, in America authority comes with ambiguity. Along with reverence we often enough find disrespect or worse. Consider the patriarch of Freud’s Totem and Taboo, who is murdered and eaten by his sons, paving the way for civilization. The French aristocrat, Alexis de Tocqueville noted that America’s “equalitarian conditions” lead individuals to think highly of themselves and to demand a part in government. Our political leaders are people we have conflicted feelings over. On the one hand we honor and revere them, or at least on some level feel we should. On the other hand, our individuality demands skepticism, with a certain part of us critical of them. After all, we are individuals. Who are they to lord over us? We all too readily recognize that our leaders get in their pants one leg at a time, as do we.

Bear in mind, Americans are patriotic. A full 97% of respondents to the 1994 GSS identified themselves as either “extremely proud,” “very proud,” or “somewhat proud” to be an American, compared to less than 2% who were “not very proud.” 89% of respondents to the 1996 GSS statement “I would rather be a citizen of America than of any other country in the world” agreed or agreed strongly. More precisely, 69% of the respondents agreed strongly. Only 3% disagreed or disagreed strongly to the same statement. When asked to think about the United States, 87% of respondents said they felt satisfied always, most of the time or some of the time. 11% rarely or never felt satisfied. Furthermore, when asked to agree or disagree with the proposition that “the world would be a better place if people from other countries were more like the Americans,” 39% of respondents agreed or agreed strongly.

How do we account for American patriotism alongside an ambivalence towards our elected representatives? The answer lies in what we pledge our loyalty to. What is it that we consent to obey? A particular man or woman? No. Americans consent to obey an individual only insofar as that individual holds a position in an institution that Americans revere. In other words, Americans are loyal to our institutions and the offices of those institutions above all else.

Consider the GSS data. A majority of respondents (46%) agree or strongly agree with the 1996 statement that “People like me don’t have any say about what the government does.” Yet alongside this sentiment we find a great deal of confidence in the institutions of our government. In 1998, 81% of respondent felt “a great deal” or “only some” confidence in the Supreme Court. A great deal or only some confidence was attributed to Congress by 67% of respondents in the same year’s GSS. 61% of respondents voiced a great deal of confidence or only some confidence in the executive branch of the federal government. Above all, and in line with the argument that Americans revere our institutions above the individuals in office at any given time, 90% of Americans thought it “very important” or “fairly important” to respect America’s political institutions and laws in the 1996 GSS.

Scholarship bears out the distinction that patriotic Americans are loyal to the institutions of government above the people who animate them. John Diggins for one lays out his claim that the framers of the Constitution sought for and succeeded in “institutionalizing authority in the agencies of the government,” hoping social order would emerge because “of the smooth functioning of impersonal devices and mechanical contrivances”. In Diggins’ estimation, the founders recognized that American social order depended on the “perpetuation of good machinery,” not good men or good ideas. Good men and good ideas can not be counted upon; as the Federalists lamented, “If men were angels…” But a good institutional framework, once set in motion, had some hope – it was thought – of continuing despite the flaws of individual human beings.

Ronald Heifitz, to a degree, concurs with Diggins. Stressing the idea of the institutionalization of authority, Heifitz posits that over time, “the office of senior authority takes on a life of its own.” Charisma is transferred from the person in the office to the office itself, where it then rubs off onto whoever holds the office. Leaders can expect a certain degree of the charisma associated with the office or institution to rub off on them, but they can never rest on their laurels. For leadership, Heifitz argues, is more than influence. It is action. Leadership is doing things, getting things done, and appearing decisive. The founders were cognizant of this aspect of leadership, purposefully designing a presidency that would allow for, in the words of the Federalist Papers, the “energy of the executive”.

Presidential scholars have long recognized the institutional give and take between a man and the office. Richard Neustadt argued that individual presidents come to office and assume a status and authority that inhere in the office. It is then up to them to add to or detract from that institutionalized persona. Jeffrey Tulis has argued that, with President Wilson, the office of the chief executive saw the emergence of the president as a “leader-interpreter,” one “fathoming the public’s desires,” with presidential energy deriving from the authority of the office of the president himself. With Reagan, scholars noted a marked increase in trust in government, which Jack Citrin chalks up to the idea that “Reagan… spoke of the presidency as the institutionalized expression of the general will, as somehow outside government rather than in it.” Americans viewed presidential power, as wielded by Reagan, as emanating from the people’s consent, not as something foreign imposed on we individuals.

Jack Citrin, writing in the American Political Science Review and the British Journal of Political Science, offers that a “sense of pride in and support for an ongoing ‘form of government’ can coexist with widespread public cynicism about ‘the government in Washington’ and the people ‘running’ it.” Citrin argues that hostility towards the government, measured by a Trust in Government Index, is aimed at specific authorities (i.e., individuals) rather than the institutional regime framework. Citing election studies where large percentages of Americans who score low on trust in government scales nevertheless express pride in our government, Citrin proffers that “the current zeitgeist … legitimizes, even encourages, the expression of anti-political rhetoric, makes it fashionable to denigrate politicians and to criticize established institutions”. Even among the cynics Citrin identifies, 43% of them would like existing institutional arrangements to remain unchanged, versus 25% who advocate big changes in the form of government.

GSS data appears to support Citrin’s claim. 64% of respondents in 1996 agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “There are some things about America today that make me feel ashamed of America.” 62% of respondents in 1996 felt that “the system of democracy in America” “works well but needs some changes.” A further 22% of the respondents that year felt America’s democracy “does not work well and needs a lot of changes.” Yet only 4% of respondents were of the opinion that American democracy “does not work well and needs to be completely changed.”
Americans aren’t ready to dismantle the federal government, either literally or figuratively. Where 79% of respondents in 1996 thought “organizing public meetings to protest against the government” should be “definitely allowed” or “probably allowed,” 82% of respondents in 1988 thought “seriously damaging government buildings” should “probably not [be] allowed” or “definitely not [be] allowed.” 80% of respondents in 1988 also thought “occupying a government office and stopping work there for several days” should “definitely” or “probably not be allowed.” When asked how enthusiastic respondents felt when they thought about the US, 78% answered that they “always,” “most of the time” or “some of the time” felt enthusiastic, compared to 15% who “rarely” and 4% who “never” felt enthusiastic. A majority of Americans may be able and willing to gripe about our country and its elected officials, but we seem content to work within the system to pursue positive changes, to “put right” our land.

Tony Monchinski is a student in the PhD program in political science.