Political Trust and Racial Policy Preferences

perceived policy costs are high, trust affects white parents' support for education quotas but not white nonparents' support. The prolonged and dramatic drop in Americans' political trust over the past thirty-five years has prompted intense academic and jour? nalistic inquiry. While scholars have offered various explanations for the decline (e.g., Citrin 1974; Miller 1974), they have offered little em? pirical investigation into its consequences. Of the few that do, one con? cludes: there is little indication that distrust is having dangerous con? sequences for the country. ... It has not diminished Americans' sense of patriotism, nor has it created a climate ... conducive to acceptance of ille? gal anti-government activities (Pew Research Center 1998,12). Somewhat ironically, even as evidence of Americans' distrust mounts, evidence of its relevance remains virtually nonexistent. While distrust may not portend a legitimacy crisis, it may have less dra? matic, yet still important, consequences for the American polity. One such consequence may be a truncated policy agenda. If people distrust the gov? ernment, other things being equal, they will likely distrust the policies it formulates. Suggestive of trust's causal importance, politicians often engage citizens' distrust when arguing against expansive government programs. For example, many opponents of health care reform in the mid-1990s predicated their attacks on public concern about a new federal bureaucracy, while advocates of welfare reform emphasized existing bureaucratic failures and excesses. Though public opposition to government programs certainly reflects distaste for government action, it may also indicate public condem? nation of the federal government itself. Just as parents who distrust their teenagers may wish to restrict their activities, those who distrust government may wish to restrict its activities.