Confident Pluralism & Trust in Government
What the National Survey on American Civic Health tells us
1 Why trust in government matters?
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) aptly characterizes public trust in government as “the foundation upon which the legitimacy of democratic institutions rests” (OECD, 2022). It is noteworthy that trust in government among Americans has experienced a significant and continuous decline for over six decades. Back in 1958, nearly 75% of the population expressed trust in the government to do what is right. In 2022, public trust plummeted to a concerning 24% (Pew Research Center, 2022). Given this alarming trend, it becomes crucial to examine the primary drivers behind public trust.
1.1 Can trust in government be explained by a person’s confidence in pluralism and her civic identity?
The OECD has linked trust in government to citizens’ perceptions of reliability, fairness and responsiveness in delivering policies and public services (OECD, 2022). This transactional approach to granting legitimacy in exchange for public services fails to consider another crucial driver of public trust: citizens’ own confidence in pluralism (Inazu, 2015, 2018).” (Inazu, 2015, 2018). Confident pluralism refers to the notion that people of widely divergent backgrounds, ideologies, and worldviews can “pursue a common existence in spite of … deeply held differences” (Inazu, as quoted in Schoenherr, 2015).
1.2 Confident pluralism is defined by tolerance and humility according to John Inazu
“The tolerance of a confident pluralism means a willingness to accept genuine difference, including profound moral disagreement…Tolerance also means moving beyond the platitudes of free speech to the more difficult questions posed by embodied ways of life.” (Inazu, 2015, p. 597)
“The aspiration of humility requires even greater self-reflection and self-discipline than tolerance. Within a confident pluralism, humility leads both the Liberal Egalitarian and the Conservative Moralist to recognize that their own beliefs and intuitions depend upon tradition-dependent values that cannot be empirically proven or fully justified by forms of rationality external to particular traditions.”(Inazu, 2015, p. 599)
2 Civic identities
OECD’s transactional approach to public trust has another significant limitation. Not only does it overlook the impact of confident pluralism, but it also fails to recognize the crucial fact that people’s public actions are congruent with their sense of belonging to a specific group, where they share common values and engage in similar pro-social behaviors (Drezner, 2018). In this regard, the 2021 National Survey on American Health (Weerts, Cabrera & Van Dorn, 2021) provides valuable insights, indicating that Americans exhibit a high degree of diversity in their civic identities. We found that this diversity is underscored by the presence of five distinct civic classes, as illustrated in figure 1 and detailed in table 1. Each of these classes also displays unique attributes in terms of civic literacy, type of media relied upon to inform political opinions, religious and political affiliations, educational profile, predispositions towards constructive political deliberation, and engagement in various civic activities ranging from voting to philanthropy.
2.0.0.1 Table 1. Five civic classes
| Civic class | Description |
|---|---|
| Lightship: Fully engaged voters | This small class is made up of highly engaged and active group of citizens who exhibit strong inclination towards various civic behaviors. Their participation in all forms of political and social causes, volunteering, and altruism sets them apart from other groups within society. This class appears to be characterized by a deep sense of civic responsibility and desire to actively contribute to the betterment of their community and society as a whole. |
| Tugboat: Active benevolent voters | It represents a quarter of the US population that consists of reliable voters and active volunteers for various non-profit organizations. They are predisposed to financially support non-profits and contribute to food or clothing drives. However, their predisposition towards involvement in political action, such as participating in rallies, engaging in unpaid lobbing, or donating to political organizations, is relatively low. |
| Cruise ship: Charitable passive voters | This class represents a quarter of the US population. Members are reliable voters and are strongly predisposed to give to non-profit organizations. They are also less predisposed to volunteer to non-profit organizations, nor are they prone to engage in any political action (e.g., political campaigns). |
| Tender boat: Voter-only citizens | It represents the largest class of citizens . This group’s civic engagement behavior is focused on participation in the democratic process through voting but tend to have lower propensities for other types of civic activities such as philanthropy, volunteerism, and political action. However, they show some inclination towards contributing to food or clothing drives. |
| Submarine: Disengaged citizens | This small class of citizens has a limited inclination towards civic engagement and broader forms of philanthropy or volunteering. While they might participate in basic charitable activities such as contributing to food or clothing drives, their engagement in the democratic process, voting, and other forms of community involvement is low. |
2.0.0.2 Figure 1 A profile of civic orientations
3 Confident pluralism & trust in government
The findings from the National Survey of American Civic Health support Inazu’s proposition that tolerance for political discourse and humility in political differences are distinct components of confident pluralism (Weerts, Cabrera & Van Dorn, 2023). The main findings of the survey indicate the following:
Confident pluralism, which encompasses both tolerance for political discourse and humility in political differences, accounts for nearly one-fifth of the variance in trust in governmental institutions. This suggests that the when confident pluralism is present, it significantly contributes to public trust in government.
Humility in political differences and tolerance for political discourse are strongly correlated. Positive experiences in one domain tend to inform and influence the other. This implies that individuals who display humility in political differences are more likely to exhibit tolerance in political discourse, and vice versa.
Each of these two sources of confident pluralism; namely tolerance and humility, has a unique effect on public trust in government. Tolerance has the largest impact, exerting a positive influence on public trust. On the other hand, humility exerts a negative but negligible influence on public trust. This suggests that while humility may not directly enhance public trust, it does not significantly undermine it either.
3.1 Public trust, tolerance for political discourse and humility in political differences display a tangled relationship.
Figure 2 Confident pluralism and trust: A 3D perspective
3.2 And, people’s civic identities appear to account for the intricate connection between confident pluralism and public trust.
Civic classes depicted by color: lightship (green), tugboat (red), cruise ship (orange), tender boat (blue) and submarine (black)
3.3 The relationship between tolerance and trust in government is moderate but positive (r = 38)
3.3.0.1 Figure 3 Tolerance and public trust: lightship(green), tugboat(red), cruise ship(orange), tender boat(blue), & submarine(black)
3.4 However:
The strength of the association appears to vary across the domains of tolerance and trust
Clustering of subjects is strongest at the middle and upper ends of the trust and tolerance scales
3.5 Civic identities do moderate the relationship between tolerance for political diversity and public trust in government
3.5.1 The relationship between tolerance and trust in government is strongest among lightships
3.5.1.1 Figure 4 Tolerance & trust among lightships
3.5.2 And, it is at its weakest among submarines
3.5.2.1 Figure 5 Tolerance and trust among submarines
3.5.3 In the middle, one finds tugboats and cruise ships, accounting for the second strongest relationship between tolerance and trust
3.5.3.1 Figure 6 Tolerance and trust among tugboats (red) & cruise ships (orange)
3.5.4 In sum, civic class orientations moderate the connection between political tolerance and trust in government
Fully-engaged voters (lightships) are more likely to increase their trust in government as their tolerance for political diversity increases
Charitable-passive voters (tugboats) and charitable passive voters (cruise ships) are the second and third civic classes most responsive to changes in political tolerance
Disengaged non-voters’ (submarines) trust in government is less susceptible to changes in political tolerance
3.5.4.1 Figure 7 Tolerance and trust across civic identities
3.6 Tolerance and trust in government varies across civic profiles
3.6.0.1 Figure 8 Tolerance & civic engagement
3.6.1 Key findings regarding tolerance and civic profiles:
Civic engagement and tolerance display a linear trend, as civic engagement increases so does tolerance for political discourse (F-test = 138.9, df =4, p < .01).
Density distributions indicate individuals become more homogeneous as the level of civic participation increases.
Fully-engaged voters, represented as “lightships”, are quite homogeneous in their tolerance for political differences. Lightships are clustered at the upper end of the scale, indicating a a higher level of acceptance or openness to political differences.
On the other hand, disengaged non-voters’ , represented as “submarines”, exhibit a contrasting pattern. Members of this group end to cluster towards the lower levels of tolerance, suggesting a lower acceptance or openness to political differences.
Altogether, these two findings imply that civic participation, or the level of engagement in political activities such as voting, may be associated with higher levels of tolerance for political differences.
Figure 9 Trust and civic engagement
3.6.2 Key findings regarding trust in government and civic profiles:
Public trust in governmental institutions varies significantly among different civic classes (F-test = 178, df =4, p < .01).
Fully-engaged voters (lightships) are, by far, the most trusting class in governmental institutions. They exhibit the highest level of trust compared to other civic classes.
Active-benevolent voters, represented as “tugboats,” come in a distant second place in terms of public trust. While they are not as trusting as the fully-engaged voters, they still demonstrate a relatively high level of trust in governmental institutions.
Submarines, tender-boats, and cruise ships are the most distrustful classes. This suggests that individuals in these classes have lower levels of trust in governmental institutions.
Apart from the fully-engaged voters (lightships), there is a high level of heterogeneity in trust across the remaining four civic classes.
4 Conclusions
Public trust in government is key for governmental legitimacy, and political stability (e.g., Useem & Useem, 1979). Public confidence on government goes beyond perceptions of fairness and reliability in its services (OECD, 2022). The National Survey on American Civic Health reveals that public trust is strongly influenced by Americans’ ability to overcome deep political differences through confident pluralism (Inazu, 2015). Confident pluralism accounts for nearly 20% of the variance in Americans’ trust in government. Confident pluralism consists of two components: humility and trust. These two elements reinforce each other; positive experiences in one domain of confident pluralism impact the other. Among the two elements of confident pluralism, tolerance for political differences has the strongest impact on public trust in government.
The connection between confident pluralism and public trust is moderated by citizens’ civic identities. Each civic group displays a distinct predisposition to engage in a given set of pro social behaviors over another (Doyle & Skinner, 2017; Drezner, 2018; Guzman & Cabrera, 2022; Morton et al., 2012; Weerts & Cabrera, 2017). Tolerance for political discourse and trust in government are firmly rooted among lightships followed by tugboats and tender boats. Those are the civic groups that contribute to the functioning of democracy, while harnessing volunteerism and philanthropy towards the common good (Reich, 2019).
5 Implications
Anchored on the National Survey on American Civic Health, the Civic Navigator is ready to be used to document the civic orientations of a variety of Americans ranging from those attending college to those in the labor force. By utilizing an algorithm developed from a national sample of almost 5,000 Americans, the Civic Navigator can identify an individual’s civic class and provide insights into her civic profile.
One of the primary applications of the Civic Navigator is to help individuals understand their preferences for engaging in certain pro-social behaviors. These can range from voting in elections to volunteering in organizations dedicated to addressing societal issues such as disease prevention. By using reliable and valid civic health scales, the tool can assess an individual’s levels of public trust and confident pluralism, offering valuable insights into their civic disposition, and trust in government.
Furthermore, the Civic Navigator can contribute to the development of civic curriculum and service learning programs, particularly for college and high school students. By tailoring these educational initiatives to align with the civic identities of the students, educators can create more impactful and relevant learning experiences. This customization allows students to connect with the material on a personal level, fostering a deeper understanding of what it means to be civically engaged.
Lastly, the Civic Navigator can help explain why individuals are more inclined to join social causes when they share similar civic identities. By identifying and analyzing the civic profiles of different individuals, the tool can shed light on the underlying factors that influence people to collaborate on social initiatives. This understanding can be used to facilitate the formation of diverse and inclusive coalitions that leverage shared civic values to achieve collective goals.
Overall, the Civic Navigator offers a range of applications that can benefit individuals, educators, and communities alike. By providing insights into civic orientations, it enables a better understanding of oneself, facilitates tailored educational programs, and promotes effective collaboration for social causes.
6 References
Doyle, W. R. & Skinner, B. (2017). Does postsecondary education result in civic benefits? Journal of Higher Education, 88(6), 863-893
Drezner, N. D. (2018). Philanthropy mirroring: Exploring identity-based fundraising in Higher Education. Journal of Higher Education, 89(3), 262-293.
Guzman, A & Cabrera, A. F. (2022): Uncovering typologies of civically engaged Latina/o college graduates at 4-Year Institutions of Higher Education, Journal of Latinos and Education, https://10.1080/15348431.2022.2048660
Inazu, J. (2018). Confident Pluralism: Surviving and Thriving through Deep Difference. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Inazu, J. D. (2015). A confident pluralism. Southern California Law Review, 88(3), 587-618
Morton, M., Dolgon, C., Maher, T., & Pennell, J. (2012). Civic engagement and public sociology: Two “movements” in search of a mission. Journal of Applied Social Sciences 6 (1), 5-30. https://doi:10.1177/1936724411436170
OECD (2022). Building Trust to Reinforce Democracy: Main Findings from the 2021 OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions. OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b407f99c-en
Pew Research Center (2022). Public trust in government: 1958-2022. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/06/06/public-trust-in-government-1958-2022/
Reich, R. B. (2019). The common good. Penguin Random House.
Useem, B. & Useem, M. (1979). Government legitimacy and political stability. Social Forces, 57(3), https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/57.3.840
Schoenherr, N., (2015). What is confident pluralism https://source.wustl.edu/2015/11/what-is-confident-pluralism/
Weerts, D., Cabrera, A. & Van Dorn, K. (2023). Tolerance, humility, and educational attainment: Does college attendance build capacity for confident pluralism? Round table. Annual meeting of American Association of Educational Research. Chicago, Illinois.
Weerts, D. J., Cabrera, A.F. & Van Dorn, K., (2022). Antecedents of Individual Civic Health. American Center for Political Leadership, Southeastern University, Lakeland, FL.
Weerts, D., Cabrera, A. F. & Van Dorn, K. (2021). National Survey of American Civic Health. American Center for Political Leadership (ACPL), Southeastern University, Lakeland, FL.
Weerts, D. J., & Cabrera, A. F. (2017). Segmenting university alumni using a person-centered methodology. International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing, 22(3), e1577. https://doi:10.1002/nvsm.1577