John Buttrick writes from his Vermont Rocker in his Concord home: Minds Crossing. He can be reached at johndbuttrick@gmail.com.

“Trust me!” Two words heard often and guaranteed to raise my suspicions, particularly from a stranger. If a person tells me to trust them, I immediately assume that the speaker knows some reason why they might not be trusted. Otherwise, why would it be necessary to ask for trust?

Derek Thompson has written in The Atlantic, “Americans’ growing mistrust of institutions and one another is rooted in the deepest hollows of society.” For example, there is “geographical sorting that physically separates liberals and conservatives; in our ability to find ideological ‘news’ that flatters our sensibilities but inhibits compromise.”

Ariel Procaccia wrote in Scientific American, “In America, and in some other democracies around the world, trust in government officials has hit rock bottom.” Even the most popular legislation often fails to be enacted.

On the PBS News Hour, Senator Patrick Leahy recalled the advice he was given when he first arrived at the U.S. Senate, “Keep your word.” He then continued, observing that today a senator’s or representative’s word may change overnight, therefore, difficult to trust. It seems “trust” risks being a fool’s errand.

We are experiencing a time when losing trust comes easily and often – rebuilding trust does not. Thompson expresses the difficulty, “I want to tell you that there is a simple agenda for restoring trust in America, but I don’t think I can do that.” Reengaging trust among people and in the halls of Congress appears to be an exercise in an unattainable fantasy. However, it may not be impossible to revitalize trust in one another. A way back to mutual trust may begin by recognizing the power of words, examining the context of words, and exposing equivocation.

The recognition of the power of words may build trust. The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution recognizes the potency of speech. “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” Any restriction of speech would take away power from citizens. However, those who put the emphasis on “freedom” perceive words as harmless and therefore one is free to say anything.

We were taught as children, “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me.” Contrary to this unbounded free speech is the recognition that words really do have great power and effect. Experience tells us words are used to influence, praise, hurt and destroy, lie, inform, question, and confuse. To trust and be trusted, the words we speak must be recognized as containing the power to make a difference. Trust grows as the power of words is used with care.

Knowing the context of a written or spoken word is important and can lead to assurance of trust. It is important to peel away from a given word the influences of ideologies, political parties, cultural norms, hidden motives, and other biases. A contextual example of a bias position is found in a statement by a new generation of Trump-aligned Republicans who “don’t think he (Kevin McCarthy) is conservative enough or tough enough to battle Democrats.” This context, doing battle with Democrats, is only one possibility. For example, it might have been, “conservative enough or tough enough to negotiate with Democrats.”

Another contextual consideration is the speaking out of experts, scientists, legislators, the office of the president, or an entertainment personality. The context is their titles or their status which gives them word power not accessible to the average person. For example, their positions and roles in the political, entertainment, and sports worlds may distract from judging the veracity of their words. Finally, it is important to discern the context of a promise. Can a promise be fulfilled or is it beyond the control of the speaker? Trust grows as the context of words becomes transparent.

Exposing equivocation’s abuse of the power of words may clear the way for more trusting relationships. The dodge of equivocation may sound convincing but it deceives and may include an escape clause for the speaker. For example, Trump declared to the crowd on January 6, “We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” The escape clause came later in his rambling speech. He said, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

There was enough time and words spoken in his speech between the two statements that the conflict between them might not be consciously noticed. Therefore, at his convenience, he could claim either statement as the important one. Meanwhile, listeners might hear only the part of the speech with which they are emotionally connected. As equivocation is exposed and rejected, trust in a consistent word may replace it.

There may not be a “simple agenda for restoring trust in America,” but word power, context awareness, and clear messages may be guidelines for building trusting relationships. These instruments may clear the way for an expectation of trust that will eliminate the need for anyone to plead, “trust me.”

]]>