A big part of a citizen’s disengagement from politics isn’t accidental — it is a failure to understand the issues, compounded by the deliberate weaponization of mistrust. In other words, a structural crisis. Many of the challenges facing voters often come down to a lack of information. While passive voters may lack the time and discipline to research candidates, voting records or local ballot issues, they default to name recognition and party affiliation. Most passive voters do not attend candidate forums and instead rely on slate voting, which lets them support an entire team with one selection.
This “blind voting” is driven by tribal loyalty and convenience rather than informed judgment. They vote but remain uninformed. As uninformed voters, there is no mischievous agenda behind their voting. They simply are unaware of many facts and issues.
In cases where a candidate’s red flags are visible and documented, the moral weight shifts from the candidate to the voter. A candidate with multiple known red flags who still receives loyal support implicates the voter as a knowledgeable participant — not merely a passive, uninformed one. It highlights that the voter’s character is as important as the candidate’s. They cannot be considered blind voters when they are willing to trust a questionable candidate even when facts and evidence show that trust is unwarranted.
Trust is a firm belief or confidence in a person’s honesty, reliability or truthfulness. Trust, not policy or political ideology, becomes the true common denominator behind every candidate-voter relationship. The operative questions are relational: Can the voter trust what the candidate says? Can they trust the candidate will govern in their best interest after the election? Because trust can be manipulated, some candidates still receive unwavering support even when the answer to these questions is a resounding “no.” I personally believe people are turned off by politics more from the weaponization of mistrust than from a general lack of understanding of the issues and candidates.
In 2018, CBS “60 Minutes” correspondent Lesley Stahl revealed a candid remark then-presidential candidate Donald Trump made to her in 2016. Stahl told a group of fellow journalists at the Deadline Club Awards Dinner in New York City that Trump had admitted his consistent attacks on the media were meant to “discredit” journalists so that negative stories about him would not be believed. His use of the term “fake news” became part of a strategy to sow seeds of doubt so reputable journalists are seen as enemies who can’t be trusted. As a result, when journalists speak the truth or challenge lies, their efforts are automatically dismissed. This is one reason why Democrats do not trust Trump-supporting Republicans.
So, which is worse? The candidate or elected official who spreads lies and misinformation, or the voter or constituent who embraces and perpetuates the lie despite all publicly available facts? Where journalists and the free press are the targets of this strategy of mistrust, the same is also true for Democratic lawmakers, who are also presented as the “enemy.” Trump has already touted election fraud in some states.
The contrast is clear. Democratic mistrust of Republicans is characterized as real, pure and organically generated — grounded in actual events and legitimate concerns. Republican mistrust of Democrats is characterized as fabricated, orchestrated and strategically seeded for political gain — not rooted in authentic evidence. Trump has engineered mistrust as a replicable strategy, converting typical political debates between parties into a political weapon against those you don’t agree with.
With the midterm elections coming up, President Trump is now urging Republicans to pretend he is on the ballot on Election Day. This is a form of desperation. The lies, deception and strategy of mistrust are catching up with Republicans, and they know it. Republicans are positioning themselves as defenders of the country’s ailing rural healthcare system even as hospitals and providers nationwide struggle under the financial strain imposed by President Trump and the GOP’s cuts to Medicaid. The advocacy group Protect Our Care said Republicans in key congressional races “are touting bald-faced lies” by highlighting their support for a $50 billion rural health fund that pales in comparison to the roughly $900 billion in Medicaid cuts that Trump signed into law last summer. The health policy organization KFF estimates that the Republican law will cut $137 billion in Medicaid spending for rural areas over the next decade.
Rural voters throughout Trump country are now beginning to see who the real enemy is. Before this bill became law, Democrats warned the nation about the serious consequences. Protect Our Care calls out multiple Republicans by name for misleadingly promoting their support for health funds, including Sens. Roger Marshall of Kansas, Jon Husted of Ohio, Susan Collins of Maine and Ted Cruz of Texas. “Rural Americans are rapidly losing the care they need, and over 1,250 hospitals, clinics, and essential service providers are closing, cutting services, or are at risk of doing so,” said Protect Our Care. It is easy to say that the distrust rural Americans have for liberals and the liberal agenda is at the root of this problem. Unfortunately, rural communities are the only communities that will suffer.
Marshall is the founder of the faith-based organization TRB: The Reconciled Body and author of the book “God Bless Our Divided America.”
