Fifteen years after the signing of the Social Security Act, this already broad government program was expanded. With the amendments of 1950, an additional 10 million additional people were covered, including some of the poorest—domestic and agricultural workers. By using the payroll tax to support Social Security payments, citizens saw the program as one to which they contributed and from which they should receive. Even in very different times 55 years later, Americans continued to support this approach to public pensions. Despite comparatively low levels of trust in government and decades of antitax and antigovernment movement successes, President George W. Bush's efforts to privatize Social Security fell flat.

Mark Hetherington's excellent book helps us understand why Social Security has maintained public support and why other policy endeavors have won or lost favor. In this clearly written, carefully argued work, Hetherington examines the policy implications of trust in government. He provides historical context to public opinion data, draws from social psychological research on priming and considerations, and projects lessons for political leaders and movements.

Why Trust Matters makes three important contributions to scholarship on public opinion, policy, and trust in government. First, Hetherington demonstrates how low trust matters for policy. The key thesis of the book is that “declining political trust has played the central role in the demise of progressive public policy in the United States over the last several decades” (p. 3). As trust in government has fallen, so has support for large-scale government endeavors to improve citizens' lives. Furthermore, levels of distrust provide a better explanation for policy support than does ideology.

At the same time, low trust is associated with less support for such policies only under certain conditions—when citizens view the endeavor as having little risk to them and little sacrifice. These conditions affect how people assess the likelihood of government success. It is when a program is seen as risky in its ability to achieve stated goals and also requires sacrifice without a clear benefit that distrust is associated with a lack of support In contrast, programs that provide universal benefits, such as Social Security, environmental protection, and anticrime projects, are supported by trusters and nontrusters alike. Although Social Security is the most successful anti-poverty program in American history, it is viewed as benefiting all, and thus it retains citizen support throughout periods of high and low trust.

Second, Hetherington demonstrates that among American whites, racial issues and stereotypes are a critical element of trust and distrust. Trust is highly related to support for policies to ameliorate racial discrimination and increase racial equality. At the individual level, antiblack stereotypes interact with trust and affect policy support. Race plays a role in conditioning whites' perception of sacrifice and risk. As Hetherington puts it: “Among those carrying negative stereotypes about blacks' industriousness, spending presumably entails risk” (p. 94). When whites disagree with the stereotype that African Americans are lazy and lack a work ethic, levels of distrust are not associated with policy views regarding welfare, food stamps, and spending to assist blacks. With this research, the author has made an important contribution to an understanding of how racial stereotypes intersect with views toward government and policy.

Third, this book spells out some political consequences of trust and distrust. In the final two chapters, Hetherington examines the Clinton health care project through the lens of trust and provides lessons for liberals and conservatives. He points to the importance of the rhetorical environment in priming distrust of government and creating a message of sacrifice in high-risk situations. [Disclosure: Hetherington references research conducted by Douglas Harris and me on distrust and the Clinton health care debate.] With the failure to pass health care legislation leading to the Republican takeover of Congress and a turn by Bill Clinton to the right, low trust in government clearly led to highly significant policy impacts.

Since high levels of trust are associated with support for liberal policies, Hetherington advises progressives to avoid broad antigovernment rhetoric. Instead, liberals should seek to increase trust in government by focusing on policies that are seen as low risk and low sacrifice, to redefine other policies toward those criteria, to remind Americans of successful government endeavors, and to associate themselves with the military and patriotic symbols. In contrast, conservatives can use low levels of trust to shift programmatic responsibilities to the private sector and religious groups and to cement support around security policies. However, as the author warns, “any efforts to privatize programs such as Medicare and Social Security are clearly risky initiatives” (p. 145). His political analysis offers ample grist for research and for discussion.

While Why Trust Matters is a valuable addition to the literature, it could be more attentive to how mobilization and institutional action affects political outcomes. Trust and distrust do not, by themselves, have political impacts but, rather, provide a broad message for mobilizing certain publics. In the last several decades, distrust has been used as a political resource for those who wish to limit government's role in managing the economy and ameliorating the injuries of class. If better mobilized than others, people with those views will hold a disproportionate influence. Thus, rising levels of trust may not lead to more liberal public policies. Hetherington contends that levels in trust rebounded later in Clinton's presidency, but the president did not take the opportunity trust provided to promote liberal policies. Yet it is hard to imagine how that could have happened when Clinton faced a Republican Congress, an investigation, and impeachment proceedings. Distrust early in the Clinton years led to institutional realities that had their own effects. President Clinton's message that “the era of big government is over, but we can't go back to a time when our citizens were just left to fend for themselves” recognized the twin contexts of public views toward government and the limits he faced vis-à-vis Congress. Trust and distrust are part of the political opportunity structure and Hetherington illuminates some crucial aspects of their dynamics.