I can’t say I was terribly surprised by the news. There is a difference between the views people have of their leaders and those they have of the economy. Michigan has been treading water in troubled seas for quite some time now. Hardship — rather, what we perceive as hardship — is now a way of life. It was a shock back when the economy initially nose-dived, but when things leveled off, what once was below average became normal. Cutting back means learning to live with or without certain things.

The longer that state of being persists, the more used to it we become. To illustrate my point, I will use a boot analogy. Let’s suppose the residents of Michigan are on the receiving end of a constant barrage of kicks to the head. The boot in this case is steel-toed. If that boot suddenly goes from steel-toed to hard leather, things can be said to have improved. Yes, we’re still getting kicked in the head, but we’re optimistic that as time progresses, the impact of kicks will lessen.

In my analogy, the economy is the boot and we are the optimistic individual receiving the beating of a lifetime. Our leaders, however, are the person in the room who we feel has the power to stop the abuse, but sits by idly. We want someone to do something. Each time we get kicked in the head, we wonder, “What are the people we elected doing about this pain?” When the results aren’t immediately evident, we lose faith. Charles Ballard, State of the State Survey director and an MSU economics professor, said in a university press release that “Even though the economy is improving, unemployment remains high and this probably contributes to (President Obama’s) drop.”

The economy is improving, but that isn’t tangible. The federal and state leaders in this scenario are negotiating with the economy that is kicking us in the head. They’re trying to talk it down to a slipper or perhaps some tasteful loafers. But to us, that takes far too long. The only good result we can accept from our leaders is the one in which the boot stops hitting us in the head.

The difference is relative. We are less angry at the thing kicking us than we are at the ones taking their time to stop it. We perceive the boot as unable to stop and therefore any lessening of pain brought on is natural, i.e., has a correlation with a continually lessened impact. The person negotiating with the boot, on the other hand, must prove that every action he or she makes is toward lessening its impact.

So, boot metaphors aside, what I’m trying to say is leaders are perceived as actively working on a situation. Any movement they make must have a tangible result so they can justify their positions as leaders. Anything less will result in a loss of confidence.

The last thing I noticed about the results was this, as noted in the press release: “Ballard said trust in state government has now fallen to the same low levels as trust in the federal government. Trust in local government remains much higher.” I read a study about drug users not too long ago that concluded people perceived drug users they knew as less deviant than those they did not know.

I think the same can be said of government. Any resident of East Lansing can march down to East Lansing City Hall and attend a meeting where council members set policy. There is an immediate gratification or perception that something has been accomplished. There is a sense of community. Not so with federal and state governments. We can write letters or protest on the lawn, but there is always a feeling representatives have better things to do.

I, for one, feel our leaders are doing what they think is best. Whether those efforts are effective is a different thing altogether. A suggestion for closing the perception gap between when good things happen and who is responsible for those changes would be to explain the steps in the process in a way meant to clarify as opposed to justify. That is, make what we perceive as intangible, tangible.

David Barker is the State News opinion editor. Reach him at barkerd@msu.edu.