We live in a time where trust in government is low and in a trough. The Pew Research Center, which tracks the issue, finds that since the end of George W. Bush’s second term in 2008, only about a quarter of voters say they expect the government to help them most or always does the right thing.

Compare that to the nearly three in four voters who expressed confidence in government at the end of President Dwight Eisenhower’s term in 1960. Of course there are party political differences. But even Democrats, whose trust in government increased significantly during the Biden administration, remain overall pessimistic about government today.

Before Ronald Reagan famously said, “The nine most terrible words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help,'” Republicans argued that the surest way to build trust in government is to reduce it. Or, in the case of former President Donald Trump, burn it down. Democrats have largely fought to keep government robust, though not always with a clear vision or real passion. And then there is Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Warren, running for her third term this year, has made effective government her motto. But beyond simply spending more on it—which Trump himself would do, for all his diatribes about the evils of government—she has brought with her a deep understanding of politics and law that is virtually unmatched in Congress. She works to make government not just work, but work better, especially for average consumers, the poor and the middle class. That’s why the Boston Globe editorial board is supporting her in next week’s election.

Conservatives will laugh at the idea of ​​better government: improving its performance, by their definition, means making it worse for the public—and they’re not always wrong. But Warren is unique in understanding the levers of government and finding ways to use them to address real problems.

Take student debt, which is an absolute problem for Republicans but a key policy target for Warren and other Democrats. Since the Biden administration took office, Warren has spearheaded efforts in Congress, using a law passed under President George W. Bush to cancel the student loan debt of those who are You work for state, local and federal governments or for nonprofit organizations and have made payments for 10 years. Over the last three years, a million civil servants, from teachers to police officers to postal workers, have had their loans forgiven.

“I know that most of the work in the Senate or the House is passing legislation,” Warren recently told the editorial board. “It’s also about supervision, and in this case I haven’t changed a word in the law. The difference is fighting with regulators and regulators to make this work.”

Conservatives like to deride Warren as an enemy of capitalism, but much of her efforts in Congress have largely been about regulating the predators in our system. She urged bank executives to reduce bank fees, advocated slowing the spread of private equity in healthcare and other industries, and proposed regulatory oversight of cryptocurrencies consistent with that of other financial services providers. Before becoming a senator, she conceived, pushed Congress to pass, and helped the Obama administration create the Consumer Financial Protection Board, which has recovered billions from consumers found to have been abused by banks and other institutions.

In some of these ventures, she has forged alliances with conservative Republicans aligned with Trump’s populist movement, including Senators Ted Cruz of Texas on disaster relief, Josh Hawley of Missouri on refunds for flight cancellations, and none other than Senator JD Vance of Ohio – the Republican Candidate for Vice President – ​​on a bill to recover compensation from executives of insolvent banks. Apparently they also believe that the government can work better.

Certainly there are issues on which we strongly disagree with the Senator. She supports a ballot question that would eliminate MCAS as a high school graduation requirement in Massachusetts, a position we believe is completely misguided. It would also completely end the filibuster in the Senate, a rules change that could allow a Republican president and the Senate to wreak havoc.

Warren’s opponent, John Deaton, a lawyer and newcomer to both politics and Massachusetts, is in many ways an attractive alternative – the kind of sensible Republicans who fell out of fashion in Massachusetts after former Gov. Charlie Baker left the State House .

He has been vocal about his disgust at Trump’s vicious populism. He says he would be an effective voice for federal aid to Massachusetts. And he has made it clear that he would vote against a national abortion ban. For these reasons, we hope he remains active in Republican politics in the state should he lose next week.

Warren was unfair in trying to brand him an extremist. But she is not wrong when she suggests that as a first-term senator, it would be difficult for him to be truly independent of the Senate’s Republican leadership, which can be counted on to be subservient to Trump. if he wins the presidency. And if Trump does win, having a vibrant and united Senate Democratic caucus will be critical to thwarting his plans to populate the federal judiciary and executive branch with the worst loyalists.

Elizabeth Warren, with all her vivacity and drive, her clarity of mind and her detailed attention to law and policy, should be an important part of this Democratic caucus – regardless of whether she is in the majority, and perhaps even more so if she is not is.

Editorials reflect the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us @GlobeOpinion.