(CNN)  -- Responding to President Obama's State of the Union comments about the "deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that "the American people don't care about process."



Yet Americans have indicated that they are quite unhappy with how their government is working. According to a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, only 28 percent of those polled believe that the federal government is "working well," while seven out of 10 believe that the "unhealthy" government is in need of reform. Almost 93 percent said there was too much partisanship; 84 percent said special interests had excessive power.



We must always take these kinds of poll numbers with a grain of salt. Polls frequently show that Americans do not like how their government works, especially Congress. The U.S. is a country that has always expressed strong distrust of government.



There have been a few exceptional periods, like the progressive era or the 1960s and 1970s, when this frustration turns into a concerted movement for government reform.



During the 1960s and 1970s, liberal Democrats and Republicans concluded that much of their policy agenda would be impossible to achieve if the political process did not change. They perceived Vietnam and then Watergate as the outgrowth of deep flaws in how our government worked.



During the 1970s, they were able to pass a series of significant reforms, such as a campaign finance system that included public funds for presidential campaigns and contribution limits. Reforms opened up more of the political process through sunshine laws and retrenched the power of the senior committee chairmen in Congress who had usually done as they pleased, ignoring the will of the majority.



Ethics laws regulated the behavior of executive and legislative branch. Even the sacrosanct filibuster underwent an overhaul in 1975: The Senate lowered the number of required to end a filibuster from two-thirds of the Senate, 67; to three-fifths, 60.



Many of the reforms did not work, some had unintended consequences, and others were gradually unraveled. But substantive reform was possible and, for a moment, changed the way that politics as usual worked.



In addition to diminishing citizens' trust in government, the flaws of the political process constrain and limit what kinds of policies are even possible.



If President Obama, Democrats and Republicans are serious about building trust among citizens and creating a more productive political process, they should work together to do something about it. If Washington is serious about reforming the political process, three specific areas deserve immediate attention.



Filibuster reform: The 60-vote supermajority Senate has become dysfunctional. Both parties have expressed frustration with their inability to move legislation through the process. Both parties have used the filibuster as a normal tool of procedural warfare. Because of the rampant use of the filibuster since the 1960s, senators expect that 60 votes are now required on almost every piece of legislation.



Reform can happen again. One option would be to switch to a majority-based system in which 51 votes can end debate. Another, more feasible, option would lower the number of senators required for cloture to 55. To improve the political prospects for any change, some observers have suggested that any reform would not take effect until after the 2012 election.



Making it easier to end a filibuster is one of the most important concrete steps that Congress could take to actually diminish partisanship. The sources of partisanship are deep-rooted and hard to change. But filibuster reform would disarm both parties by weakening or removing one of their most powerful weapons.



Campaign finance reform: A recent Supreme Court decision eliminated many of the barriers to corporate donations and third-party advertising.



The power of private money in campaigns has been a huge political issue for over a century. Because politicians depend on interest group support to obtain funds for their campaigns, they constantly find themselves constrained when it comes to making policy. The influence of private money also diminishes public trust in government. Every story about another lobbyist like Jack Abramoff confirms their worst fears about corruption.



It is not difficult to understand why Congress has crafted a health care bill that avoids making
Who is unhappy with government partisanship? who said public unhappy with government partisanship? In what does Zelizer urge reforms? What did Julian Zelizer say the public are unhappy with? What limits change in policies? What limits changes in policies?
Americans NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, Campaign finance how their government is working. flaws of the political process flaws of the political process
question: Who is unhappy with government partisanship?, answer: Americans | question: who said public unhappy with government partisanship?, answer: NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, | question: In what does Zelizer urge reforms?, answer: Campaign finance | question: What did Julian Zelizer say the public are unhappy with?, answer: how their government is working. | question: What limits change in policies?, answer: flaws of the political process | question: What limits changes in policies?, answer: flaws of the political process