...what we want to say may frighten those whose approval we seek.
"What we don't talk about will be used to rule over us."
I first heard those words while I was neck-deep in serious politics and immediately saw their truth.
Later, retired and studying politics to help me understand what I'd learned, I found the following by the Roman statesman Tacitus:
"Were the people to rule themselves they would create trust. May they ever have distrust for one another, for as our need for power hurries us on, fortune can give us no greater gift than their mutual distrust."
We are hearing from people whose need for power hurries them on. We call them "candidates" and perhaps a few names that tell how we feel about them.
What say you about what you don't talk about? Does silence result in distrust?
Dishonesty results in distrust.
As a polititical candidate how can there be honesty. Political candidates serve the few masters who contribute to their election while attempting to playcate the electorate.
It seems to me that the only way to even the keel is to only allow contributions from the electorate.
How to do that? - Voter election reform where for example eledigable voters would be given a tax credit (Such as Oregon U.S.A. does though only allowing $50 last I checked).
If eligible voters were given an equal tax credit for say $500 then perhaps each voter would have an equal monitary voice in campaigns.
I used to think I hated Christmas season. That unfortunately lasts as long as two months or so.
The Presidential campaign season lasts a year or longer.
Michel Powel may have contributed to the problem when he was the chair of the FCC.
None the less the 'debates' and electorial process are nothing more than the equivalent of a reality game show.
Broadcast news takes advantage of this. They seem to thrive off it because as presented they are lazy.
Fact checking isn't part of their digestive tract. Diarrhea seems to be the only seem that comes out.
Politicians have been famous for being dishonest ever since they invented themselves.
NOT knowing what is going on breeds mistrust, so, yes, silence CAN fester it.
Communication, if it is not at least "truthy" can breed mistrust too of course.
That means that a republican, especially to get nominated, can have to say the earth is flat, 6,000 years old, and that women can only get pregnant if they want to, so rape can't cause pregnancy, evolution and global climate change are hoaxes, some states are the "real" america, and, some are not, like Hawaii, etc.
If they say these lies, their demographic will trust them.
If they say that the earth is round and billions of years old and that we evolved recently, the climate is changing, etc, they don't get nominated, as they are considered untrustworthy.
On the flip side, reverse all that for the Dems.
Sometimes being honest can hurt you, too. Take Walter Mondale's "I will raise your taxes. So will he. The difference is, I'm telling you now." It cost him the election and caused the public to have to endure the first Pres. Bush.
That's WHY they lie.
A pathological liar might lie even if the truth served him better, but a politician is a strategic liar typically.
Their job is to get elected, period.
They may ALSO want to make the world a better place, and/or get scads of money for holding up snowballs or having speaking engagements, etc...
...but if they don't get elected, they cannot do ANY of that.
So, they say whatever they think their voters want to hear.
Ironically, perhaps, in an ideal world, they would NOT have an agenda per se of their own, OTHER THAN what the people they REPRESENT, want.
They are essentially supposed to be elected to represent their constituents. So, if the people who elected him want the bridges fixed, and new abortion clinics, he should try to get the bridges fixed, and get new abortion clinics, even if he belongs to a religion that is against bridges and abortion.
So, what they DO after they are elected may or may not reflect what they SAID they would do.
Sometimes, there's no budget, and its not an ideological issue. Sometimes the ideology of the official is what drives policy, and not what their constituents wanted.
So, they might push whatever buttons they need to on a campaign to get elected, and the rest is a crap shoot.