Politics is the art of deception. The successful are master manipulators of language and perception. They are a combination carnival barker and magician and we, the perceived country bumpkins, are the mark. Back in the day, politicians campaigned with a wink and a nod. It was all about a good show and sometimes you have to laugh at the antics of some of these characters. North Carolina has had its share. Senator Robert Reynolds is one of them. Here is an excerpt from Rob Christensen’s The Paradox of Tar Heel Politics:
Reynolds left Asheville in the guise of a poverty-stricken man of the people. He donned a ragged suit and worn shoes and drove a broken-down Tin Lizzie. Before entering a town, Reynolds often emptied his radiator so that when he arrived steam would be pouring from under the hood. Feigning poverty, Reynolds asked the crowd for gas money to help him get to the next town, or borrowed an automobile, or asked for a place to stay since he could not afford a hotel. He would take a couple of dollar bills out of his pocket and wave it to the crowd, calling on God to witness that it was all the money he had in the world. So phony were his pleas of poverty, Reynolds never bothered to cash hundreds of the small campaign checks he was given although he framed some as campaign souvenirs.
Bob Reynolds was a character and he genuinely liked the people. We can’t say the same of today’s politicians. Today’s politicians are elite, paternalistic snobs who aren’t content on lying and deceiving the public; they want to run our lives. They’ve transitioned from sideshow Bob to an Orwellian mind controller.
This attitude is pervasive throughout Washington D.C., progressive think tanks, and academia. According to our wannabe overlords, the people are the problem and if we don’t agree with their world view, the people have to be re-educated or nudged by psychological assaults on common sense and decency.
National Interest.org published an article about elitist attitudes on the great unwashed:
How? By replacing the elite’s language. If you look back at the articles I cited, you'll see a common language. A language not of rational discussion, of pros and cons, but of psychology. A writer explains the public based on its emotional or intellectual qualities. "The public is ,” or "the people are ignorant.” In other cases, such as when discussing Trump's supporters, the writer will usually use adjectives from psychology. "The Republican nominee is manipulative, his supporters " You will rarely find a writer addressing the arguments against the elites plans and values. Why is that? Well, if the people are ignorant, they should be educated. If they are angry, they should be medicated. We do not need to address people's concern about immigrants, because their concern is xenophobic and—again—ignorant. The language of psychology opens no discussion. In the writer's mind he is a therapist, helping his opponent understand the hidden reasons for his arguments. Once the opponent recognize his problem, he can be treated, “educated.”
Educated? They mean re-educated. That’s how totalitarian regimes handle a recalcitrant citizenry. And it all began with; ‘It depends on what your definition of “is” is.’