In moments when truth-telling faded from daily discourse, politicians often faced pressure to soften realities or chase polls. Some eras demand exacting candor, while unstable societies invite evasions. During the long stretch of economic turmoil, the sharpest minds in economics found themselves navigating politics with uneven footing. New apartment blocks rose for immigrant workers funded by loans believed to be instantly repaid. Yet the so‑called subprime crisis halted everything. In those days of a real estate bubble, a few politicians still faced prison for theft. The bubble burst as banks halted lending, trust dissolved, and credit markets froze. It looked like a tower of smoke, rising in a jagged, pyramidal plume.
Then a similar pattern emerged with independence movements. Today the topic shifts to the Middle East, yesterday it was Ukraine. Public debt lingers, Pisa reports are denied, and clashes between government and judiciary flash across the stage at every turn. Price fluctuations in crude oil turn everyone into constitutionalists and legal historians overnight. Classic analyses warn that one of any government’s main tasks is to manage perception, sometimes with a deliberate smokescreen. A subtle balance persists between reality and its representation.
Words and phrases quickly lose their meaning. Dialogue becomes a hollow invitation to sit at a table, as if legislative bodies and regional parliaments did not exist. The issue resurfaced with post-truth a few years back, and even now its practice travels through digital networks, adding fragility and one‑dimensional viewpoints. Artificial intelligence circulates faces that are entirely fabricated, fueling a surge of misinformation. Soon enough the voting age will see what a self‑contained ecosystem can deliver on a user’s screen.
Post-truth has darker predecessors such as the infamous forgery that claimed a grand Judeo‑Masonic conspiracy. That document became a symbol of totalitarian distortion in the 20th century. Feedback reveals that the two great totalitarian impulses of that era thrived on post-truth: revolutionary myths captured power, whether through a seizure or a blaze. Before, there were not many prisoners in historic dungeons; post-truth was then wielded as a tool of upheaval again.
In the words of Tocqueville, a new despotism can arrive as a quiet force, a restraint that shapes will without breaking it. Selfishness often overshadows the common good, and the fate of others can fade from sight. The risk of a mild despotism grows when people do not see their neighbors or learn their stories. A culture of soft dominance can take hold—undisputed, almost comforting. A large, like‑minded community chasing small pleasures can stand in stark opposition to truth and the hunger for knowledge. False communities become bubbles of sentiment and misrepresented identities, while the flood of information remains inexhaustible. This mismatch helps explain how a smoke‑and‑mirror policy can gain traction, and why a professional purveyor of political smoke may find a bright future ahead. [Citation: historical and policy analyses]