If nothing else, this election season might be an exercise in grammar. According to multiple sources, MISTRUST and DISTRUST are almost synonymous, with distrust having the distinction of frequently being the stronger word, based on an experience of untrustworthiness rather than a mere impression of untrustworthiness, reserved for mistrust.
For many Americans, distrust describes our experience with our elected officials. We can each muster up so many instances of lying that a mere mistrust won’t do. This is how I feel about the bulk of Obamacare boosters, I distrust them based on the long history of half-truth or outright lies we’ve experienced thus far.
But when it comes to choosing a candidate, perhaps it is the candidates themselves who should focus on becoming mistrusted as opposed to distrusted. Seeming liars are often treated better by the public and public opinion than proven liars.
Certainly the President has experienced the bottom dropping out because of his inability to focus on the difference. While mistrust for politicians is always a concern (and arguably we mistrust all politicians because we can cite numerous examples of reasons we distrust other politicians), the Presidential shift to a DISTRUSTED leader has taken a long time and many outright untruths or half-truths to gel into a situation where a grain of the proverbial salt accompanies any Obama offering.
