Lying about the killing of Alex Pretti is not merely an act of political self preservation; it is an assault on the basic grammar of reality. Even the most patient citizen trained by years of disappointment to expect little recognizes the sound of a story collapsing under its own weight. It is the dull crack of logic splitting, the quiet thud of credibility hitting the floor. When officials contradict one another and timelines blur, trust does not erode politely. It falls.
To accept that a single death can be tidied away with a press conference is to accept that human life is an administrative inconvenience. The official language of “ongoing reviews” and “procedural uncertainties” pretends that clarity is a luxury item, not a democratic necessity. Citizens are not auditors skimming a balance sheet. They are witnesses, unwilling but present, standing in the long shadow of a body that refuses to become a footnote.
Every attempted cover story invites a second crime, subtler but more corrosive. It trains people to doubt not only this explanation, but all explanations. Trust is not a renewable resource. It is mined slowly from experience and disappears quickly when handled carelessly. Once the public suspects that truth is treated as a strategic variable, adjustable to political weather, the damage spreads outward.
History suggests once secrecy becomes routine, it rarely retreats. It must be dragged into light by courts, journalists and citizens who refuse to be trained into silence again.
The tragedy is not only that Alex Pretti is dead. It is that his death is being repurposed into an exercise in narrative management. Again. Just like it happened few days before with Renée Good. Somewhere, a group of professionals sat around a table and decided which fragments of reality were “useful” and which were “complicated.” In that moment democracy shrank. It did not collapse dramatically, as in the movies, with tanks and burning flags. It simply folded inward, like a tired lung, reducing its capacity to take in oxygen.
A healthy democracy depends less on perfection than on embarrassment. It requires the capacity to admit error without first being cornered by evidence. When that instinct vanishes, what replaces it is choreography, the synchronized shrug, the rehearsed sorrow, the statement that manages to be both solemn and empty. Citizens learn to read these performances the way farmers read clouds. They know when rain is coming, and they know when the sky is lying.
The defenders of secrecy argue that complexity demands patience. They speak of investigations, of legal sensitivities, of the dangers of premature conclusions. All of this can be true in the narrow technical sense, and still be false in the moral one. Complexity is not a license for distortion. Patience is not consent. A society that must wait indefinitely for honesty is not waiting for justice; it is being trained to abandon the expectation of it.
What makes the case unbearable to any sane mind is not only the suspicion of deliberate deception, but the casualness with which it appears to be deployed. The tone is managerial, almost bored. Another crisis, another statement, another cycle of outrage to be absorbed and neutralized. The machinery of public relations hums smoothly, lubricated by the assumption that outrage has a short shelf life. Outrage, after all, competes with rent, groceries, and exhaustion.
And yet, something stubborn remains. People keep asking the same impolite questions. Who decided what we are allowed to know. Who benefits from our confusion. Who calculated that our attention would wander before accountability arrived. These questions do not fade easily, because they are not about Alex Pretti or Renée Good alone. They are about the rules of the country in which he lived and died.
Every democracy carries within it a small, fragile promise: that power will occasionally tell the truth even when it is inconvenient. Break that promise often enough, and citizens begin to treat their own government the way travellers treat a notoriously dishonest taxi driver, with suspicion, clenched teeth, and one hand on the door handle. The ride continues, but nobody relaxes.
If America is losing its democracy, it will not be because a single man was killed, or because a single lie was told. It will be because killing can be hidden, and lying can be normalized, and both can be packaged as administrative detail. The danger is not dramatic tyranny. It is bureaucratic numbness. A nation that no longer expects honesty will accept almost anything, including the quiet burial of its own principles alongside the bodies it prefers not to name.
No comments:
Post a Comment