This seems like a series of fairly simple questions:
If one is advocating for an issue but must resort to deceit if not outright lying to persuade others, what does that say about the merits of the argument to begin with? And just what are we to make of such a person who finds those tactics acceptable?
If a principle or belief can only be supported by hypocrisy and/or harm to others, might a re-think of objectives be called for?
If the efforts to persuade mandate that if facts must be disclosed then only certain ones are allowed—after they are carefully massaged so as to conceal the genuine motives and outcomes—and that the recipients are instead to remain angered, agitated, or otherwise distracted from the underlying truths, by what rationale is this an appropriate demonstration of leadership or democracy, or even basic persuasion?
By any standards of decency, honesty, and equity, what possible justifications can be offered for behaviors and motivations so contrary to the principles of democracy which those same perpetrators profess to revere?