I’ll just go ahead and answer your question.

The Patriot Act has absolutely nothing to do with patriotism. In practice, it expanded government surveillance and law-enforcement powers in ways that raised serious constitutional, civil-liberties, and human-rights concerns.

It was called the Patriot Act because that’s an appealing name. Nobody is going to call something the Government Surveillance and Expanded Executive Powers Act and expect people to get excited about it. The name is part of the political optics.

You see the same thing with authoritarian governments naming institutions and policies things like “Democratic,” “People’s,” “National,” or “for the Protection of the Country.” The terminology is deliberately positive because governments understand that optics matter.

What I’ve never understood is what governments actually think their populations believe. At a certain point, everyone knows they’re playing the same political game. Governments are playing political chess against one another, politicians are managing their public image, and the population is largely treated as the audience rather than a participant.

The irony is that governments seem to assume people are too stupid to recognize the obvious propaganda. In reality, most people understand that a government calling something “patriotic,” “democratic,” or “for the people” doesn’t automatically make it any of those things.

The subject of the post is "why do authoritarian states have words like ‘democratic’ or ‘people’s’ when they are not actually democratic or for people? Yes? Would you agree with that?

Politics 101 is giving something a name that does not relate to the actual political thing you are doing. Naming a party, passing a bill, etc. The patriot act was an example i had off the top of my head.

Thought the connection was incredibly clear but I guess not.