What is the difference between political figures claiming historical facts and professional historians talking about historical accounts? I believe this is a critical distinction that defines the difference between propaganda/political manipulation used by demigods forever and factual-based history.

Professional historian research events with the objective of reporting events as true to those events as if they were actual witness to the event. Political figures reporting history report those events in ways that primarily will support their viewpoint or give them political advantages. Facts are cherry picked or made up to sway public support, or increase the power from their base. Every authoritarian leader uses this tool to get power and maintain power.

President Donald Trump and many in the political parties use this, making most claims false or revisionist history without actual evidence. This leads to scapegoating of groups of people and persecution of individuals who stand in opposition to the authoritarian/party in power.

It also leads to personal enrichment of the authoritarian/officials in charge through graft, fraud and extortion, all of which seems to be happening in this administration with highly unqualified individuals in positions of power in addition to huge exaggerations or falsehood spoken by Trump.

I believe that a democracy requires the use of provable actual facts, respect for all individuals, collaboration between all reasonable viewpoints and fair representation to survive.