So, what are we to make of politicians who intentionally create a narrative that does not educate the people on the known effects/affects of the policy in question; the one which the narrative means to 'sell'?

Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Under penalty of law, no less.

If we take that to mean something like... state everything that you believe relevant and nothing you believe is not, then we have serious issues(in America, at least) with so many politicians being dishonest/insincere. Politicians ought have more than just a modicum of sincerity. As an elected official, they ought be held to a higher standard than Joe Schmo. I find it quite shameful that that needs said, but it most certainly does.

Those narratives qualify as bullshit in many or most cases. They will say whatever suits them(to usurp consent) despite what else is known to be true, but goes unspoken.

So, what are we to make of politicians who intentionally create a narrative that does not educate the people on the known effects/affects of the policy in question; the one which the narrative means to 'sell'?

Trump's " true hyperbole" ("Art of the Deal") argues for the productive effect of innocent exaggeration, as opposed to negative exaggerations and fabrications. The rhetorical effect is like that of the unreliable narrator. He is only concerned with his audience acceptance. He wants his audience to take him seriously, but not literally.

He speeches are almost impressionistic, bouncing around from topic to non-sequiturish topic. spiced with truths, exaggeration or all kinds, as well flat out fabrications. His audience does not care, they understand that if something he says does not appeal to them or make sense, he has a whole gaggle of other points that they can accept. His points are like free floating signifiers with indeterminate meanings, meanings that you are free to accept, connect or reject. It's all OK as long as you are entertained, because that's Trump's ultimate shtick.

He is not presenting his audience with logic, he is much more affective. Listen to his vocabulary which valuates with simple words like "nice", "so great", "loyalty", "beautiful", always expresses his "love" or "hates" of this or that. He does not approach a topic like a lawyer, with cool hard precision, rather his approach is on an emotional level connecting with his audience's hopes and fears.

So unlike Hillary, whose approach is coldly logical and dismissive of Trump's populism, she can never reach his level of connection. Trump said that Mexico is sending bad people into the US, "rapists", he at the same time he says he loves the Mexican people. Hillary never said she loves the Mexican people. Trump got 29% of the Hispanic vote, which was better than the 27% that Romney got when he ran against Obama.

Trump identifies with the working person, the poor, uneducated worker and he juxtaposes this population, his audience, against the academics, the lawyers and others, who cannot understand him because they assume a logic, a discursive basis for rhetoric.

Yeah, I think he did. Though its a long time since I read SSR, I do recall talk of incommensurability between paradigms. In contrast, Feyerabend explicitly rejects incommensurable research programs.

Trump identifies with the working person, the poor, uneducated worker and he juxtaposes this population, his audience, against the academics, the lawyers and others, who cannot understand him because they assume a logic, a discursive basis for rhetoric. — Cavacava

Yes. Is that a good thing?

It is good only in so far as it suggests that truth is not the exclusive provenance of academics, lawyers and others whose supercilious views treat ordinary people like something to be swept under the rug. Like Hillary telling coal miners:

"We Are Going To Put A Lot Of Coal Miners & Coal Companies Out Of Business"