Starting about 250 years ago, the rise of classical liberalism and the Enlightenment led to demands for constitutions describing the scope of political power and the limitations on governmental overreach. Some countries tried to develop constitutional monarchies, others overthrew monarchs in favor of some form of democratic republic, but the big political questions of the era were,
- Do you have a constitution?
- Do you want a constitution?
- What should that constitution say?
Here in North America, the British colonies operated under the strange blend of written and unwritten principles of the British constitution until some of those colonists decided those provisions had been violated, and King George III had broken his promises to uphold and defend their rights as Englishmen. They wrote a letter detailing their complaints and declaring independence in response to those perceived broken promises.
Twelve years later, after fighting a war against Great Britain and bickering over how to run their new nation, amidst various allegations of skulduggery and devious backroom schemes, the new United States of America was formed with a constitution. This, the authors of the Federalist Papers said, was effectively a promise that the new government would be restrained and responsible. Some other pamphleteers disagreed. Democrats and Republicans spend every election cycle bickering over what promises were made and broken under that document, and radical libertarians like me tend to argue the whole thing has been a broken promise since before the ink was dry.
While checking in books at the library yesterday, I saw a picture book about Black Elk's Vision. I also own a copy of Black Elk Speaks, and it jogged my memory, leading to this odd train of thought. I have a decent (if cursory) understanding of the history of US government conflicts against the natives. Long story short: the US government broke a lot of promises and treaties, massacred peaceful camps of allied tribes, and slaughtered warriors who surrendered.
The general consensus in mainstream history seems to be that government is mostly good except for a few isolated incidents where somehow bad things happened. I argue instead that governments are entirely built on a foundation of lies, and broken promises are the norm. Lord Acton's famous quote says,
I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. [emphasis added]
On top of that observation, we have myriad further observations and studies. 
My takeaway may be over-simplistic, but in short, everything we consider "political" today is distorted by these myriad perverse incentives and corrupting influences. Even those who genuinely intend to produce the "greater good" (whatever that means to them) are necessarily left in a position where mistakes will be made and grandiose promises will be broken. People who don't care about truth won't even bother about keeping their word because it wasn't ever worth anything to them in the first place. Broken promises are not an accident, they are an indicator of a system that cannot be redeemed.
If you're not on Hive yet, I invite you to join through PeakD. If you use my referral link, I'll even delegate some Hive Power to help you get started.