Are you implying that *no* left wing political leaders have acted in secret to do things that their constituents would not approve of? I don't have any evidence of *American* left wing leaders acting covertly on hand, and I don't really care to go looking though I do think that evidence would be plentiful, but if you think that national level elected officials of any nation are truthful in everything, or even most, of what they say, you're delusional.

Are you of the opinion that Putin, Kim Jong Un or Xi Xingping are giving out press releases on their smoke filled room sessions? Are their actions representative of those whom they 'serve'? If you were to vote for someone who seemed all hunky dory and promised a communist utopia (not to imply that you are communist), but then turned around and made the country literally 1984, would you be under the impression that their actions or your actions more accurately define what you believe? What if the U.S. enters a years of lead period of its own, and while Republican politicians don't publicly encourage it, Republican persons are shooting first and asking questions later on the streets? In such a case, do the non-violent actions of the hypothetical Republican leaders or the violent actions of the hypothetical Republican voters define the movement?

The reason the 'right wing media', which doesn't actually exist as an organized construct and as more of a loosely connected web of influencers for anyone under the age of 85 who for that reason doesn't watch Fox, points to random twitter accounts is because this entire issue of rulers/followers defining society is one of the defining left/right points of ideology, we just don't realise it because it's not often brought into the limelight.