In the limit publicness becomes totalitarianism. To begin its journey publicness starts from a point that does not acknowledge moral equivalence. President Bush's 'you're either for us or against us' stance makes this clear. Trust requires some difficult questions to be answered and the POSIWID of publicness is to preclude trust by precluding these questions. For example:
Iraq's erstwhile Ba'athist Party and the USA's National Rifle Association
(NRA) share a POSIWID. Both exist for a single common purpose: to remove any opposition to their respective agendas. Their methods may differ slightly, but, during the party's pre-eminence, the impossibility of an anti- or non-Ba'athist individual's advancement within Iraq's power structure is exactly mirrored by the similar impossibility of an anti-gun individual's in the US.
The fact that Iraq had only one such organization with this power whereas the US has several - the pro-life Christian Right, the tobacco lobby, the Pentagon, the Jewish lobby etc - doesn't negate the shift towards totalitarianism it shows only the one to be more totalitarian than the other.