Spokesmen for 'silent majority' ?

Dear Tai Soh: when there is no statistical or numerical proof, anyone - politicians, journalists, writers or speakers alike- who boostfully claims to be speaking or writing on behalf or for 'the silent majority' on particular issues is usually and essentially a charlatan or swindler, whether they play golf or wear gold watch or not.

The idea of claiming to speak on behalf or for 'the silent majority' is to make other accept his or her arguments by the logic of( imaginary) force, not force of logic, or to make one's opponents in a debate feel isolated, lonely or marginalised. The reality may be that it is the one who speaks for or on behalf of 'the silent majority' who is the more isolated, lonely or marginalised guy.

If these 'spokesmen for the silent majority' are publicly challenged to produce statistical or numerical proof of their claim, the typical response would be silence (hoping other would forget their bullshits) or the non-arguments of 'you are arrogant' or 'don't I have the right to free speech?'