This is a rather late comment in the game. I could not quite take for granted certain statements by Soros concerning Popper, as if for rhetorical purposes he wishes to use a supposed failing of Popper to put his own shortcomings in perspective. This would however entail a secure knowledge of everything said by Popper throughout his intellectual career, especially in light of the fact that Soros was a student of his.

In his book,The Open Society and Its Enemies, Popper discusses at length the nature of lies, propaganda and truth in several chapters, most notably Book 1, Chapter 8. He further acknowledges that one must "bear the cross" of reason, responsability, humanness, and the pursuit of truth (not Truth!) in order to prevent slipping back into an idealized closed society.

It is splitting hairs on Soros part to represent this "cross bearing" as "taken for granted" rather than being an "explicit requirement." Popper's arguments on power and falsehood find further force in the epoch in which he lived characterized by the rise of totalitarian regimes throughout Europe as well as the historical period he analyzed, the upheaval in Athens between the democratic Pericles and the 30 year reign of terror, through the works of Plato.

Although Soros may certainly have elaborated his arguments- I have not read his work- I find his proposal weak and rhetorical:

The only way in which politicians can be persuaded to pay more respect to reality is by the electorate insisting on it, rewarding those whom it considers truthful and insightful, and punishing those who engage in deliberate deception. In other words, the electorate needs to be more committed to the pursuit of truth than it is at present.

What exactly is an electorate in this case? Just how often is "the electorate" called to express itself? That is a pale shadow of Machiavelli's "ferocious" popular vigilance, but those were different days when political murder and oligarchies were routine.

Soros does elaborate on the argument in an article "From Karl Popper to Karl Rove - and Back" yet once again concludes that it's the electorate that counts while previously discounting the checks and balances of constitutional order.

Frankly, "the electorate" doesn't matter. What matters in political strategy is not the electorate but the "lazy elector." The lazy elector is (fortunately) a small minority that has no interest in politics, is moved by transient passion, yet is sufficient in number to make the difference when the tyranny of numbers is tallied. The nature of modern propaganda is aimed at motivating the lazy elector to vote. So long as the lazy elector is sufficiently motivated to vote, a political strategy based on reason starts the race with a notable handicap.

Whatever the solution, I find little solace in Soros.