Why do politicians lie? Why do we continue to support politicians, even when we know they’re lying?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Research shows that Americans will continue to support their preferred political candidates even when they know those candidates lie. Since 2016, the term “post-truth politics” has come into regular use for just this reason. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Read on to learn why politicians lie and why Americans tolerate it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
From Bill Clinton\u2019s sex scandal, to George W. Bush\u2019s misleading claims<\/a> about weapons of mass destruction, Donald Trump\u2019s record-breaking number<\/a> of falsehoods, and now the heavily fabricated biography of George Santos<\/a>\u2014why do politicians lie and are Americans on a slippery slope toward an entirely post-truth<\/a> political era?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The term \u201cpost-truth politics\u201d has come into regular usage in recent years, gaining prominence in 2016, when Oxford Dictionaries declared that its word of the year was \u201cpost-truth.\u201d<\/a> In that same year, “postfaktisch<\/a>” (post-factual) was named word of the year by the German Language Society<\/em>. The popularity of these terms coincided with the Trump-Clinton presidential campaign in the U.S., as well as with the Brexit referendum in the UK, and the rise of right-wing populism in Germany. <\/p>\n\n\n\n At the heart of the concept of \u201cpost-truth politics\u201d is the assumption that public discourse<\/a>, most notably that of politicians, has become so dishonest that we can no longer even expect honesty. <\/strong>This raises the questions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this article, we\u2019ll explore these questions and explain how the concept of post-truth politics is intertwined with two things: political polarization<\/a> and populism. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Political scientist Benjamin Ginsberg says one of the reasons politicians lie so frequently, at least in America, is that <\/strong>they are products of a flawed political system that encourages and rewards the most arrogant candidates<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong> He says campaigning for political office in the U.S. requires the kind of ambition that only \u201cthe most narcissistic individuals\u201d tend to have. But do politicians lie more now than in the past? According to Ginsberg, Americans have tolerated presidential lies throughout the country\u2019s history. He points out that Robert Kennedy once said of President Lyndon B. Johnson, “He just lies continually about everything. He lies even when he doesn’t have to lie.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n An article in New Scientist<\/em><\/a> also suggests that our politicians today may not be much more dishonest than in the past, saying \u201cperhaps it\u2019s just that fibs once whispered into select ears are now overheard by everyone.\u201d So, it could just be that everything is so much more publicized today, making the lies more readily observable. Which might be a good thing, except that we also seem to increasingly accept and overlook them. Ginsberg notes that not only do we now tolerate<\/em> politicians lying, we\u2019ve come to demand<\/em> it\u2014and lying can work in a political candidate\u2019s favor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, whether there\u2019s been an objective rise in dishonesty among political leaders or not, something has certainly prompted the rise in the <\/em>belief that we can no longer expect honesty from our political leaders. This is evident from the popularity of the concept of \u201cpost-truth politics.\u201d And this rise coincides with two other related factors: the rise in populist movements and growing polarization of political beliefs. <\/strong>These two trends help explain why politicians so frequently lie to us, and <\/em>why we continue to support them when they do. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University looked at the question of why people accept politicians who lie<\/a>, and they found that there are some specific circumstances that contribute to this. One of those circumstances is the feeling of disenfranchisement<\/em>. The authors of the study say that when people feel excluded from a political system that they perceive as run by \u201cout of touch\u201d leaders, they\u2019ll accept lies from a politician who claims to be a champion of the \u201cpeople.\u201d<\/strong> This is essentially the catalyst for populist movements, such as those that grew up around both Donald Trump and Boris Johnson.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Populism <\/em>refers to a political position that rests on the idea of the struggle of the \u201ccommon people\u201d against the \u201celite.\u201d Leaders of populist movements tend to emphasize their authenticity\u2014<\/em>their relatable nature to the common folk\u2014and take an anti-establishment stance. For example, Donald Trump\u2019s cry of \u201cdraining the swamp\u201d (a metaphor for ousting establishment politicians from Washington, D.C.) was populist rhetoric, implying that he aligned with the American people in his intention to rid the government of corrupt elites. <\/p>\n\n\n\n However, leaders like Trump and Johnson don\u2019t actually come from \u201ccommon\u201d backgrounds, nor have their lifestyles ever reflected or connected with the everyday lives of working and middle-class populations. So, in order to appeal to this demographic, some discursive sleight of hand is necessary. But the public <\/strong>is willing to suspend disbelief <\/strong>because they want someone who\u2019s <\/strong>authentic<\/em><\/strong> more than someone who\u2019s honest. <\/strong>And in fact, when we perceive the establishment as being associated with an \u201cintellectual elite\u201d that emphasizes objectivity and evidence, we might even prefer<\/em> someone who lies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In a 2016 CNN interview, Jeffrey Lord, an American author and political strategist who served in the Reagan administration, called fact-checking an \u201c<\/strong>out-of-touch, elitist media-type thing<\/strong><\/a>\u201d <\/strong>and claimed \u201cI don\u2019t think people here in America care. What they care about [is] what the candidates say.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n So one factor influencing the post-truth nature of politics is that, in our desire for a leader who\u2019s authentic and on our side, <\/em>we may be willing to support someone who twists the truth. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to wanting a leader who challenges the establishment, we face the challenge of a growing divide between political parties, particularly in a two-party system like America’s. The digital world gives us unlimited information at our fingertips, and we don’t always know how to determine the veracity of that information. Further, social media algorithms create echo-chambers within which our beliefs and biases are reinforced in an endless loop. This has led to increasing political polarization between right- and left-wing positions, to the point where our very identities are inextricable from our political affiliations. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n And that means that we\u2019ll double down to support the candidate who aligns with our political identity<\/a>. A study in Social Psychological and Personality Science<\/em> found that people are more forgiving of a politician\u2019s lies when they believe the general stance of that politician is morally right.<\/strong> So, for example, someone who holds anti-abortion views will be more likely to support a pro-life candidate, even if they know the candidate promotes factually inaccurate beliefs about abortion. In cases like this, researchers say lies can be perceived as acceptable, because they\u2019re a means to a greater good. <\/p>\n\n\n\n And, since partisanship is so much a part of our identities, we\u2019ll also accept a lying politician simply because it gets our <\/strong>party<\/em><\/strong> elected. <\/strong>For example, one may reason that, to a Democrat, a Democratic candidate who lies is still preferable to any<\/em> Republican, since it will give the Democratic Party more control of the government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But what are the consequences for society when we accept leaders who lie? <\/p>\n\n\n\n Does it really matter whether George Santos is Jewish or Catholic<\/a>, or if Bill Clinton had an affair with an intern? We could argue that when politicians lie, these kinds of indiscretions have little effect on someone\u2019s ability to govern. But a post-truth political world can also potentially create a gravely dangerous situation.<\/strong> Oxford scholar Nayef Al-Rhodan says political lies are more than just unethical\u2014they can lead to global destabilization<\/a>. He calls for viewing post-truth politics as an \u201cemerging security challenge, in need of stern responses.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\nWhy Do Politicians Lie So Much?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Why Are We Willing to Tolerate Politicians Lying?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Populism<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Political Polarization<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
The Dangers of Post-Truth Politics<\/h3>\n\n\n\n