Politics in the Post-Truth Era

Åpne bilde i et nytt vindu

CC BY

Bilde: Tone Hesjedal

Post-truth is a term that was named 'word of the year' by the Oxford Dictionary in 2016. The term is used to describe a time or circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief. The term was frequently used in connection with President Trump's victory in the 2016 presidential election and the Brexit referendum in the UK that same year. In both elections, the voters seemed to ignore observable facts and voted based on feelings.

That politicians lie has been an axiom for centuries. Presenting solutions and aspirations as if they are guaranteed to happen once the politician takes office is a convention of campaigns. Voters are rarely surprised when the party manifestos don't become reality.

Politicians have staff that help them promote their successes and spin their failures so that they seem like successes. This can make it difficult for voters to make informed decisions about who to vote for. The voters' subjective feelings about a candidate become more important than the candidate's words and actions.

In the past, scandals led to resignations; today we see politicians steadfastly refusing to resign even when their mistakes and misbehaviour are well documented. We have seen top-level politicians refuse to acknowledge demonstrable facts presented by serious media outlets and revealed by investigative journalists. Instead, politicians offer their own versions of reality. 'President Donald Trump didn't lose the 2020 election, it was stolen'. 'Prime Minister Boris Johnson didn't attend any parties during the COVID-19 lockdown; or at least, he didn't know that they were parties, or he didn't know the rules his government introduced made parties illegal, and he certainly did not lie to parliament about attending parties.'

What some modern-day politicians have learnt is that media storms blow over. Sooner or later, something else will take the focus away from the scandal of the day and life will return to normal. A politician who holds on until the electorate's attention shifts, has a good chance of winning re-election down the line. At most, a half-hearted apology is issued, often in combination with a desire to 'move on' in order for the politician to continue their 'important work'.

On the other hand, many people seem to no longer care that politicians lie. If they have declared their support for a politician, they are able to ignore information that the person has lied. They may stop believing the lie but continue to believe that this person is right for the job. When a scandal occurs, they are quick to go on social media and claim that this is an insignificant matter that has been blown out of proportion by the opposition.

Research suggests that if a politician is able to represent themselves as a 'champion of the people', someone who 'stands up for the little guy', who understands the plight of 'ordinary people', and are fighting against 'the establishment' or the 'elite', then people are willing to forgive all sorts of transgressions. Lying may even be interpreted as evidence that the person is an authentic champion of the people: If they are making the elite angry with their behaviour, surely that proves they are not part of the elite?

In order for a person to succeed at the strategy of representing themselves as a champion of the people, the people must feel that they need a champion. This is one reason why we especially see this strategy succeed during financially difficult times. If people feel they are losing their position in society, they often turn to leaders who speak plainly and offer simple, quick-fix solutions.

The politician may also use propaganda to present a narrative that makes people think they need a champion. For example, spreading the narrative that citizens are losing out in the job market because immigrants have been given their jobs. Another narrative that has been widely circulated is that jobs are lost because the corrupt elite is allowing industries to be shut down and sent to low-cost countries. More extreme narratives that have circulated on social media paint the opposition as Satanists or child molesters. Social media has made it easier to expose potential voters to such narratives and propaganda. Big data is used to identify which voters are likely to be influenced by propaganda so that they can be targeted directly through their social media accounts.

Once a voter has decided that a politician is authentic, it will take a lot to shake their faith in that person. If criticism of the politician comes from sources that the voter perceives as part of the establishment or the elite, it merely cements their faith in the candidate. People who regard the politician as neither authentic nor a champion of the people can become deeply confused by the supporters' intransigence.

Work in groups.

1. How can voters protect themselves from propaganda on social media?

2. In recent years, we have seen the spread of fake news both in mainstream media and on social media platforms. How does fake news help politicians get away with lying?

3. Does it matter if politicians are lying?

4. Why are some people willing to continue to vote for politicians, even when presented with evidence that they have lied or behaved badly?

5. Contempt for politicians is when people do not trust politicians and believe they are not doing a good job. How does this affect the democracy?

6. When you make a decision, do you rely on your feelings or on facts?

Work in groups. Choose one of the tasks.

1. Find current examples of politicians who have been caught lying or covering something up. Why did they lie, how was the truth discovered, and what consequences did it have for the politician?

2. President Nixon resigned as a consequence of the Watergate Scandal. What was the Watergate Scandal? Was Nixon right to resign? Do you think Nixon could have waited out the media storm the way some politicians do today?