In the times we live in, saying that politicians lie is almost obvious. There are many leaders of all types of parties and ideology who have been caught saying something that they never followed through once they were elected by the electorate.
One might think it’s because they consider their voters to be idiots, that they won’t see through the lie. However, taking into account that thanks to the Internet we can easily confirm what they have lied about, one cannot help but think Why do the politicians lie They should know that they are going to be denied sooner or later.
Below we will delve into this issue seeing that, really, it is not simply about lying, but about making your falsehoods a truly powerful tool.
Saying that politicians lie sounds almost logical. Some will say that, really, this is not the case, they simply say they promise something in their electoral programs but for X or Y in the end they cannot confirm it. Others, perhaps with their feet more on the ground, will say that politicians actually lie consciously. with the clear intention of being chosen by their voters and then, when they are in power, they will take it upon themselves to disappoint those who elected them.
Be that as it may, one cannot help but think that in the times in which we live, a politician who lies is an unintelligent and cautious politician. Thanks to the Internet and access to all the information available and available, it is not very difficult to find web pages with an ideology that is antagonistic to that of a specific politician that brings out everything about which he has lied. Taking this into account, we might think that these people are really stupid, since they know that there is a resource that will deny everything they have said.
In an ideal and logical world, the lying politician would be caught and removed from the political race because no one wants to vote for him. But we live neither in an ideal world nor in a logical one. The politician blatantly tells falsehoods, He knows that the Internet will prove what he lied about and, even so, he achieves enormous fame, many voters and an incredible impact. Let’s look at Donald Trump or Jair Bolsonaro. Before being chosen they said a lot of stupid things, things that any North American and Brazilian could quickly deny and, despite this, they ended up being elected president.
Taking all this into account, in addition to the question that gives its name to this article (Why do politicians lie?), it also comes to mind how, even by lying, they manage to gain fame. It seems that this should be just the opposite and it has become clear that with these two examples that we have just mentioned, not only have they done well, but it seems that their fame is increasing, even with terrible management of such crucial aspects in history as COVID-19 has been.
A world of falsehoods
False information, more modernly composed of what is known as “fake news”, seems to spread at a greater speed than the truth We may think that believing lies or that we want to believe them is something modern, enhanced by new technologies, but it seems that this already comes from a long time ago, even from when writing did not exist.
It seems that the existence of intergroup conflicts throughout our evolutionary history has shaped our minds. Human psychology seems to be predisposed to disseminate information that, regardless of whether it is true or not, if it meets the following characteristics it is seen as potentially credible.
Far from what many may think, The human mind is designed to select and disseminate information that is effective in achieving these goals, not to give true information, especially if a social conflict is occurring. In the event that there is a conflict between two groups, human beings are psychologically prepared to prioritize information that helps us win the conflict against the outgroup, even if objectively that information is clearly a fallacy.
It should be said that ensuring that human beings do not pay due attention to true information is not entirely true. It is adaptive and effective to have true knowledge of the outside world, especially in aspects that contribute to individual and group survival in terms of biological needs such as food, shelter or avoiding a threat such as a predator. For example, in a tribe, it is adaptive to tell the rest of the members where the best pastures are for hunting wildebeest.
However, in the course of human evolution our mind generated, adopted and propagated beliefs that could be used to fulfill other functions, even if the information itself is not true. Lying has a clear evolutionary component, since otherwise we would not do it. By lying we can manipulate other people, make them imagine things that are not and make them behave in a way that is beneficial to us. The lie would have served so that a group at odds with another could destroy the other, even if the motivation was based on falsehoods.
Conflict in non-human animals
Naturally, conflict or struggle is not something exclusive to the human species. On more than one occasion we have seen in television documentaries how two individuals of the same species confront each other over issues such as dominance over territory, food or obtaining a mate. These confrontations usually follow a series of steps to assess whether there is a chance of victory or else there is a high chance of losing with serious injuries or even death.
In most cases, the best predictor of coping ability is size and physical strength. This is why natural selection has been developing mechanisms in different species to evaluate the size and strength of the opponent, in order to find out if they have a chance. We have an example of this in deer, which, before fighting, usually start howling. It has been seen that the volume of their cries directly correlates with their size. The higher the volume, the bigger.
But what is surprising is that sometimes deer lie. With the intention of avoiding a fight that they will surely lose and intimidate their rival, deer with a, let’s say, modest size emit high-volume bellows, as if they were larger than they are. In this way, and with a little luck, They can intimidate a rival who, surely, if he had decided to fight them, they would have defeated them and left very badly injured. In this way, these small deer get food, territory and mates without having to put their lives at risk.
We have another natural deception mechanism in piloerection, that is, when we get goosebumps and our hair rises. In the human case, this mechanism is no longer of much use to us, but in hairier species it allows us to confuse our rivals by giving them the impression that they are bigger and, therefore, stronger than they really are. Thus, especially when faced with a predator or any other threatening animal, many animal species can save their lives by lying to their opponent about their size.
Conflicts between groups and coalitional instincts
In the human case, conflicts have taken an important evolutionary leap. In our species, conflicts can not only occur between individuals, but also between very large groups We humans know that several weak individuals don’t stand a chance against a stronger individual individually, but together they can beat him up.
Alliances are a fundamental aspect in our evolutionary history, and it has been seen that they also occur in some primates such as chimpanzees.
As individuals, if we do not have any coalition with other people, we are “naked”, we are weak before anyone who does. Belonging to a coalition has become an evolutionary imperative, as important as getting food or shelter.
Human beings, although we are not a species that constitutes a superorganism like ants, do organize ourselves in a very social structure. We have acquired a very strong sense of belonging to all types of groups a product of our instinct to belong to a coalition that guarantees our protection and security.
Once we are inside we end up acquiring certain patterns of behavior and thinking. Our sense of belonging to the group makes us less critical of what is said within it. It is much easier for us to believe what is shared within it, even if from the outside we see it as something really delusional and not very credible. Sharing the same beliefs as the rest of the group members makes us feel more part of it, while criticism distances us. Lies can unite a group, especially if it is told to highlight their differences from the outgroup
When a conflict occurs between two groups, cohesion and coordination between the members of each group are two essential aspects to win the conflict. If two groups are in dispute and are on equal terms, the one that manages to organize itself better, has more homogeneous thinking and takes more synchronized action will be the winning group.
All of this is directly related to why politicians and, in general, any political party or even nation lie. Lying about the characteristics of one’s own group, exaggerating its virtues, about those of the other group, highlighting or inventing defects contributes to the ingroup becoming even more motivated, having greater self-esteem and greater capacity for action.
We have an example of this in military parades. In them, states present their entire extensive military arsenal with a clear political intention: to intimidate their rival. Through a perfectly synchronized army parading through the streets of the capital, showing its weapons, tanks and even artifacts that are nothing more than cardboard, the government sends two messages. One, that they are a great nation, exalting national pride, and two, that other countries do not dare to attack them because they are well prepared, which does not have to be true.
The other example is the speech of politicians. Politicians lie, they tell falsehoods of all types and conditions with the clear intention that their audience feels that if they do not vote for them they will be allowing a potential threat, whether perpetrated by the political rival or by their inaction, to happen. Electoral races are still another type of intergroup conflicts and, as in any other, it is necessary to improve the coordination of the ingroup through deception. Lies in these contexts serve to:
Donald L. Horowitz explains in his book The Deadly Ethnic Riot that before and after the ethnic massacres that have occurred throughout the world throughout history Rumors have been the tool that has served to take action The circulation of these rumors, that is, unverified and often unverifiable information, plays a very important role in attacking the outgroup, seen as a terrible threat that will soon attack us.
The content of these rumors tends to point to the rival group as a heartless enemy, which devalues our group. This outgroup is very powerful and if something is not done to stop it, it will harm us, it may even destroy us. Rumors convey a sense of urgency, that if something is not done we will be seriously harmed. An easy example to understand is the case of Germany when Adolf Hitler began to burst onto the political scene, saying how the Jews were conspiring to destroy the nation and that it was necessary to “defend ourselves.”
Many current politicians sow doubt with rumors that they cannot confirm nor do they intend to do so In many speeches, especially by politicians who support conspiratorial ideas, it is not uncommon to find phrases like “I don’t know if it’s true but…”, a type of verbal structure that sows doubt and fear in the population, who You can’t help but think “and if it’s true… we should do something now!”
Lies and dominance
Making statements made of lies can serve a politician to signal his motivation to help the group in a conflict, but also to point out that that same politician has the appropriate capabilities to lead the group to victory
The human mind in times of conflict is designed to promote those leaders who have or appear to have the personal characteristics that will allow the problems of the ingroup to be solved in the most effective way.
One of the characteristics that every policy must have is dominance, that is, the ability to induce compliance with an action either through intimidation or coercion. When there is a conflict, whether it is a war or simply a politically tense situation, people prefer dominant leaders, reflected in his motivation for the conflict to escalate and the enemy to be attacked once and for all. Dominance is manifested by challenging the outgroup.
The politician who lies, who attacks another party or follower of an antagonistic political ideology, does so with the clear intention of seeing himself as dominant, a figure of power in the eyes of his potential voters. He dares to say things the way he thinks them or how his audience wants them to be said, even if they are not true. By challenging the norms they are seen as more authentic, more daring, more true. Ironically, politicians lie to be seen as the most right and people, who like to be told things as we believe them, not as they truly are, follow them.
