Why politicians lie

Dr. Mahathir Mohamed, a former prime minister of Malaysia who can legitimately claim credit for the radical transformation of his country, has written many books.  And on account of his personality, accomplishments and his bullying of those who didn’t fall into line, many books have been written about him, for him and against him.  One […]

Dr. Mahathir Mohamed, a former prime minister of Malaysia who can legitimately claim credit for the radical transformation of his country, has written many books.  And on account of his personality, accomplishments and his bullying of those who didn’t fall into line, many books have been written about him, for him and against him.  One of such books I read claims and attributes something to Dr. Mahathir that would confound his fans:   it is not desirable to fulfill all the campaign promises.

Since Mahathir and even before him, Machiavelli inspired theories have given validation to this  dubiousmindset.   For example, Robert Greene, as you shall read below,   brazenly tells seekers of power to play to people’sfantasies.  Further, centuries of the implementation of this principle confirms that leaders do believe in it.  But if you examine how people behave and believe, these guys (as despicable as they may be) are just being faithful to reality.

Here’s a thought experiment:

If I want to be the president of Nigeria in the time of recession and tell people it would take three to four years to have a real recovery, what would be my chances of winning?  What if I tell them the truth that there would be a lot of job losses, suffering and hunger?  

What if, instead, I attack the incumbent that he’s messing up the economy?  And that we would save people from such suffering if they elect us?  My chances would improve.  Even advertisers have long mastered this game.  They realize that people are interested in two types of products – or  candidates – a product that would remove pain or something that can bring comfort.    When running to be president of the United States, Clinton played this game.  Promising to save people from the Bush administration and its recession.

In an article before the 2015 elections in Nigeria, I wrote “Buhari’s economics vsJonathan’s economics,” and gave the Clinton example.

‘“It’s the economy,” President Clinton said in 1992, “stupid.”  He repeated it in 1996: “It’s the economy, stupid.”  Same statement, four years apart, in different economic circumstances, meaning different things and yet he won the election both times.  

‘The first time he used it, Clinton was blaming President Bush for the 1990-1 economic recession (troubles) in America.  The second time he used it, he was calling Americans’ attention to the fact that his government had ‘repaired’ the economy.

‘While to some extent, Bill Clinton might have deserved to be reelected for his work on the economy, George Bush might not have been completely deserving of losing the election in 1992 due to the poor economy.  

‘But he made a promise to Americans which he broke; and they remembered.  “Read my lips,” he said, “no new taxes.”  Bush then made a deal with Congress and raised taxes while at the same time cutting government’s spending – so Americans punished him.  

‘When Clinton came, he did the same things: made a deal with the Congress to cut government spending and raised taxes in order to reduce deficit – the same thing George Bush purposed.

‘However, Clinton didn’t pledge that he wasn’t going to raise taxes, so he was not exactly burdened with the prospect of losing reelection.’

Clinton came and implemented what Bush promised.  But he didn’t tell the people the truth, by saying: “Recession is normal.  Your president (Bush) is doing the right thing.   I’m going to continue and even implement some of his proposals.On the economic front, there wouldn’t be much difference between us.  But still, I want you to elect me, not Bush, because I’m awesome.”

It’s the reason why many don’t listen to Henry Hazlitt. Hazlitt, wrote in his classic, ‘Economics in One Lesson’ that the belief that government interventions in the economy engender relief is a misconception; especially if those interventions only focus on the short-term and address only a special group of people.

“This is the persistent tendency of men to see only the immediate effectsof a given policy,” he writes in his book, first published in 1946,“or its effects only on a special group, and to neglect to inquire what the long-run effects of that policy will be not only on that special group but on all groups. It is the fallacy of overlooking secondary consequences.”

The essence of Hazlitt’s concern is that we’re not far-sighted enough.  But people have shown that they’re not interested in thinking that far into the distance.  Concentrate your economic policies on the long term alone and choose to ignore  some “special group” of people, then you can bid bye-bye to your political career.

Another reason why politicians lie is when they realize that what they promised can’t be implemented.  Take for example the situation David Stockman, President Reagan’s budget director, found himself in 1981.  The president had promised Americans (as politicians often do without consulting reality) that the nation would have a balanced budget by 1983.  

Not only was Stockman forced to shift the date to 1984, but also found himself doing some wondrous financial shenanigans.  In 1986 Stockman wrote in his book, ‘The Triumph of Politics:  How the Reagan Revolution Failed’:

“I soon became a veritable incubator of shortcuts, schemes, and devices to overcome the truth now upon us – that the budget gap couldn’t be closed except by a dictator.  The more I flopped and staggered around, however, the more they went along.  I could have been wearing a sandwich board sign saying: Stop me, I’m dangerous! Even then they might not have done so.”

In his “48 Laws of Power,” Robert Greene gives a stamp of approval:

“The truth is often avoided because it is ugly and unpleasant. Never appeal to truth and reality unless you are preparedfor the anger that comesfrom disenchantment. Life is so harsh and distressing that people who can manufacture romance or conjure fantasy are like oases in the desert: Everyoneflocks to them. There is great power in tapping into thefantasies ofthe masses.”

That is scandalous!  But politicians have no problem using Greene’s playbook.  This is due, mainly because of the psychology of the people. People desire quick solutions, they avoid pain and would believe anything that panders to the fulfillment of such desires – however unreasonable they maybe.  

So if a politician comes to you promising heaven on earth, what do you do?  Simply ask him how he’s going to do it.  That is how you can unpack the tissues of lies.