I think it's widely accepted that Trump and Johnson are part of the same problem. They are both larger than life characters with a totally undeserved reputation for being 'smart' and for whom truth is a wholly abstract concept. Let's not be too sensitive about it, they are both chronic liars and have been for all of their adult lives. I don't think even their most ardent supporters would argue they are paragons of virtue. And yet they have found their way into the highest elected office in the two hitherto most respected western democratic nations. How so?
Stephan Lewandowsky, Chair of Cognitive Psychology at the University of Bristol, has been looking at why voters choose politicians who are known to be liars. This isn't the first academic study into the phenomenon, the linked article gives a further link to an academic paper but most of the references are from very recent times. 'Post-truth’ was declared word of the year by Oxford Dictionaries in November 2016 for example. It demonstrates what unique times we are living in.
Lewandowsky says:
"Voters may therefore understand perfectly well that a politician is lying, and they may discount falsehoods when they are pointed out. But the same voters seemingly tolerate being lied to without holding it against their favoured candidate. This disconnect between perceived accuracy and support for a politician has now been shown repeatedly by our team and also by other researchers using a different methodology."
"The answers are nuanced and rest on the distinction between our conventional understanding of honesty and the notion of “authenticity”. The main element of honesty is factual accuracy whereas the main element of authenticity is an alignment between the public and private persona of a politician.
"Research by [Lewandowsky's] team has shown that American voters – including Trump supporters – are responsive to corrections of Trump’s falsehoods. That is, when people learn that a specific claim is false, they reduce their belief in that claim. However, in our results, there was no association between updating of beliefs and feelings towards Trump among his supporters. That is, support remained stable no matter how much people realised that Trump’s statements were inaccurate."
In plain language, even when voters know they are being lied to they still continue to support their favoured candidate. Does this mean we are really in a post-truth era where politicians can routinely lie and get away with it? Perhaps not:
Research led by Oliver Hahl of Carnegie Mellon University has identified the specific circumstances in which people accept politicians who lie. It is only when people feel disenfranchised and excluded from a political system that they accept lies from a politician who claims to be a champion of the “people” against the “establishment” or “elite”. Under those specific circumstances, flagrant violations of behaviour that is championed by this elite – such as honesty or fairness – can become a signal that a politician is an authentic champion of the “people” against the “establishment”.
For populist politicians, such as Trump and Johnson, who explicitly pit a mythical people against an equally mythical elite, blatant disregard for facts only underscores their authenticity in the eyes of supporters. No amount of factchecking will reduce the appeal of Trump, Johnson, Duterte, Bolsonaro or any other populist demagogue around the world.
Apparently, willingness to accept lies only occurs when people feel disenfranchised and left behind. The years of wage stagnation and austerity must be partly behind this willful acceptance of the political liar. As long as you are thought to be on the side of the disenfranchised a few untruths are fine.
I suppose Trump and Johnson's difficulties will come if and when the average voter finally comes to realise they are the "establishment" and the "elite".
Coming hard on the heels of this academic piece is a brief comment in The National in Scotland saying Trump and Johnson may crash and burn and asking if humanity will ever recover. I hope this is too pessimistic and that we will eventually return to normality but it also begs the question of what Johnson will do after his tenure of No 10 is over - as it will be at some time.
Prime ministers normally retire to relative obscurity, with well-paid jobs on some board of directors or in the charitable sector. Some go round the world giving carefully crafted speeches. But Johnson? Who knows what the mendacious charlatan will do?
I have never wavered in my belief that Brexit is a disaster in the making. Of course much of the blame could and should go to Farage who has dedicated his life to the belittlement of Britain but lately, since 2016, Johnson has emerged from a period of tomfoolery and taken over the title of Brexiteer-in-Chief. He has become the man most associated with Brexit and he will define what Brexit means in practice to men and women on the Clapham omnibus. Let us assume Brexit is a disaster. Will the public accept Johnson the jester once again fronting Have I Got News For You or some other satitical show with that trademark smirk playing on his lips? I don't think so.
Can anybody see him putting his celebrity to work for some international charity?
Who would pay good money to hear a speech from the man who wrecked an advanced economy? - except perhaps Putin's successor perhaps looking for a cheap way of further reducing America's pre-eminent position as a world super power. China might also be interested in this.
But would business leaders be interested? I doubt it.
He may of course go back to writing amusing books or his well-paid job as a columnist at The Telegraph (assuming it's still going, the great organ of Buckingham Palace Road is losing readership and money and is worth a fraction of what the Barclay brothers paid for it).
But his high profile role as national clown will be over. Nobody will manage even a smile when his name is mentioned. He will be an embarrassing footnote in history.
Finally, just to add a bit more to the likely direction the future US-UK trade talks will go, I noticed this in The Guardian. The Americans have banned any discussion of climate change issues in any trade talks and say this position is unlikely to change in the future. So, apart from animal welfare issues for chickens, hormone fed beef, GM crops, ractopamine fed pork amd goodness knows what else, saving the planet is not a subject for discussion at all.
