Much of modern political history has been narrated by the weaponization of truth. Truth can be used to gain popularity and ground, which may often serve as a constraint or positive aid. With current political polarization, facts that were once meant to provide a baseline for disagreement have been spun into newly exaggerated narratives. Though the truth may be stretched, the expectation of the truth remains paramount.
Today, truth is not always valued for its accuracy, but for its usefulness to advance a broader ideological agenda. Contemporary political messages often sway individuals to vote in certain ways, reinforce identities and promote policies. Thus, truth has become a tool to seek a means to an end, rather than serve as a singular statement taken at face value.
This shift is clear in the narratives of J.D. Vance, promoted as a vice-presidential candidate in the 2024 elections. Vance drew widespread attention online by doubling down on debunked claims made by President Donald Trump, in which he stated that Haitian immigrants in Ohio were eating the dogs and cats of Springfield, Ohio residents. When questioned by CNN on the lack of validity in his claims, Vance defended his rhetoric by stating that if he had to fabricate stories in order for Americans to pay attention to the suffering of others, then it was justified.
This specific line of reasoning demonstrated by Vance exemplifies the psychological impact of selective truths. From a political psychology perspective, the efficacy of such statements doesn’t lie in their factuality, but in how they are received and how they resonate with audiences who hold preexisting beliefs. Individuals at different levels of political understanding consume information passively, interpreting what they hear and see at varying degrees. Kiva Kunda, a social psychologist at Princeton University, finds in her work that people will reason using motivated reasoning, selectively believing in information that aligns with their views while refusing information that challenges them to think beyond their schemas.
Under this understanding, a startling fact is highlighted: a truth does not need to be true to be persuasive; it simply needs to feel consistent with what one already believes in.
This tendency to reject notions of truth that create cognitive dissonance with preexisting beliefs is further confirmed by the concept of confirmation bias, a phenomenon researched by psychologist Raymond Nickerson of Tufts University. Nickerson describes the way in which individuals will purposely seek out information that will only support their line of reasoning — shaped by their individual experiences and identities. Thus, political beliefs no longer serve as informed, nuanced opinions but beliefs that adhere to an individual’s sense of belonging. Narratives that confirm and support such identities are more likely to be believed, regardless of their accuracy.
Emotion also plays a role in how a claim will gain traction amongst audiences. Claims that elicit reactions of anger, sadness or fear are far more likely to be accepted than neutral or fact-checked ones. Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman developed the concept of the availability heuristic, or the human tendency to use information that comes to mind quickly and easily when making decisions that concern the future. As such, a highly publicized, emotionally charged story can outweigh a less alarming reality. A story, then, regardless of its truth, becomes more influential.
Online social platforms also work to reward content that consistently promotes strong emotional reactions. The more often information is repeatedly mentioned, the more it feels familiar and thus reliable. This is known as the illusory truth effect, explored by Temple University psychology professor Dr. Lynn Hasher. Over time, the repetition of a claim, independent from its validity, becomes legitimate in the minds of those who are exposed to it — a phenomenon heavily explored with soldiers under the Nazi regime.
This intersection of politics and psychology reveals a truth everyone must become aware of: the truth is no longer the most paramount of factors when an individual decides to believe. In psychological reality, the truth competes with usefulness, emotional reaction and cognitive coherence.
When the truth becomes an optional condition of narratives, particularly in the political sphere, serious complications begin to endanger the state of our democracy. Democratic systems heavily rely on a shared understanding of facts that allow us to debate issues on the universal understanding of structured facts. But once those factual truths become optional to believe in, disagreements in democratic systems are no longer about interpretation, but about entirely different lived realities.
Misinformation is not the danger here. The real danger lies where the line between truth and storytelling begins to blur. When political leaders use their power and influence to deliberately craft narratives to their political advantage in order to appeal to a target audience, the motivation to simply tell the truth loses its significance.
Truth is now no longer a requirement of the political sphere. It is simply an option often ignored.
Michaela Okuyama is an Opinion Staff Writer. She can be reached at okuyamam@uci.edu.
Edited by Joshua Gonzales
Interested in becoming an intern or a contributing writer for the Opinion section?
Contact us at opinion@newuniversity.org!