Political Blind Spots: Why We Ignore Lies from Politicians We Support
The Role of Bias and Loyalty in Voter Perception
For most of us, voting is a complex, multi-variable problem. Unless you’re a single-issue voter, you may choose the lesser of two (or more) evils. Whatever your reasons, you have to make a choice at some point.
Few people spend much time justifying their voting decisions in the voting booth's privacy. If we do, it’s likely a post-hoc justification—rationalizations after the fact to support how we voted. But when explaining those choices to others, things get far more complicated. We do this less and less, perhaps out of embarrassment over our decision or to avoid the debate that may follow.
When listening to others justify their vote, it’s clear they accept the words of the politicians they support while being quick to call out the lies of those on the “other side.”
But why do we behave this way?
The Psychology of Political Favoritism
People often respond differently to the lies of politicians they dislike versus those they support, mainly due to psychological and social factors. Here are some of the key reasons behind this selective perception:
1. Confirmation Bias: People tend to seek out information that confirms their existing beliefs and reject anything that contradicts them. If they support a politician, they may downplay or rationalize that politician’s lies to avoid cognitive dissonance—the discomfort of holding two conflicting ideas.
2. In-group Loyalty: Social identity theory explains this attachment. People are loyal to groups they identify with, and when their preferred politician lies, they often overlook it to maintain group cohesion. Protecting the group is seen as a reflection of protecting their own identity.
3. Moral Licensing: Supporters may feel that a politician’s overall values or agenda justify occasional dishonesty. The belief that “the ends justify the means” can make minor falsehoods seem acceptable, especially when the politician is pursuing goals the supporter agrees with.
4. Motivated Reasoning: People interpret information in ways that align with their desires or preferences. This makes them more likely to view their politician’s lies as “misstatements” or misunderstandings, while seeing lies from politicians they oppose as signs of malicious intent.
5. Selective Outrage: Emotional investment in a political figure or party often leads supporters to focus more on their opponents’ flaws. They amplify outrage toward politicians they oppose while minimizing the same behavior in those they favor.
6. Echo Chambers: In today’s media landscape, it’s easy to choose news sources that align with your beliefs. This can shield you from criticism of your preferred politician’s dishonesty, reinforcing biased perceptions. Conversely, constant negativity about the opposition reinforces outrage.
Together, these factors create an environment in which people easily overlook or minimize the dishonesty of those they support yet fiercely criticize the same behavior in others.
But before you dismiss the person who voted differently as an idiot, consider whether that’s just a story you’re telling yourself.