Brexit, though a compelling example, is but a recent chapter in a long and checkered history of political deception. Part of what made Trump’s 2016 campaign a success was due to his status as an outsider, thus able to capitalize on that very history—exposing the “rigged system” and offering a new alternative for the country. Of course, he was no stranger to mixing fact with his own fiction, labeling any unfavorable press as “Fake News,” undermining the credibility of the media and sowing distrust among the American people. While Brexit and the Trump era mark pivotal moments in the modern discourse on deception, “fake news,” or rather, false news, is by no means an innovation of recent times. Do the WMD claims used by the 2001 Bush administration in order to justify the invasion of Iraq not constitute as fake news? Can the same not be said for the majority of our political leaders throughout history? Rather, creating and spreading information known to be untrue can only be described as an age-old practice that technology has now brought to the forefront, sparking public outrage around the world. But for many of us, it is not so much the idea of being lied to, but rather what is being lied about. To gain further insight into the political psyche, one must differentiate between the two in order to understand not only how our emotions influence our political beliefs, but where they may in fact be deceiving us.
It is worthwhile exploring the psycho-political in relation to foreign policy - a topic that interestingly, often occupies a secondary position in our political priorities. We must begin by recognising the simple fact that traditional western media has a long history of suppressing news and information that is inconvenient or harmful to the interests of the powerful. This most certainly extends to certain truths regarding Western Foreign Policy and inevitably, we end up forming opinions like that of ex-footballer Gary Neville:
Growing up in Western society can lead us to think of our hegemonic homelands as standard bearers for decency and principles, even when the idea of “Great” Britain itself was inextricably linked to its Empire, renowned for its use of military force to enter countries without the permission of their governments. But even when we are shown the relevant news, we are susceptible to its mendacious narratives (as the TV series Succession so brilliantly shows). We need not look further than current affairs in exemplifying this phenomenon, with reference to the media’s portrayal of the US-China escalations. Legacy news depicts China as the West's largest threat, often using a fear-mongering rhetoric about not only its economic and technological dominance, but also its military power - allegedly expanding at an alarmingly disproportionate rate. However, a more impartial assessment of the data, such as that provided by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), suggests otherwise:
Beneath the surface of a narrative that seeks to generate a public need for safeguarding, China's per capita military expenditures are significantly less than the United States, who continues to spend far more on its military than any other country in the world. But what’s interesting from a psychological standpoint, is the striking contrast in public sentiment between different strands of political deception. When the public feels the government is lying about vaccinations or a new variant, they respond furiously; yet, when the lies pertain to foreign policy, public outrage is often far less. Is this simply because we are affected more by what impacts our personal lives, or may there be other, less conscious elements concealed underneath our egotism?
We can all fall victim to hypocrisy and ignorance, traits that can manifest through our political views. Not all of our psychological make-ups consist in a desire to seek out the truth. If we sense danger (like China), and we feel we have the power to eliminate that threat, it is a natural reaction to side with those who wish to make us feel safe again. It’s a type of psychology that benefits our self-interest. So often we see influencers uploading some fleeting display of compassion for a particular conflict or injustice, only to swipe right and see a posted selfie ten minutes later, with the issue never to be raised again. This is not to say we are guilty if we’re not constantly supporting every cause or struggle. Rather, it is to point out the psychical mechanisms at work when confronted with emotional difficulty, what quick fixes our psyche can salve to assuage guilt, enabling us to quickly move on.
However, this collective indifference towards certain issues cannot be solely attributed to our narcissism. We may actually feel safer to avoid the truth, particularly when it pertains to foreign policy and some of the abhorrent acts of terror our own homelands have caused. Avoidance offers a vital psychological solution, allowing us to suppress negative emotions such as guilt or shame. We often deliberately turn a blind eye to the atrocities abroad, fearing that acknowledging them could endanger our sense of security or make us feel guilty about living in a society that provides us with freedom and opportunity while having long been implicated in taking away these very privileges from those beyond our borders – the migrant crisis being a poignant example.
But if we are turning a blind eye in spite of knowledge, it begs the question: is there something somewhat disturbing about our self-absorption?
"As long as the wars stay in places that are brown and poor, we can all pretend to be abhorred, but we applaud" - Akala, BBC Freestyle
On the one hand, we all want to protect our ourselves and our families. We all want to live in a world where we are safe and secure, and we want to be able to enjoy our lives without fear. We think foreign policy doesn’t impact us, even though it often has. When horrific acts of terror occur on our home soil, instead of trying to understand why this occurred in the first place, it can be not only easier, but more convenient to conform to the media’s narrative, get on with our lives and hope the government does whatever it takes to eliminate this fear for us. But is this not a somewhat unnerving idea? Many of us know that foreign policy can often be destructive. We know that wars are fought, innocent people are killed, and resources are extracted. We also know that foreign policy can be used to oppress and exploit other countries - hence the recent outpour of resentment towards France’s quasi-empire in Africa.
There may lie unsettling psychological implications beneath an “out of sight, out of mind” ideology here. If we are even slightly aware of injustices, yet we overlook to remain guilt-free of our privilege and lifestyle, does our self-interest harbour disturbing elements? Does our desire for said privilege take precedence over the suffering and loss of others, and if so, does our self-centeredness render us somewhat complicit in the worst of crimes that we know take place? Of course we are by no means advocating for such horrors, but averting our gaze (or quickly acknowledging and moving on) in relation to them may reveal certain components of our psyche we prefer to keep quiet. It is no wonder that Freud’s theory on the unconscious consisted of disturbing wishes and desires, things we never want to fully realize or admit to ourselves.
One can also draw a parallel to another topic that traditional media conveniently obscures from public view. Amidst the ongoing ethnic conflict in Tigray, Ethiopia finds itself grappling with the stark realities of environmental disaster - a nation that bears minimal responsibility for climate change, yet is profoundly susceptible to its devastating consequences. One might ask the question: are there certain political falsehoods or media omissions that in fact help conceal or minimise elements of ourselves that we are ashamed of, or wish to keep secret? It’s countries like our own whose carbon footprint contributes to climate-related catastrophes as such. Our privilege often finds its roots intertwined with the misfortune of others, and we may recoil in realising that we may not have as large an issue with this idea as we often pretend to. We mock and condemn the Brexiteers' desire to put their own interests ahead of other people’ welfare, yet remain oblivious to our own wishes of a similar nature, deeply hidden within. This type of projection is one of the common ways in which we disguise our unconscious thoughts.
Our understanding of the unconscious improved significantly as a result of Lacan's expansion on Freud's work. Lacan argued that the unconscious is structured like a language, and shed light on how our innermost thoughts and desires invariably find expression through speech. For example, a politician who promises to "make America great again" may be appealing to our unconscious desire for a strong figure of authority who will protect us from our enemies - an impression our father’s most often provided when we felt unsafe as kids. Thus the unconscious isn’t just repressed, but also camouflaged by our use of language, symbols and metaphors. The confidence and sense of safety Americans felt from Trump's arrogance on foreign policy, always asserting or tweeting his power over other leaders, brought us back to these primal desires.
We think we hate being lied to by our political leaders no matter what, but upon closer examination, this might not always be the case. Guilt and shame are two crucial affective states that shape human behaviour, and if we find them distressing on a general and more personal level, that may encourage either a strong need to support such issues, or a subtle avoidance on them. As a nation, one could argue that we employ a form of collective repression, shrouding our awareness of the far-reaching implications of Western foreign policy choices. As mentioned before, it is not always the idea of being lied to in general that angers us, but more specifically, what is being lied about. For many of us, being lied to about foreign policy matters may not anger us, or matter as much. In fact, our ego may actually benefit from false narratives or even total omission of the subject, as it can emotionally preserve our desires for freedom and autonomy. But if there is a perceived, political dishonesty that seemingly takes these very privileges away from us… that may just cause (or has caused) a very different level of anger.
COMING SOON…
PART 3: COVID-19 & CONSPIRACY
Awesome article. A dive into the deep end of the pool. Thanks
Great article