"What is the cost of lies? It's not that we'll mistake them for the truth. The real danger is that if we hear enough lies, then we no longer recognize the truth at all. What can we do then? What else is left but to abandon even the hope of truth and content ourselves instead with stories? In these stories, it doesn't matter who the heroes are. All we want to know is: 'Who is to blame?'"
Applying this idea to politics reveals a similar—and deeply damaging—dynamic.
In the political arena, the true cost of widespread lying is that it normalizes dishonesty to the point where we come to expect it from leaders. We stop being shocked by falsehoods; instead, we accept them as standard behavior. Supporters defend their preferred politicians with lies or excuses, often simply because of loyalty to the "team." Opponents may exaggerate or invent claims to paint the other side in a worse light, even when the facts alone would suffice.
Over time, this erodes public discourse and leads to several harmful outcomes:
- Honest, truth-seeking individuals—who carefully weigh evidence before deciding—often grow disillusioned. They withdraw from politics entirely: they stop voting, stop engaging in discussions, and disengage like someone leaving a toxic relationship. Yet these are precisely the people a healthy democracy needs most—those who prioritize facts and integrity over blind allegiance.
- On the other side, many participants (across party lines) double down on misinformation. They amplify exaggerated praise for their own side or vicious attacks on the opposition. What begins as debate devolves into a kind of performative combat—mockery, ridicule, and tribal scoring—rather than a search for what is true or best for the country.
Eventually, this creates two entrenched camps that no longer value honesty or accountability. Each side refuses to criticize its own leaders' lies or poor decisions, fearing it would hand ammunition to the "enemy" or invite "I told you so" taunts. Loyalty becomes the highest virtue—higher than truth, integrity, or responsibility. When a politician from "their" side does something identical to what they condemned on the other side, excuses and new falsehoods quickly emerge to justify it. Anyone within the group who calls for accountability is often branded a traitor.
The result is extreme polarization: roughly half the country becomes so divided and entrenched that good ideas from one side are reflexively opposed, simply because of who proposed them. Bad decisions from one's own side are defended, no matter how clearly wrong they are.
In the end, this system rewards politicians who excel at deception rather than governance. They campaign on bold promises tailored to excite their base—promising great benefits for supporters and harm to opponents—but once elected, much of that rhetoric is set aside. They may occasionally throw symbolic gestures or "red meat" statements to keep supporters energized, but in practice, their actions often resemble what the opposing side might have done. The main difference lies in how they frame and sell it through partisan language.
Ultimately, a politics built on normalized lies leaves us with leaders skilled at manipulation rather than solutions, and a citizenry more focused on winning tribal battles than pursuing shared truth or progress. The long-term price is a weakened Republic where trust, accountability, and genuine problem-solving become increasingly rare.
Here is a chapter in a book that goes deeper into this subject. (pdf)
And an article from U of C Boulder
