Lies, Disinformation, and the Presidency: Historical Review of Mistruths in U.S. Campaigns
Examining the Use of Political Falsehoods from Andrew Jackson to Trump, and What We Can Learn from 2024
In politics, what begins in fear usually ends in deception." – Samuel Taylor Coleridge
The use of misinformation, disinformation, and outright lies in presidential campaigns has a long, storied history. From the early days of American democracy to the most recent elections, candidates have deployed falsehoods to gain an edge, muddy the waters, and shift public perception. This tactic has been effective for some while others have faced devastating consequences. As the 2024 election cycle progresses, it's worth asking: How much do lies matter, and what can we learn from the past?
Early History of Mistruths
The modern notion that political campaigns are a battlefield of ideas can be traced back to the mid-20th century, but lies have been a part of presidential politics since the inception of the republic. For example, in the 1828 election, the mudslinging between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams set a notorious precedent. Jackson was accused of murder, and Adams was falsely claimed to have procured young American girls for the Russian Tsar. Despite the outlandishness of these claims, Jackson triumphed, suggesting that falsehoods could be as much a tool of voter mobilization as policies.
By the mid-20th century, the advent of television and radio amplified the effects of campaign lies. Richard Nixon's 1968 campaign used rhetoric steeped in the myth of a "silent majority" and misrepresented his involvement in sabotaging peace talks to end the Vietnam War, a fact later confirmed in historical analyses. In his infamous 1968 campaign speech, Nixon stated, "I have a plan to end the war," though no such plan ever materialized. The consequences? Nixon won, and the Vietnam War continued for another five years.
Lies and Scandals in Modern Campaigns
A more comprehensive picture of lies in U.S. elections emerges in the latter half of the 20th century, particularly with the Nixon and Reagan presidencies. Watergate, for example, was a scandal rooted in lies. Nixon’s repeated denial of involvement in the cover-up led to his eventual resignation, but before the truth came out, his disinformation campaign helped maintain public trust.
In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan’s reelection campaign employed a much subtler form of misinformation. His administration was criticized for the Iran-Contra Affair, where weapons were sold to Iran in exchange for hostages, despite Reagan’s public denials of any such negotiations. Reagan famously stated, "We did not — repeat — did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we," only for the truth to emerge later. While it did damage Reagan’s reputation, his overwhelming communication skills allowed him to escape the scandal largely unscathed, suggesting that charismatic leadership can blunt the edge of political falsehoods.
The 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore saw another example of truth distortion. The Bush campaign repeatedly cast Gore as someone prone to exaggeration, pointing to claims Gore never made, such as inventing the internet. In doing so, Bush created a narrative that stuck with voters, showcasing how distorting an opponent’s image can be a successful strategy in diminishing their credibility, even if the foundation is a lie.
Enter the Era of Post-Truth: Trump’s 2016 Campaign
While historical campaigns have seen their share of falsehoods, the 2016 campaign of Donald Trump marked a sharp escalation. Political fact-checkers have repeatedly documented Trump’s prolific use of misinformation. From unfounded claims about mass voter fraud to exaggerating crowd sizes at his inauguration, Trump shattered norms of accuracy and accountability.
A notable example occurred in 2016, when Trump asserted, "I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down," referring to 9/11. No evidence supported this claim, yet Trump doubled down, insisting it was true, even as journalists and citizens debunked it.
Perhaps more than any previous candidate, Trump demonstrated how strategic use of repeated lies could build a loyal following. The concept of “alternative facts,” introduced by his administration, epitomized this post-truth era, where objective reality became fluid, and loyalty to the leader often superseded adherence to facts.
Learning from the Past: Lies in 2024
The influence of misinformation on elections isn't a new phenomenon, but its scale and impact have reached new heights in the digital age. Social media platforms, coupled with the sheer speed at which information travels, have transformed political disinformation into a potent tool for modern campaigns. Yet, the lessons from the past remain relevant: lies can both hurt and help candidates, depending on the political climate, media strategy, and candidate persona.
Historically, candidates who lie face scrutiny, but the ultimate impact depends on the narrative they craft around those lies. Nixon’s lies about Watergate led to his downfall, but Reagan's disinformation in Iran-Contra and Trump's falsehoods in 2016 did not cost them their presidencies. In some cases, political charisma or media saturation allowed candidates to skirt the consequences of their lies.
The 2024 election is obviously continuing this trend, with political observers already noting a flurry of ever-more-radical misinformation circulating on various platforms. What remains to be seen is whether today's electorate, more polarized and inundated with misinformation than ever, will punish or reward candidates for their factual liberties.
Do Lies Matter?
Looking back over the last 20 presidential elections, it's clear that lies and disinformation are nothing new. They have been weaponized by both parties and can sway public opinion, though not always in predictable ways. Trump’s 2016 victory proved that even in the face of widespread debunking, a candidate could still triumph by doubling down on mistruths. The question for 2024 is whether the electorate will demand greater accountability or continue to accept a post-truth political landscape where facts are negotiable, and the loudest voice can drown out the truth.
In the words of historian Robert Caro, "Power doesn’t always corrupt, but what power always does is reveal." Perhaps, in the 2024 election, the true nature of misinformation’s power will finally be revealed and teach us about the American electorate.
I have been waiting for some historical perspective on lies that candidates make compared to today and Trump specifically. So, thanks!