ABSTRACT

In the aftermath of the 2016 election, and into the early months of the Trump Administration, there has been a high-profile debate about political deception. From questions about what constitutes deception, to how to talk about it (especially in critiques of the new president), and whether reporters should point out that a statement is false or even potentially call President Trump a liar. This project contributes to that discussion through a typology of political deceptions in order to create an understanding of politicians’ misleading acts that is subtler than simply calling them liars.

It is essential to understand political deception and hold politicians accountable for it when appropriate. However, we should also understand deception as more than mere lies. Bruno Latour describes and criticizes public attitudes about the deviance of lying politicians arguing, “[i]t is only politicians who are thought to be dishonest.” He counters this public perception of political prevarication, arguing, “[w]hat we despise as political ‘mediocrity’ is simply the collection of compromises that we force politicians to make on our behalf.” This project looks at how deception is part of those compromises. It argues that better understanding the nuances of political deception is especially important in our present political atmosphere.