Why ‘they’re eating the dogs’ was a stroke of political genius by Trump

It has become clear the US presidential election is an unfair contest. This has nothing to do with campaign finances, media bias or judicial independence. Rather, it’s because of human psychology.
The way our brains operate gives liars a huge advantage. And, not to be all “lefty-liberal” about this, but one candidate has much more experience in sales – which, as we all know, is basically lying – than the other.
“We start lying early in life – between two and three years of age,” says Geoff Beattie, author of Lies, Lying and Liars: A Psychological Analysis.
“Charles Darwin in 1877 described how he caught his son William Erasmus lying when he was just over 2½. He had eaten some pickle juice that was forbidden to him and he lied about it. Darwin commented that he was surprised most by his son’s evident pleasure in lying, especially because he was so young.”
Like wee Billy Darwin, Republican candidate Donald Trump evidently gets a kick out of telling tall tales. And he has learned from a lifetime of flogging stuff the tricks of the fictionalising trade. “If you can embellish the truth or construct a new reality, that can always be more interesting and engaging than the truth,” says Beattie.
The Belfast-born professor of psychology at Edge Hill University in England delves into decades of research on lies for his book, which blends handy tips on how to spot a fibster with nuanced analysis on the pathology of deception.
Someone you don’t generally see quoted at length in new releases is Adolf Hitler but Beattie looks closely at how the Nazi leader’s Mein Kampf provides a template for political scammers. “It would never come into [the public’s] heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously,” the fascist ruler wrote.
In other words, go “big” when lying. Hitler explained: “ … in the primitive simplicity of their minds [people] more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.”
[ Fact-checking Trump’s debate claims: from abortion to Project 2025Opens in new window ]
And if someone catches you out with fact-checking, don’t worry because “the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it”, the Nazi leader observed. Trump’s false claim about immigrants – “they’re eating the dogs” – could be called Hitlerite in this sense. Or you could call it political genius. Even if only a “trace” of the lie is left behind it can be effective – resonating with those who wish it to be true.
Because they can prey on our psychological weaknesses, “politicians who lie do have an enormous advantage over truth-tellers”, says Beattie.
He explains further as this week’s Unthinkable guest:
What cognitive biases can be exploited by politicians who lie to us?
“Political liars understand that we ourselves tell lies in our everyday lives and we experience guilt when we tell them. Hence the advantage of the ‘big lie’.
“We also suffer from a false consensus effect, believing that others are really just like us, and we project our attitudes, beliefs and feelings on to them. If you are a decent person, then you tend to think that most people are decent. If you hate lying, you assume that others will also hate lying. But other people may or may not be like us, and they may experience very different emotions when telling lies. Liars exploit this.
“Politicians – and certainly their advisers – know that the public are poor at detecting lies and they also exploit this.
“As the sociobiologist Robert Trivers has pointed out, lying can give you a clear evolutionary advantage – status, wealth and achievements can all be important in that great evolutionary battle in the survival of the genes. But self-deceit can also be evolutionary advantageous because if you can convince yourself of something then it can makes you more convincing to others, and therefore more effective.
“Perhaps politicians reason that we cannot bear the truth all of the time. What will Putin do next? Can we bear to know? They are lying for our benefit, like a ‘kind’ parent.”
Is there a way of counteracting the “false consensus effect”? Should we be more cynical, or less trusting of people in everyday life, as a way of heightening our perception of lies?
“We need to be more analytic in everyday life and stop making assumptions about politicians based on first impressions and superficial cues. We know that people make very rapid judgments of trustworthiness based on looks – in a fraction of a second – and that is very dangerous. We are more likely to accept what a politician says once we’ve made that initial judgment of their trustworthiness. We also need to recognise difference and diversity of views and opinions and stop projecting our own characteristics on to other people.”
In politics, or life generally, would we rather listen to an attractive fiction than a harsh reality?
“Attractive fictions might well engage us and sweep us along, but fortunately or unfortunately the truth will out, as Shakespeare himself recognised. And then it’s not so pleasant for anybody, but especially the recipient of the lie.”