I would rather see more bullshit*

In the messy arena of public life, words are the primary tools politicians use to shape reality. For decades, a prevailing idea suggested that when leaders avoided the truth, they did so by speaking in vague, meaningless platitudes rather than by telling outright lies. This concept, often called "bullshit," was thought to be more dangerous than lying because the person speaking it didn't care about the truth at all, whereas a liar at least acknowledges the truth exists by trying to hide it. The question that has long puzzled observers is whether this old way of speaking is still the norm, or if something fundamental has shifted in how leaders communicate with the public. Understanding this distinction matters because the way a society handles the truth determines whether its citizens can agree on basic facts, a requirement for any democracy to function.

A researcher at the University of Illinois Chicago has examined this shift by looking closely at the difference between evasive, meaningless speech and the new wave of bold, false statements appearing in American politics. The study argues that for a long time, traditional politicians were actually quite careful about telling direct lies, especially in high-profile settings like televised addresses to Congress. Instead, they preferred to use a variety of tricks to avoid the truth without technically lying. These tricks included giving answers that sounded relevant but didn't actually address the question, using vague language that could be interpreted in multiple ways, or making statements that were technically true but designed to lead the listener to a false conclusion. The researcher calls this behavior "bullshit," distinguishing it from a lie, which is a statement the speaker knows is false. The study suggests that traditional politicians avoided lying because they feared being caught; if a lie could be easily checked and proven wrong by the news media or experts, it would cost them their careers. So, they used these evasive tactics instead, which allowed them to mislead without the same risk of being called out.

However, the paper identifies a dramatic change that began around 2016. A new type of political figure emerged who speaks differently. These leaders, the author calls them "trumpols," do not shy away from telling obvious lies in front of massive, televised audiences. They make claims that can be easily fact-checked and proven false, such as stating that a specific policy never existed or that an election was rigged, even when evidence shows otherwise. The study finds that these leaders are not lying because they are indifferent to the truth in the way the old theory suggested. Instead, they lie because they have discovered they can get away with it. The institutions that used to act as guardrails—such as the news media, universities, and medical experts—have lost the trust of a large portion of the population. Because a significant number of voters no longer believe these fact-checkers, a politician can tell a blatant lie to this group, and the lie will be accepted as true by their supporters. The fear of being penalized for lying has vanished for this group, making the direct lie a more effective tool than the old, evasive nonsense.

The author concludes that this shift is far more damaging to democracy than the old style of "bullshit" ever was. While the vague, evasive speech of the past was annoying and dishonest, it at least signaled that the speaker was afraid of being caught in a lie, implying that they still respected the idea of truth enough to hide it. The new style of open lying, by contrast, shows a complete disregard for shared reality. It creates a situation where two groups of people can look at the same event and believe two completely different things, with no common ground for debate. The researcher suggests that we would actually be better off if politicians went back to the old way of speaking. The presence of evasive, meaningless answers would at least indicate that the political culture still fears the consequences of lying. The current reality, where leaders feel free to broadcast obvious falsehoods to millions of people without consequence, signals a deeper breakdown in the trust that holds a society together. The study does not claim that this is a temporary glitch, but rather a fundamental change in the political landscape driven by the erosion of trust in the very institutions that once kept the truth in check.