Politics is now a religion. Are you a believer or a heretic?

Fun Facts: Fake News actually dates from the late 19th century, when it was used by newspapers and magazines to boast about their own journalistic standards and attack those of their rivals. The term ‘post-truth politics’ was first coined in 1992.

To add some context, George H. W. Bush was US President. John Major was UK Prime Minister. Twitter was still 14 years away from Foundation. Mark Zuckerberg would have been in elementary school. In fact, what was to become the internet was still embryonic. It was only a few months earlier on 6 August 1991, that Tim Berners-Lee posted a short summary of the World Wide Web project inviting collaborators.

Fake News has been with us since before US President William McKinley was assassinated and the UK Prime Minister, the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury was briefing Queen Victoria.

The reason I share these fun facts with you is that the pandemic and associated lockdown saw me return to social media after a gap of about seven years. It amazed me that social media considered both post truth politics and fake news as new phenomenon. Politicians have been playing to our emotions for as long as I can remember. I have always considered that newspapers using emotional language in headlines to sell newspapers was to be expected.

Though the biggest surprise is how social media users have settled into large groups that act as echo chambers for their own beliefs. These echo chambers are full of emotional outrage, and, where politics is concerned, delight in pointing out fake news, moral turpitude [Note 1], perceived corruption and double standards. When you follow politics on Twitter, you certainly see that emotion in bucket loads; people with unfailing belief that what they say is right and, sadly a paucity of facts. Not that this makes it any less fun. I have to confess to joining in with gusto. After too much coffee and a couple of extra dried frog pills it really helps fill those lockdown hours.

It also throws up some interesting and random reading matter. One that caught my eye was a short piece in the New European saying that the Leave Campaign for the Brexit Referendum turned Brexit into a religion. The research paper is currently embargoed, so I cannot give you the hard work behind the paper, sorry. However, it did resonate. Returning to social media, the behaviours of some when talking politics did seem to replicate a religious zeal in their political belief.

I don’t have many followers on social media and I limit the number I follow, but I do try to follow some that I don’t necessarily agree with politically. It wasn’t long before I found myself asking ‘How can they believe that?’ I quickly found that pointing out facts and supporting statistics to things that I felt were incorrect didn’t change minds, just led to emotional responses and even wilder claims and conspiracies.

That is post truth politics in real life [Note 2]. Post-Truth politics is defined as relating to a situation in which people are more likely to accept an argument based on their emotions and beliefs, rather than one based on facts. This got the old synapses sparking and flying off in their usual tangents and I had to try to answer the tricky question, “why do people believe that?”.

It turns out it was easier to answer than I thought [Note 3]. People accept lies and half-truths as long as they align with their beliefs. An explanation can be found in this Psychology Today article .  It blends nicely with the principles that Steve Tesich used when he coined the phrase post-truth politics in his 1992 essay. We are more likely to believe something if it plays to our pre-existing beliefs and bias.

In my corner of my particular echo-chamber on social media, it is amazing how emotional people become when you point out that something they believe and supports their bias is not supported by facts or peer reviewed research. How they refuse to accept the facts that run counter to their belief. Their unshakeable confidence brought about by their faith in their view. Psychologists have a name for this, Confirmation Bias [Note 4]. I have failed miserably to sway minds and change views, perhaps because of the reasons put forward by Christopher Dwyer, again in Psychology Today.  We all love to be right and hate to be wrong, but we must use critical thinking to decide what we believe and what to do.

Dear reader, I am about to take a synaptic tangent. The more observant amongst you and those who are able to follow my rambling and often wordy writing style might have noticed that the words emotion and belief figure highly in this piece. Belief and emotion also figure in why people are religious as again explained in Psychology Today [Note 5].

Reading social media, it seems easy to gain the perception that decent folk have disappeared from political life. That critical thinking is no longer part of the political process and decision making. It is easy to look at Donald Trump and Boris Johnson and believe that there is no critical thinking behind how they behave. They are continually fact checked and are shown to be economical with the truth and perpetuating misinformation. Yet people believe them. If you look at the opinion polls, voters trust them. They are successful by which I mean that they get more votes than the other guy which is what they are there to do. [Note 6]

Then I looked closer at the way that they present themselves and their messages. They make their supporters out to be unique and special. They imply that those who do not support them are somehow unpatriotic or enemies. Their goals are the will of the people. Rallies and photo opportunities are full of symbolism, evangelical fervour and that sense that the audience was there to worship rather than have values challenged.

This can only be deliberate.

We are witnessing politics as a religion. Our choice of political party grants us a right, while those of another party are heretics. Your party of choice governs your mantras. It comes with its own commandments. The confirmation bias for truth is nailed on.

The culture war is no accident either. Culture represents our current values and intellectual achievement. It is supposed to make use look inward and challenge our values. To apply critical thinking to try and overcome confirmation bias. If your political message and career is built on playing to that confirmation bias, the last thing you need is those supporters applying critical thinking to your message.

So, how do you break the hold of a political party that is using the techniques of religion to gain and then hold on to power? That is a question that I cannot yet answer. It will involve getting people to challenge their own values and improving critical thinking, but just how this is done requires many pots of coffee and an extra supply of dried frog pills.

A solution must be found. History gives us insight into what happens when a country becomes divided between competing religions. After Henry VIII broke with the church of Rome in 1533, religious persecution became a tool of the state. It would be nearly 300 years before the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829.

NOTE 1: Turpitude is such a good word, don’t you think? It has that gift of hinting at the meaning in a sinister way as if it is wearing a top hat and twisting its moustache. BTW it means depraved or wicked behaviour or character.

NOTE 2: Yes, I do realise that social media is not real life. You can throw all sorts of examples at me of the evils of social media and those who run it, but you are missing the point. This stuff has been going on for years before social media. Social media is a tool that shines the spotlight on it. Censoring social media or even banning it won’t stop it happening.

NOTE 3: I am aware of the irony of this statement. Yes, I went to the internet, found an article that supported my view of the world and accepted it. Maybe I am guilty of confirmation bias. Read the article, question it, look for evidence if you think I am wrong and challenge me on it. I like to think I am big enough and ugly enough to examine my own values and beliefs.

NOTE 4: Sadly, I have not found any linkage between this psychological theory and sex. On social media, every psychological study or idea appears to have something to do with sex, especially when it gets reported in newspapers. I’m sure that it hasn’t got anything to do with the fact that sex sells.

NOTE 5: If you are not religious, or prefer to practice your faith as an independent traveller, fear not. This isn’t an attempt to convert you. It is an important point that needs to be made as I meander my way to a conclusion and search out other ways to add additional footnotes.

NOTE 6: It is convenient to pick Trump & Johnson as examples as they illustrate the point that contemporary politics is pushing the buttons as if it is a religion. You could also find parallels in the cult of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK Labour Party or Bernie Saunders in the US. Trump & Johnson are the best examples because they have turned it into a slick, professional art form supported by a well-funded political machine.