A philosopher has argued that Donald Trump’s persistent false statements are not lies but expressions of contempt, aimed at demeaning opponents and controlling the news cycle. The claim comes amid data showing mounting regret among Trump’s base, which the philosopher attributes not to fact-checking but to supporters feeling belittled.
According to the philosopher, lying requires intent to deceive, but Trump’s outlandish claims—such as stopping eight wars or having 100% approval for an Iran incursion—are so easily debunked that deception is unlikely. Instead, these assertions serve to taunt journalists and critics, declaring defiance against the political establishment.
The philosopher notes that Trump’s dishonesty has historically been cost-free, from the birther lie to falsehoods about crowd sizes. Even admissions of fabrication, like JD Vance’s acknowledgment that a story about Haitian immigrants was “created,” failed to dent Trump’s popularity. However, recent shifts in approval numbers suggest supporters now feel duped and abandoned.
Fact-checking, the philosopher argues, is ineffective among true believers and can even backfire. The real change is that Trump’s base is beginning to feel his contempt directed at them, as he makes claims like falling grocery prices while they bear the effects of a struggling economy. This, not fact-checking, explains the emerging dissatisfaction.
