The 9-Point Guide To Deciphering Political Propaganda

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by David Galland via,

Given we are eyeballs-deep in the US presidential election cycle, now seems a particularly appropriate time to share some observations on the topic of political propaganda.

As a naturally curious fellow, some years ago - during the Clinton vs. Bush Senior contest - I became interested in the language and techniques used in political campaigning. So much so that I dedicated my daily study period to the topic for the better part of a week.

Since it will be impossible to escape the rhetorical onslaught for the next few months, I thought I might be able to shed some light on what goes on in the battle for your subconscious.

As these insights come from the well-worn pages of playbooks of every politician around the world, I think they are pretty much timeless and cross all borders.

At the core of what I learned in my studies is that the stock and trade of the propagandist revolves around trying to simplify issues, no matter how complex, into easily understood concepts that tap into the existing attitudes and emotions of the target audience.

As an aside, since this topic touches on politics, I may inadvertently gore your ox. For the record, I view most politicians and political parties with disdain, though my disdain is particularly elevated for politicians espousing policies that interfere with my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

With that brief introduction, here are just some of the techniques you can watch for as the election season gains steam.

1. Use stereotypes.

This technique has probably been in active use since humans lived in caves. Successfully drape the opponent in the cloak of a stereotype that triggers a negative image, and you’ve done a good day’s work as a propagandist.

Depending on which side of the political spectrum you swing to, you might trot out old favorites such as “rich fat cat,” or “friend of Wall Street,” or “big-government socialist,” or any one of many handy sterotypes. These stereotypes allow you to instantly tap into powerful underlying prejudices and emotions.

And, for the record, it is a well-documented fact that when we humans are emotionally worked up, we become much more suspectible to follow-on political messaging.

2. Name substitution.

The propagandist will try to label the opponent with an unflattering, and memorable, term. If that is successful, the label will involuntarily come to mind at the sight of the opponent. Donald Trump is the reigning champion of this technique, using name substitution like a two-by-four against his opponents.

Every time Elizabeth Warren’s name comes up, my mind automatically substitutes her name with Pocahontas and I have to smile. On the other side of the contest, the Hillary camp has been trying to stick Trump with the “bully” label. I expect to see a lot more of that.

3. Selection.

Out of a mass of complex facts, the propagandist selects only those that are suitable for his or her purpose. You wouldn’t expect Trump to mention his past bankruptcies, or Hillary her long list of crimes.

There is, actually, an instance where Trump might want to mention his bankruptcies. Folks in the influence business—including trial lawyers—use a technique called “inoculation” where, knowing your opponent is going to come after you on a point, you bring it up first and therefore diffuse it.

“My opponent, Crooked Hillary, is probably going to mention the fact that I have had some businesses go bankrupt many years ago. She’s right.

“When you’re involved in the rough and tumble world of business, sometimes things just aren’t going to work out, and so you have to do what you have to do to protect your employees and buy some time to pay your debts.

But here’s the important thing to remember. I’ve run businesses—big businesses—ever since I was 19 years old. And Crooked Hillary? She’s a lawyer and never ran a single business. Not once. And that’s the problem with American politics… too many lawyers and not enough business folks!”

4. Downright lying.

The “big lie” has always been an important part of propaganda.

Remember the woman who came forward to tell Congress about Iraqi soldiers raping and hacking their way through a maternity ward in Kuwait as part of the campaign to get the US to invade? The politicians got emotionally involved in the story and so, per my earlier comments, were made more susceptible to the idea of invading Iraq.

Turned out the woman was the daughter of a high-ranking Kuwaiti official who had been enlisted by a PR firm, and her story was completely fabricated.

Not so long ago, Bloomberg ginned up a story claiming Trump had invited thug and convicted rapist Mike Tyson to address the Republican convention.

Baseless nonsense dreamed up by soulless PR cretins, and nothing more.

5. Repetition.

If you repeat a statement often enough, it will become ingrained in the minds of your target audience.

For example, the myth propagated by the Democrats that the rich need to pay their “fair share” despite the fact that the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of all federal income taxes.

On the flip side, the Republications constantly repeat the mantra that Democrats are all in favor of “big government” despite the reality that the size of the government has continued to grow in size under Republican and Democrat administrations alike.

6. Assertion.

The clever propagandist rarely engages in a substantive debate over the issues, but instead favors bold assertions to support his thesis. This is logical because the essence of propaganda is to present only one side of the picture and deliberately obfuscate or bury facts to the contrary.

We are told Donald Trump is a bigot, but for the life of me, I can’t find any examples. Unless you think his call for enforcing immigration laws bigoted.

We are told that police target black men for summary execution, a meme that has contributed mightily to the recent outbreak of violence against the police. In time, that will also result in the police keeping their hands in their pockets and avoiding neighborhoods where they aren’t wanted. At which point the real mayhem will begin.

It doesn’t matter that the assertion is not factually true, what does matter is that it fits the narrative that the majority of the white population, especially fat cats like Donald Trump, are racists.

As to the truth, here is a very worthwhile article that looks past the meme and to the statistical facts.

7. Identify an enemy that taps into deeply held prejudices.

It is particularly helpful to the politicians not to just be “for” something, but to be against some real or imagined enemy who is supposedly frustrating the will of his audience. This serves to deflect any opposing views while strengthening “in group” feelings. Some of the campaigners for Brexit used the influx of illegal immigrants very effectively in this regard. As has Donald Trump.

8. Appeal to authority.

The authority may be religious or some respected political figure. In the case of the Democrats, you’ll increasingly see references to Bill Clinton, who is apparently remembered fondly by some. By trotting out Bill, Hillary hopes the voters will overlook her many faults.

Knowing this is coming, the Republicans have done a pretty spiffy job of tarnishing Bill Clinton’s reputation—which wasn’t real hard—with exposés on the Clinton Foundation and his proclivity for women other than his wife. (For the record, I almost made a snarky comment, but refrained.)

9. Peer pressure.

One of the most powerful influence techniques is summed up in the phrase, “Everyone else is doing it.” Being a herd animal, it is very hard for us as individuals to go against the crowd. In the Brexit campaign, the media tried to paint the “Leave” folks as malcontents on the fringe.  

In the US, to self-identify as a Trump supporter is—if you believe the Democrats and the media they control (which is, like, all the media)—you are some sort of gun-hoarding racist nutjob.

In what might be viewed as either good news or bad, the most fundamental limitation of propaganda is that almost everyone develops a more or less rigid set of beliefs and attitudes early in life and, except in trivial matters, clings to those beliefs.

Thus, the real task of the propagandist is to tap into those attitudes and attempt, often with deliberate lies, to demonstrate that the propaganda accurately reflects the established views of the audience.

Here is an example. On first hearing that Trump proposed to build a wall across the border with Mexico, my reaction was incredulous and very negative. What a dumbass idea.

However, when I heard Trump describe his wall, stressing that the wall would have a “big door, a very, very big door” for people that fulfilled the legal requirements for immigration to pass through, my opposition was muted.

I still don’t think it’s a practical idea, or even a good idea, but by his clever rhetoric—mentally painting the picture of a big door where people who followed the rules could enter—Trump was able to get me to view the idea of the wall in a different light. To wit, he’s not anti-immigration. Just anti-illegal immigration.

Some Concluding Observations

I doubt Trump will win the election. Not only does he have the entire liberal establishment lined up against him, but the propagandists have had great success in turning the larger ethnic communities against him.

And in what may be a first, even the leadership of his own political party continues to go to great lengths to discredit him.

This is not to say that Hillary and the Democrats will be able to credibly marshall an effective propaganda attack on Trump that will sway his constituents.

For starters, that constituency views “Hillary” not just as a political opponent, but an icon for everything that is wrong with the political class. They are not budging even one iota come election day.

Which makes this a battle for the so-called independents. And that’s where the propagandists will be aiming the big guns.

The Democrats tried to turn women against Trump by painting him as a misogynist. However, a master of the game, Trump countered by pushing forward the women the media had pointed to as “proof” of his misogyny who, in no uncertain terms, stated that the reporter had made up the whole story.

So, what scab can the propagandists (successfully) pick to ensure Trump doesn’t attract the independents who are uneasy about the direction America has taken? Well, for sure, Hillary can’t claim he’s corrupt or a crook, you know, because of the whole rocks-and-glass-houses thing.

So, I expect she’ll play the usual “fat cat” card and double down with the bully thing. That way when he berates her on the national stage, especially in the upcoming debates, she’ll do the equivalent of an “I told you so! Look at how he treats poor me.”

I think Trump is probably smart enough to figure all this out and be prepared.

Regardless, at the end of the day it’s going to boil down to demographics. Who has the bulk of the voting public in their camp?

If Trump is on the right side of the demographics, the side that fondly remembers the idea of America and wants to preserve it, versus those who embrace the brave new world of political correctness, multiculturalism, and populist economics, he’s got a chance.

If not, he will be toast and those of you who make America your home will have to accept that the country is going to continue slipping down the slippery slope. And not just under Madam President, but under whichever politically correct construct gets elected after her eight-year term ends.

Who knows, maybe by then the president will be introduced to audiences as “Ze President”?

So, any hints from the demographic data on who might win?

A useful gauge of what to expect from the 2016 race is to look back at the 2012 presidential election.

In 2012, Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney by the comfortable margin of 332 to 206 electoral votes (to win the presidency, a candidate needs 270 electoral votes). In the popular vote, Obama beat Romney by a difference of about five million votes.

Historically, women make up 53% of presidential voters and men make up 47%. In the 2016 election, it is likely that the gender makeup will stay constant, which will favor Hillary Clinton. According to the Gallup Poll, 70% of women have an unfavorable opinion of Trump. That kind of gender gap could deliver the White House to Clinton.

On the other end of the scale, Donald Trump has the support of white men who distrust Clinton.

Trump may like to think he can up his chances in the presidential stakes by appealing to discontented white voters who will constitute an estimated 71% of the voting population in the 2016 elections. But the last presidential election results show otherwise. Even though the Republicans won white votes by huge margins in 2012, Mitt Romney still lost.

What carried Barack Obama into the White House were minority votes. He won 93% of African-American voters, 71% of Latino voters, and 73% of Asian voters.

The minority electorate carries even greater weight in 2016—with 38% of Americans constituting minorities, as opposed to 28% in 2012.

Furthermore, almost two million more Latino voters are expected to turn up for the 2016 elections than in 2012.

Therefore, Trump will need minority votes if he is to have a chance of winning the White House. An impossibility if one accepts the premise put forward by some political analysts that 84% of nonwhite voters won’t vote for him.

Based on the demographics, I’m prepared to bet that it’s unlikely that Donald Trump can win the popular vote for the United States presidency in 2016.

Then again, everyone thought Brexit would fail, so there’s that.

I will close by saying that there are a couple of scenarios that could change the tide.

  • One is that Trump absolutely dominates in the upcoming presidential debates.
  • The other is that Hillary gets indicted.

Regardless, I’ll be watching the election results as they come in from a comfortable seat in the Bad Brothers Wine Experience. Which, given the prospects for a Clinton presidency, seems a fine place to be.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
reader2010's picture

"What we experience today are acrimonious splits over ideological lifestyle issues, where fierce debates rage and choices are solicited (on abortion, on gay marriages, etc.), but where basic economic policy is presented as a depoliticized domain of expert authority. The proliferation of “overdemocracy” with its “excesses” of a “culture of complaint” is ultimately the front whose backside is the silent, sturdy weaving of economic, corporatist logic."

- Zizek

localsavage's picture

The most common is pictures of the canidates where Trump looks like he is having a meltdown and Hillary looks like she is posing for a dental commercial

localsavage's picture

I forgot another common trick where they talk about covering the canidates and then have a poll in the background where Trump is down 11 points.

Son of Loki's picture

<< “rich fat cat,” or “friend of Wall Street,” or “big-government socialist,” >>


Lets not bring Hillery into this article, ok.

Ms No's picture

I have always had a hard time believing that 73% of Asians voted for Obama.  Sounds like BS to me and our elections are fraudulent anyway.

In an article about propaganda we should probably discuss how a completely corrupt and illegitimate system is made to seem otherwise... How a completely disenfranchised people are made to feel otherwise. 

Furthermore, what is this constant BS about being pro legal immigration?  They can forever change the landscape using a floodgate of legal immigration as well.  Anybody who says that they are pro legal immigration in our current circumstance is a bastard.  That is financial suicide right now and nobody asked us if we were willing to donate our kids for that.  WE DONT HAVE THE JOBS... WE HAVE 45 MILLION ON FOODSTAMPS... WE CAN'T AFFORD THEIR MEDICAL... OUR RECENT IMMIGRANTS ARE KILLING PEOPLE! 

But by all means, keep pussy footing around the issue. 

Not to mention the issue that nobody asked the rest of us what we thought about the fact that another 10% (if the numbers are to be believed) the American white vote majority is gone forever.  Everybody seems so sure that will be okay.  Well you better be fuqing right. 

It wouldn't be a big deal except foreign voters and the foreign agents who are sicking them on us have a pension for destroying countries with communism and these guys are voting in that direction.

We are surrounded by enemy subversives and they have no idea what is coming.  Watching their reaction will be the only pleasure left when it goes down. 


BrownCoat's picture

"No truly sophisticated proponent of repression would be stupid
 enough to shatter the facade of democratic institutions."
 -- Murry B. Levin (Friendly Fascism by Bertram Gross pg 229)

y3maxx's picture


As the sailor says, "Not with my Parrot you don't."

Omen IV's picture

Your comment about Asians voting for Obama doesnt make sense - more so in this election - they are small businessmen and technical jobs not government welfare direct or indirect - they see blacks negatively to say the least. If taxes and rules for small business drive a decision they are Trump voters


as to women the jury is out - many undertood Bernoe message and they know he was cheated by the clintons even though Bernie is now a clinton  whore they will relook their decision - the Latino's are strange - the more immigration especially illegal their wages go down radically - what is in the unlimited immigration that is good for them?


this  election will be the biggest white turnout in american history - comparison to Romney is meaningless - whites blue collar hated him - they love Trump


she has to win by rigging the vote - clintons have registered enormous numbers of Puerto Ricans in Dade County 60%+ new regs are Latinos

Fisherman Blue's picture

Auther is dead wrong . TRUMP will win in a historic landslide.

LetThemEatRand's picture

10.  Appeal to the lizard brain.  Safety.  Love.   Fear.    Family.   Food/shelter.

This is also known as the "Reptile Theory" of persuasion.  It is widely studied by politicians and lawyers.  See Donald Trump's convention speech. 

Normalcy Bias's picture

Obama's speech was certainly more cerebral.

Hopey Change and Changey Hope and Free Stuff and Love and Unity and Unicorns and Rainbows! YAY!

LetThemEatRand's picture

It was the same basic message if you think about it, just with a different spin.  I am amazed that any ZH regulars are still supporting Trump after hearing from him that the government is the answer.

Normalcy Bias's picture

I think it's all a SHITSHOW and once again, we're being played.

I would LOVE to be proven wrong in the years ahead, but I won't be holding my breath...

83_vf_1100_c's picture

  I want to believe Trump is different. But, after being lied to, nay, even kicked in the balls by our elected leaders for 40 yrs of my adult life... y'all know the deal. Alas, we won't know who he really is til we elect him.

BrownCoat's picture

You can tell a politician is lying when its lips are moving.

Maltheus's picture

Look at it as voting for congress and the courts to start doing their jobs again. You know they won't under Hillary. Under Trump, I expect them to roll out impeachment after blocking every single thing he wants to do.

SgtShaftoe's picture

I agree with y'all.  I am not a supporter of anyone.  Maybe I'm too cynical or have seen too much but I'm not buying anything from the federal level.  Local, Local, Local.  That is the future. 

unicorn's picture

then PLEASE add not to buy amazon but support your LOCAL bookshop;) thx

Fisherman Blue's picture

Reggie is still sticking his dirty unicorn up that fool fuckers ass.

NoDebt's picture

From time to time it should be rightly pointed out that those parts of your brain exist for a reason.  Deny them at your own peril.

Right now, I think what most people are experiencing is an "Emygdala response", not the "lizard brain" you mention.  The Emygdala is where we "emotionally learn" things.  It's the part of your brain that makes you say "Wait, something's wrong here.  This doesn't feel right" even though you may not know what it is logically.  


I have learned to listen to ALL parts of my consciousness (to some degree or another) and I suspect, like many others on this board, my Emygdala response has been off the charts for a while now.  

You want to know what Trump is tapping into?  THAT is what he is tapping into.  The rest of this shit you can load on a dumptruck and push it into the Potomac because it means exactly jack shit in this election.


LetThemEatRand's picture

I think you're dead on, and Trump knows this too.   He read Ted Cruz like a cheap novel.  The key is to appeal to both primal instincts and emotional learning.   "You are in danger.  The system is corrupt.  I will fix it and also protect you."

NoDebt's picture

He's tapping into a different part of people's brains than most politicians have been trained to do on a regular basis.  Once he validates your "something is very wrong here" feeling about the country it is very easy for people to identify with his message after that.  It's also why the MSM and liberals are incapable of seeing it or understanding it.  They are "innoculated" against using that part of their brains for a multitude of reasons.  Primary among those is that people who believe in "a cause" turn that part of their brain off, intentionally, in order to be more effective and resistant to all contrary evidence in supporting that "cause". 

It's also why the "average guy" has absolutely NO difficulty understanding what he's talking about.  The "average guy" uses his/her emygdala in their daily life as effortlessly as breathing.  It is fully integrated into their consciousness, accepted and unrestrained.  It is added to the "mix" of complex brain functions used in evaluating any situation.  If you don't have it, you're "blind" to it.

Does any of this ring a bell?  (That's an emygdala response question, BTW.)

LetThemEatRand's picture

I will respond simply by pointing out that "liberal" and "conservative" is itself a construct used by politicians.  I don't disagree that people can be wired differently, but in any real crisis where life is at stake people tend to come together as people.  In the interim, politicians, corporations, etc, exploit the differences.

Umh's picture

If anyone should know that all people don't think alike it is you. I would never bet on the majority of people coming together during a crisis. The sociopaths you enumerated are just examples of the differences in how people think.

Son of Loki's picture

I'd rather Trump dig into my Emygdala then Hillery digging into my pocket to support moar free shit and moar wars.

Fisherman Blue's picture

I get it but I prefer to cuss Marist out.

malek's picture

Actually after further reflection I believe it's not innoculation in play, but

liberals have permanently delegated a big part of their emygdala threat detection to "the group" they feel part of.

DocBerg's picture

Another good propaganda technique is to use adjectives with slightly negative or positive connotations in your speaking or writing, depending on what impression you want to give to the target.  This is why I no longer listen to political speeches.  I get transcripts, and then underline the adjectives.  There are usually a fair number of adjectival synonyms to pick from, and if you are subtle enough, and gradually shift the adjectival connotations enough, people will be influenced and never know what hit them.

withglee's picture

Actually, I don't think Trump even understands himself. I would be oh-so-much more comfortable with him if he mentioned WTC7 falling down. Until he does that, he looks no different to me than our occupiers.

withglee's picture

Discrimination and segregation are words we must never abandon. They are the basis of all life ... vegetable and animal.

Iterative secession.

DuneCreature's picture

One of your best posts, ND.

Among a lot of good ones. 

Live Hard, Acknowledge The Good Stuff You Read, Die Free

~ DC v2.0

I Am Me's picture

The amygdala is the main brain area devoted to threat detection. When it gets overloaded, you can have something called an amygdala hijack and lose all or most rational control (see book Emotional Intelligence).

Science is starting to provide evidence that Leftists have a smaller amygdala, or at least in one of the lobes. This would explain their almost incredulous inability to see real threats.

This smaller amygdala would also explain how Leftists explode frequently into violent irrationality when spoonfed lie-based narratives. Many famous and random Leftist protesters say idiotic stuff like Trump is going to kill them all with zero fact-based evidence.

The uniting factor for these two behaviors is cowardice. When isolated, a Leftist is a coward. When agitated in isolation, he or she will have an emotional meltdown but will slink off. However, when the Leftist cowards find safety in the mob, and they have a collective meltdown, then violence results. Mob violence is obviously not limited to the Left, it's simply more prevalent there, as Leftists are collectivists and the mob is their preferred venue for venting.

And the reason they are collectivists is again because they are cowards, and the collective hides them from scrutiny. Egalitarianism is simply a coping mechanism for cowardice.

malek's picture


One of the best, and most consise posts I ever read on ZH.

Kirk2NCC1701's picture

Law & Order is a subset of Safety.

O C Sure's picture



"A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature. Yet, he who first founded the state was the greatest of benefactors. For Man, when perfected is the best animal. But when he is separated from law and justice he is the worst of all; since armed injustice is more dangerous. And he is equipped at birth with arms meant to be uset by intelligence and excellence, which he may use for the worst ends. That is why if he has not excellence, then he is the most unholy and most savage of all animals."

 - Aristotle - 


...get on with it ZH...

Ms No's picture


“In place of thoughts it has impulses, habits, and emotions.”   
    Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda    

WTFUD's picture

The 23% unemployed will be the most significant factor and expect that figure to rise to 25% over the next 4 months.

wisebastard's picture









wisebastard's picture

if the government told me i could not fly ......i would jump off a fucking building

Lonesome Crow's picture



1. ZH uses sterotypes
2. ZH can only experience longevity upon Name Substitution
3. ZH  thrives upon Selection
4. ZH thrives upon downright lying; proof is the posts vs. their manifesto.
5. ZH, yeah, painted horses riding up and down...
6. ZH, yup, no difference from number 4.
7. ZH, yup, no avail.
8. ZH, is your one-stop authority for, you know, all this stuff so Jaynsian.
9. ZH, couldn't possible unleash pressure among their would - be peers in a system like this?

Tall Tom's picture





And somehow you have discerned that in 10 weeks?


You postulate and then do not bother to support your statements with supporting evidence.


Aristotle would renounce you.


Now tell me that you have been a "long time lurker" so I can ask you what a shitgum is.


Please continue. We can use some Friday night entertainment.

sonoftx's picture

Or ask him to fill in the blank" tongue her ---- box"

spqrusa's picture

So many more Trolls on ZH these days.

When can we get a "shadow-ban" or "ignore this person in perpetuity" or "send Guido to this fuck's house" setting?

Omen IV's picture




Umh's picture

Omen IV: 5 years & 3 weeks. Click on the username.

El Vaquero's picture

I'm not convinced that the polls are going to be accurate during this election, even from honest pollsters.  You need to get a proper representative sample of likely voters, and this election is so wild that I'm not sure if that is going to be easy.  There is a good chance that a lot of likely voters in the past are going to stay home and a lot of unlikely voters are going to show up.  


On top of that, it appears that somebody in the deep state is gunning for Hillary.  

wisebastard's picture
ad ho·mi·nem ?ad ?häm?n?m/ adverb & adjective adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem
  1. 1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

    "vicious ad hominem attacks"

  2. 2. relating to or associated with a particular person.