7 Psychological Tactics Politicians Use to Distract Us From Their Failures, Part 1
How Politicians Exploit Patterns of Human Thinking
August 18, 2025
Politicians rarely admit failure. They redirect attention, reduce criticism and protect their image instead. The methods they use draw on psychology, exploiting universal and predictable patterns in human thinking.
In an earlier briefing, we discussed the four mental levers, which are fear, identity, repetition and emotion, that give political messaging its force. These levers are applied through strategies that can be repeated, adapted and scaled across speeches, campaigns and media. This is where psychological tactics come in.
These tactics are deliberate methods of communication and persuasion that take advantage of the way the human brain processes information. They are part of a system politicians use to channel the power of the four mental levers into everyday political life.
There are at least seven widely used tactics, but in this piece we will look at four, leaving the remaining three for a separate news briefing.
(1) Cognitive reframing is the most direct technique. It’s a mental process where the meaning of a situation changes depending on how it is described. In psychology, it refers to shifting the “frame” through which people view an event. The facts remain the same, but the interpretation changes. A loss can be seen as a lesson, a failure can be seen as sacrifice, and hardship can be seen as progress.
It works because the human brain does not deal with raw facts in isolation. We make sense of facts by attaching meaning, and that meaning strongly influences how we feel and respond. If a situation is framed as threatening, people feel anger or fear. If the same situation is framed as noble or purposeful, people feel pride and resilience. This change in perspective reduces discomfort and creates acceptance, even if the objective conditions remain unchanged.
Politicians use cognitive reframing to protect their image when governance lapses or unpopular policies create public anger. Instead of denying the hardship, they redefine it. Economic pain can be portrayed as a necessary step toward national strength, restrictions can be framed as measures to ensure security, and public sacrifices can be described as patriotic duty. In this way, reframing changes how the failure is understood, turning potential backlash into loyalty.
In 2016, for example, the sudden decision to demonetise 500-rupee and 1,000-rupee notes caused hardship to millions. Long queues outside banks, loss of jobs in the informal sector and economic slowdown followed. However, the narrative promoted by the government, that it’s essential to curb corruption, framed this disruption as a patriotic act. Citizens were urged to see their suffering as sacrifice for the greater good of the nation. In psychological terms, this changed the emotional response from frustration to pride. It allowed the government to present a self-inflicted economic injury as a moral victory.
(2) Attentional control is another psychological tactic that politicians use. In psychology, attentional control refers to the brain’s ability to decide what to focus on while filtering out other information. Human attention is limited, so the mind constantly selects certain signals and ignores the rest.
It works because people cannot process every detail of their environment at once. The brain narrows focus to what feels urgent, emotional or meaningful, and it tunes out competing facts. This makes people pay more attention to things that feel dramatic, scary or emotional. A loud or flashy message grabs focus, while quieter but important issues get ignored.
Politicians use attentional control by flooding the public space with emotionally loaded topics, such as communal tensions, national security threats or cultural debates, so that public energy is absorbed by them. This redirection pulls scrutiny away from governance failures.
For example, widespread discussion of a religious or identity issue can crowd out attention to unemployment, inflation or poor healthcare, even though those problems remain unsolved. By influencing what dominates public focus, politicians decide which questions get asked and which are forgotten.
In 2020, during the pandemic-induced migrant crisis, for example, television debates and political speeches turned towards incidents like Tablighi Jamaat’s gathering in Delhi. This focus diverted scrutiny from the absence of planning for migrant workers who walked hundreds of kilometres home. Instead of discussing administrative failure, the public conversation was driven by communal blame. Attention was deliberately pulled away from structural incompetence and placed on identity-based outrage.
(3) Ingroup-outgroup bias is a mental tendency where people divide the world into “us” and “them.” In psychology, the ingroup is the circle we feel we belong to, while the outgroup is everyone outside it. People naturally trust members of their ingroup more, and they view outsiders with suspicion or hostility. This bias influences loyalty and distrust in powerful ways.
It works because belonging to a group gives people safety, identity and pride. The brain is wired to protect the group it identifies with, even at the cost of fairness or accuracy. Once the mind sees someone as part of the outgroup, it becomes easier to dismiss their arguments or treat them as a threat. This division triggers strong emotions that can override calm evaluation of facts.
Politicians use ingroup–outgroup bias by framing criticism as an attack from outside the group. They present opponents, minorities or dissenters as enemies of the people, and they cast themselves as defenders of the ingroup’s values. This shifts attention away from questions about governance and redirects energy into defending identity. As long as voters feel their group is under attack, they are more likely to rally behind the leader, even if performance on jobs, health or education is weak.
In several state elections, political parties have portrayed urban critics, English-speaking liberals or certain religious communities as disconnected from “real India.” The result is the creation of a mental divide where scrutiny becomes betrayal. During the 2019 general election campaign, for instance, opponents of the ruling party were often accused of lacking national loyalty, particularly if they questioned military decisions. The voter’s loyalty was redirected from performance evaluation to group identity.
(4) Confirmation bias is the mental tendency to notice, believe and remember information that supports what we already think, while ignoring facts that challenge those beliefs. In psychology, it is one of the strongest and most persistent cognitive biases.
It works because the brain prefers consistency. Accepting information that fits our existing worldview feels comfortable, while dealing with conflicting facts creates discomfort. As a result, people seek out and trust messages that affirm their beliefs, even if those messages are incomplete or misleading. Over time, this narrows perspective and makes it harder to change one’s mind.
Politicians use confirmation bias by feeding supporters with statements and narratives that match their existing views. They repeat claims that align with what their base already believes about the nation, about opponents or about certain communities. Even if the claims are weak or unproven, the repetition gives them credibility, because people feel they are simply recognising what they “already know.” This makes supporters more loyal and less open to questioning leadership.
For example, in Uttar Pradesh, where crime statistics have remained a concern, the ruling party has projected itself as tough on law and order despite data suggesting otherwise. By projecting specific encounters or arrests, the government maintains a perception of control. Supporters overlook systemic issues because the selective evidence fits what they wish to believe. Repeated claims, even if inaccurate, feel more trustworthy simply because they are familiar.
You have just read a News Briefing by Newsreel Asia, written to cut through the noise and present a single story for the day that matters to you. Certain briefings, based on media reports, seek to keep readers informed about events across India, others offer a perspective rooted in humanitarian concerns and some provide our own exclusive reporting. We encourage you to read the News Briefing each day. Our objective is to help you become not just an informed citizen, but an engaged and responsible one.
