Four Reasons Why Dirty Politics Create "Bad" Leaders summarizes how human psychology and modern political campaigns contribute to choosing flawed candidates. The document analyzes four reasons: 1) the "we-they" effect creates polarization, 2) a preference for confident, male leaders overlooks narcissism, 3) cognitive laziness prevents proper candidate evaluation, and 4) negative information outweighs positives due to mudslinging. To improve the selection process, the author argues that voters should reject negative campaigning, carefully investigate candidates beyond initial impressions, and recognize candidates have merits in addition to flaws.

1. Four Reasons Why DirtyPolitics
Create “Bad”Leaders
Are we perpetually doomed to pick the lesser of two evils?
Posted Dec 17, 2016 | H.M.F.T.J
It seems like each election cycle we are faced with
the same dilemma: we are forced to choose
between two flawed candidates. We hear people
(and ourselves) asking, “Is this the best that we can
do?” This election, in particular, appears to be the
proverbial, “choosing the lesser of two evils.” How
did we get into this situation?
Sadly, we have only ourselves (and the political
system we support) to blame. Our perceptual biases,
our human tendencies, and the way campaigns are
run all combine to affect both who we choose as
leaders, and how we perceive them.
Here are the 4 primary psychological reasons that
define our current political situation:
1. The We-They Effect. Sometimes called the
in-group, out-group bias, this pervasive
phenomenon makes us see in-group members
(those we identify with) as positive and out-group

2. members as negative. Unfortunately, U.S. political
campaigning has terribly exploited this basic human
tendency through dirty, mudslinging, political
strategies. The result is a polarized, two-party
system where each side sees the other as the enemy.
This has led to a deadlocked Congress, and the
strong divisiveness for no other reason than political
party affiliation.
2. Person Perception Biases. Research on
leadership shows a strong bias preferring strong,
confident, and MALE leaders. We think “leader” and
we think “male.” While that explains the paucity of
women political leaders in the U.S., we are also
drawn to powerful-appearing, confident, “tough
guys.” The problem is that many tough guys are
self-serving narcissists, and we often can’t
discriminate between tough and benign and tough
and dangerous.
3. Cognitive Laziness. We over-rely on our initial
impressions of candidates, and move quickly to a
sort of “blind support” for our chosen (and in-group)
candidate. Our tendency to rely on our initial
judgment means that we don’t do the work needed
to properly and objectively investigate (i.e.,
fact-check) our preferred candidate. Moreover, our
biased perceptual processes cause us to pay
attention to information that supports our initial

3. impression and ignore or discount contradictory
information. As a result, we believe everything and
anything a candidate tells us, once we are
supporting her or him.
4. Power of Negative Information. In person
perception it is well known that negative
information is given greater weight than positive
information. A candidate could have a great deal of
experience and positive qualities, but finding out
something negative about him or her, can quickly
cancel out all the positives. Couple this bias with
negative campaigning—with all sorts of founded
and unfounded accusations of misbehavior—and we
conclude that all candidates are bad. In the end, we
feel like we are picking the lesser of two evils (“Is this
the best that we can do?”).
So, how do we get things back on track?
First, we have to reject the negative
campaigning—the dirty politics. Of course, that’s
not easy, but there was, at least, some sense of
decorum in politics a generation ago. Candidates
have to learn to emphasize their virtues first, and
focus on good versus better (“My opponent has a
plan, but I have a better plan”) rather than slinging
mud.

4. Second, carefully investigate what candidates say,
their plans, and their background and qualifications.
Don’t jump to blind support merely because a
candidate is a member of the in-group, or based on
initial impressions.
Finally, don’t give in to the “dark side” of the
we-they effect. Realize that candidates have
strengths and weaknesses—they are neither “all
good” nor “all bad.”