By David E. Clementson
U.S. Rep. George Santos, a Republican from New York, was expelled on Dec. 1, 2023 from Congress for doing what most people think all politicians do all the time: lying.
Santos lied about his religion, marital status, business background, grandparents, college, high school, sports-playing, income and campaign donation expenditures.
Santos’ fellow members of Congress – a professional class stereotypically considered by the public to be littered with serial liars – apparently consider Santos peerless and are kicking him out of their midst on a 311-114 vote, with two members voting present.
How could a politician engage in such large-scale deception and get elected? What could stop it from happening again, as politicians seem to be growing more unapologetically deceptive while evading voters’ scrutiny?
Santos’ success demonstrates a mastery of something more than just pathological lying. He managed to campaign in a district close to the media microscope of New York City, in one of the richest districts in the state, and get elected and stay in office for a year, despite making a mockery of any semblance of honesty.
I am a scholar of political deception. Experiments I conducted have revealed how the trustworthiness of politicians is judged almost entirely from perceptions of their demeanor, not the words they utter.
Misleading with a smile
I have found that voters are drawn in by politicians’ demeanor cues, which are forms of body language and nonverbal communication that signal honesty or dishonesty and yet have no relationship to actual honesty. For example, looking nervous and fidgety or appearing confident and composed are demeanor cues, which give impressions of a politician’s sincerity and believability. Someone’s demeanor cues might signal that they are trustworthy when they’re actually lying, or could signal lying in someone who is actually telling the truth.
The most authoritative index of demeanor cues that affect people’s perceptions of honesty and deception was developed by Tim Levine, a professor of communication at the University of Alabama, Birmingham. Demeanor cues that convey sincerity and honesty include appearing confident and composed; having a pleasant, friendly, engaged and involved interaction style; and giving plausible explanations.
The insincere/dishonest demeanor cues include avoiding eye contact, appearing hesitant and slow in providing answers, vocal uncertainty in tone of voice, excessive fidgeting with hands or foot movements, and appearing tense, nervous or anxious.
Empirical research has long revealed that voters are overwhelmingly influenced by politicians’ nonverbal communication. In one experiment, participants were shown 10-second clips of unfamiliar gubernatorial debates. The participants were asked to predict who won the election.
Participants who saw muted 10-second clips – making their judgments solely on nonverbal cues – were able to predict which candidate would go on to win. But those who watched the video with the sound were no better at picking the winner than if they picked randomly without ever watching or listening to anything. Voters make their judgments of a politician’s competence, it turns out, based on a 1-second glance at the politician’s face.
Another study also found that politicians’ facial expressions have the power to move us, literally: People watching clips of Ronald Reagan looking friendly adjusted their facial muscles accordingly and mimicked his smile, and people watching clips of Reagan looking angry tended to furrow their brow, too.
How Santos does it
Santos speaks with certitude. He has a charming, friendly and interactive manner – all sincere demeanor cues. He makes intense eye contact without fidgeting. He dresses well and is pleasant looking.
He was able to make up lies out of whole cloth and have them believed – a feat rarely accomplished by liars. He exudes confidence.
Santos dresses with sartorial elegance. He wears chic eyeglasses and sunglasses, accessorized with bright but not tacky jewelry. All this is complemented by one of his signature fleeces or sweaters, typically worn over a collared dress shirt and under a smart jacket. Santos even bought his campaign staff Brooks Brothers shirts to wear.
In my experiments, which have shown that voters base their judgment of politicians’ trustworthiness almost entirely from perceptions of demeanor, I found that Republicans are especially susceptible to demeanor cues. Republican voters will disbelieve their own honest politician if they perceive that the politician’s demeanor is insincere. But they will believe their own politician if they perceive sincerity.
Santos’ believable demeanor follows in the lineage of other con artists who could deceive absurdly yet adroitly. Disgraced financier Bernie Madoff dressed well, looked dignified, acted friendly and cordial, and his resting face was a smiling expression. The Fyre Festival fraudster Billy McFarland also had a resting face that was a smiling, aw-shucks expression, and acted harmless and friendly.
And Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos – who became the youngest female billionaire in history – faked a deep voice, walked upright with perfect posture, smiled and conveyed unrelenting confident poise, and maintained an unblinking gaze. All this enabled her to tell lies to some of the richest, most accomplished, intelligent titans of industry.
Madoff, McFarland and Holmes could look people in the eye and steal their money – swindling largely through the same sorts of demeanor cues that Santos exhibits.
McFarland, Holmes and Santos have the ability to smile with their upper teeth showing while they are answering tough questions in interviews, which research shows exudes trustworthiness.
AP Photo/Mary Altaffer
Fool me once …
Just because someone speaks confidently, dresses well and acts friendly does not mean the person is honest. Pay attention to what people say – the content of their verbal messaging.
Don’t fall prey to body language or seemingly sincere behavioral impressions, which actually have no correlation to actual truthfulness. As my research has shown, the appearance of sincerity is misleading. It is a myth that eye contact means someone is telling you the truth and that a roving gaze or elevated blinking means they are lying.
Some people just look honest but they are pulling the proverbial wool over your eyes. Some people look sketchy and appear unbelievable, but what they say is truthful.
Santos’ disgrace is a teachable moment for citizens. As the proverb goes: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
David E. Clementson is Assistant Professor at Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Georgia.
The Conversation arose out of deep-seated concerns for the fading quality of our public discourse and recognition of the vital role that academic experts could play in the public arena. Information has always been essential to democracy. It’s a societal good, like clean water. But many now find it difficult to put their trust in the media and experts who have spent years researching a topic. Instead, they listen to those who have the loudest voices. Those uninformed views are amplified by social media networks that reward those who spark outrage instead of insight or thoughtful discussion. The Conversation seeks to be part of the solution to this problem, to raise up the voices of true experts and to make their knowledge available to everyone. The Conversation publishes nightly at 9 p.m. on FlaglerLive.
Marc Crane says
How could a politician be involved in such a colamity, I thought you were going to talk about the Biden family …
Tired of it says
And your facts to support that statement? Be specific. Cite verifiable sources.
Laurel says
Tired: Crickets, always crickets. Then, they show up on another thread with similar claims, only to disappear again when challenged for facts.
Gee, you’d think that Fox Entertainment, Newsmax, OAN and confirmation bias on social media, would be able to pass on some supposed facts so that these people could have a come back. You and I know that won’t happen, so poof, gone. Oh! The last thing I heard was Fox was spending a good amount of time claiming real men don’t use straws when Biden was noticed sipping a milkshake. I bet he doesn’t tan his balls, either. Real important reporting there. To think they do this for ratings…
Where has America gone?
Samuel L. Bronkowitz says
I think that his election to office is probably one of the best examples of how people vote for the party and not the candidate, which is an absolutely weird thing to do. It’s the candidate that presumably locally represents your interests, right?
I mean, political parties in office are made up of a bunch of individuals with a wide and diverse set of backgrounds and beliefs, who are there to embrace policy that is in *their* best interests. Rhetoric like “vote blue no matter who” or “stay the course” pushes the idea that the parties are collectivist, sure, but are they really?
Never vote for the party. Vote for the person. And if there isn’t anyone that represents your interests, write someone in, or leave that spot blank. If you don’t, you end up with another George Santos, or Christy Chong, or Joe Biden, or Donald Trump.
Skibum says
The author of this article dwells only on the fact that Santos lied, and that was why he was expelled from Congress. However, if that had been his only shortcoming, he would still be a congressman and none of the almost daily media coverage attributed to Santos (or Devolder, or whatever his real name is) would have evoked so much attention, disgust or anger among people both in and outside of the halls of Congress. He wasn’t one of the very few to be expelled from the H of R because of his lies. I’m not even certain that his expulsion was due to his 23-count federal indictment. But he has been indicted, and that is not a minor issue, and in my estimation, if the author wanted to present the facts he should have focused on Santos’ crimes instead of his lies because lies are most likely an everyday occurrence with some members of Congress, but that doesn’t, and will never by itself get anyone expelled from either chamber. The much more significant aspects of this case are the allegations of conspiracy, wire fraud, falsification of official records, aggravated identity theft and credit card fraud that are part of the superseding federal indictment. And I for one hope that the next time we hear his name or see his face is when he is hauled into court to answer for all of his criminal behavior, because this man belongs in prison, not just shamed for his lies.
Bill C says
Thanks Skibum for your excellent research. My citation was outdated. Agreed- Professor Clementson distracted from the real issue- the crimes committed by Santos. With your indulgence, here is the superseding indictment which is even more damning:
“A 23-count superseding indictment was filed today in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, charging George Anthony Devolder Santos, better known as “George Santos,” the United States Representative for the Third District of New York, with one count of conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States, two counts of wire fraud, two counts of making materially false statements to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), two counts of falsifying records submitted to obstruct the FEC, two counts of aggravated identity theft, and one count of access device fraud, in addition to the seven counts of wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, one count of theft of public funds, and two counts of making materially false statements to the United States House of Representatives that were charged in the original indictment.
Bill C says
George Santos used deceptive body language and spiffy clothing to sell his lies. But that is not why he was expelled from Congress. The US Attorney charging statement: “A 13-count indictment was unsealed today in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York charging George Anthony Devolder Santos… with seven counts of wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, one count of theft of public funds, and two counts of making materially false statements to the House of Representatives.”
Laurel says
House Speaker Mike Johnson, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik and House GOP Whip Tom Emmer voted to keep Santos. Two Democrats voted to keep him in Congress remarking that it should be up to the people of Santo’s district.
Now, how anyone can believe that Trump is honest is beyond reason. His body language, as well as his speech, blatantly gives him away.
Atwp says
And he was a Republican, love to see Republicans fall and get kicked out of office just love it. Why is it so hard to send Trump to prison.
Sherry says
In listening to the Santos supporters in Congress. . . it is clear to me that too many of the willfully ignorant choose to ignore the fact that unethical acts are often NOT illegal.
My question is, what took them so long to expel this complete fraud? As a high tech recruiter for over 25 years, I can tell you that just the “completely fabricated” resume. . . which was revealed months ago. . . would have been an immediate “firing offense” at most companies.
Members of the “extreme right” in the Republican party have thrown away their moral code and could care less about credible facts, truth, ethics, honor and integrity. They would vote to keep a convicted criminal in office if it served their agenda of holding onto “power” at all costs. This is the very definition of corruption and unfortunately it runs very, very deep in our government at all levels. . . especially with those Republicans on the “extreme right”!!!
Skibum says
You are absolutely correct, Sherry regarding the fact that the mere embellishment or outright fabrication of a resume not only would, but has resulted in people losing their jobs. And it is my firm belief that any position that when a person is first appointed requires them to stand and raise their right hand and swear an oath of office, those positions have a higher ethical requirement and responsibility. Whether the position be a law enforcement officer, a judge, or an elected official, it should not take an actual criminal conviction to boot someone in such a position out of their job when there has been a serious ethical lapse. And there is no doubt that even the admitted behavior that Santos is acknowledging crossed that line. And for the House members who wanted him to remain in Congress simply because he was one more person with an (R) behind his name that would give the GOP more power and control, they are lacking in integrity and don’t deserve to serve as elected members of Congress either.
Sherry says
It seems to me that the author of this article is pointing out that we should not be voting for a person simply because they are able to “act” in a way that is psychologically appealing. There are many, many charming “con artists” out there, and apparently our political parties, on both sides, are doing very little (if any) vetting of candidates. . . or, they are just looking the other way. The need to do our own independent research will become even more vital as AI infiltrates what we read on the internet. . . which makes choosing credible news outlets with professional journalists even more important today, and in the future.