“Why harp on the facts, it’s the exaggerations that makes a tale interesting!” A favourite aunt once exclaimed when I tried to fact-check a funny family story she was narrating to a huge, giggling audience two decades ago. Each member of my clan cheered her on and it was the start of a delightful evening.

Donald Trump’s interview with Elon Musk sent me back in time as I waded through the conversation. Both Trump and Musk know the importance of exaggerations in any narrative. The Indic epic poets knew it. Herodotus knew it. And so did Boccaccio, Chaucer, and Shakespeare. Trump’s exaggerations, ably supported by his interviewer, made for a good story for his supporters. All 60 million of them he thought were tuned into the live broadcast. This number is an exaggeration, too.

A Risk Worth Taking

But why does Trump exaggerate all the time despite a bevvy of fact-checkers waiting to give each syllable uttered by him a hang-draw-quarter treatment? Political storytelling is assessed under different rubrics than literary texts. Is this a risk worth taking? The answer is a resounding yes. 

Trump capitalises on narcissism when he indulges in making outlandish claims. To understand this link better, let’s look at what the experts have to say about narcissism. “For the narcissistically involved person, there is only one reality: that of his own thought processes, feelings and needs. The world outside is not experienced or perceived objectively, i.e., as existing in its own terms, conditions and needs,” Erich Fromm proposed in the 1950s.  Fromm also posited that narcissists have a stronger sense of entitlement. This lays bare the reasons behind Trump’s constant resort to exaggerations.

Narcissism And Politics

All politicians are narcissistic in some measure; this trait allows them to, first, enter politics, and then stay in it. Narcissism, however, has a highly specialised function for certain political ideologies. The interlinkages of narcissism with the sense of entitlement are important to understand while analysing why Trump’s narcissism works for him politically. A study conducted by political scientists Peter K. Hatemi and Zoltân Fazekas found that “In the 2016 election, higher entitlement reflected the mood of the general public, certainly among the working class, which voted Republican in greater numbers”. Hatemi and Fazekas propose that narcissism may have a role to play in the rise of populist politics. Trump’s constituents and those curious about him are offered a blanket of familiarity.

In simple terms, Trump’s worldview, presented with an exaggerated sense of self-importance and confidence, wins people over. People who are ever so anxious about their entitlements being eroded. And this is why statements like the following work: “Our crime rate’s going through the roof.” Who cares whether the FBI’s reports show a consistent decline in crime levels since 2020, his last presidential year? Add to it a provocative claim about Kamala Harris, “She wants to release all the prisoners that are in detention, and some of these guys are really bad. That just came out today” and you have successfully created a sense of impending doom.

Trump, The Rescuer

Trump is relying on honest Americans to believe that their entitlements are being eaten away by outsiders. Thus, he makes exaggerated claims like, “You have millions of people coming in a month” and “I believe it’s over 20 million people came into our country” about illegal immigrants. He wants people to believe that they are living under extraordinary circumstances by saying, “I think we have the worst inflation we’ve had in 100 years. They say it’s 48 years, I don’t believe it”. Shrinking entitlements being further nibbled on by outsiders-which one of us, narcissist or not, would find that desirable?

People need to despair for the narcissist to, then, brandishing his exaggerated belief in self, come in for the rescue. Trump wants people to believe that he, and only he, can solve these crises. Just the way only he could “solve” the Iran and China crises for the United States. “Iran was broke because I told China, ‘If you buy from Iran…’ Oil, it’s all about the oil, that’s where the money is. ‘…If you buy oil from Iran, you’re not going to do any business with the United States.’ And I meant it, and they said, ‘We’ll pass,’ and they didn’t buy oil.” America can be made great again only when it is unequivocally established that it is in ruins. And it can be made great again only by Trump.

Trump’s conversation with Musk, therefore, needs to be seen not as a “rambling” one which has significantly undermined his presidential prospects but as a tested strategy aimed at his constituents and swing voters. Whether it will fetch him a repeat of the 2016 outcome remains to be seen. 
Till then, let’s get lost in the meandering world of storytelling. 

(Nishtha Gautam is a Delhi-based author and academic.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) is a constitutional body established under Article 315 of the Indian Constitution. It plays a crucial role in the recruitment of officers for the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), the Indian Foreign Service (IFS), the Indian Police Service (IPS), and several other Group A and Group B services. It is India’s premier central recruiting agency responsible for conducting examinations and selecting candidates for various civil services positions within the Indian government. In fact, the civil services exam is one of the most prestigious and challenging tests in the world. 

Notably, the other function of the UPSC includes giving advice on the quantum of punishment to be awarded to a deviant civil servant. In recent days, both the UPSC and the system of its recruitment have come under public criticism, thanks to incidents of abuse and misuse of quota by a few candidates. This has put into question the credibility of not only the examination process but also of the UPSC as an institution.

The UPSC examination system, pattern and process have often been called outdated. Going from preliminary exams to the final result of the interview round takes almost a year. The curriculum and exam pattern, which has remained unchanged for decades now, don’t align with the needs of governance and public administration in today’s world. Even the syllabus is criticised for not reflecting contemporary realities. This mismatch creates a gap between the skills required in today’s world and what the examination actually tests.

Another significant criticism of the UPSC examination is its tendency to promote a culture of rote learning. The UPSC’s heavy reliance on factual knowledge has led to the rise of “crammers”, that is, candidates who excel in memorising information but may lack deeper understanding, critical thinking abilities, creativity and a spirit of innovation. This leads to the selection of individuals who are less suited to the dynamic and complex nature of public administration. If you are very good at cramming facts and vomiting them on page on the day of the exam, you have got yourself a qualification for the mains.

That’s not all. The unpredictability of the UPSC exams, particularly the prelims test, adds to the stress and uncertainty faced by aspirants. Questions can vary widely in difficulty and scope, making it challenging for candidates to prepare effectively. This often benefits those who are better at guessing rather than those who possess a deep understanding of subjects.

Lack of transparency in the evaluation process is also a concern. Candidates have limited access to their answer sheets and don’t know the rationale behind the scores they are awarded. This opacity fuels suspicion about the fairness of the evaluation process. 

Even though the selection process is rigorous, the UPSC has been criticised for failing to produce competent and effective officers consistently. The need for reform is evident. Changes should aim to foster creativity, transparency, and a genuine understanding of the complexities of public service, ensuring that the best and brightest are selected to serve the nation. Such reforms would include measures to assess practical skills, such as case studies, simulations, and problem-solving exercises. It is also suggested that candidates be given access to their answer sheets and a detailed breakdown of scores. This can include explanations for marks awarded, helping candidates understand their performance and identify areas that need improvement.

The current system also does not adequately assess candidates’ personality traits and soft skills. Thus, there’s a need to enhance the Personality Test (interview round) and include methods that can assess leadership qualities, emotional intelligence, and ethical decision-making. Dedicated sections on ethics, integrity, and governance in the examination and personality test can help promote a culture of ethical public service and ensure that the selected candidates have a strong moral compass. And, the interview board must include a jury comprising the common public too, as it is they who are the ‘end-sufferers’ in this system.

Systemically, the UPSC, though an independent constitutional body responsible for the recruitment of all central civil service. This should not be the case; the members must include representation from all services. As an extension of this, the marks awarded during training at the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy Of Administration (LBSNAA) should also be considered so as to ascertain the suitability of a candidate for a particular job.

Finally, one of the most neglected duties of the UPSC – giving advice about the nature and quantum of punishment for a deviant civil servant – should be discharged in a timely manner. The UPSC is slow, tardy and status quoist in its approach. We need a faster, more transparent and clearer procedure so that erring bureaucrats are given appropriate punishments.

 It’s time to revive the lost faith in this sacred institution.  

(The author is a Delhi-based columnist and commentator) 

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author