Is it? I read the article specifically because of this comment, and I don't see what you claim. I do see recent American political history used as an example (Trump, extensively), but it also uses a cheating sports team, as well as briefly Clinton too.

Noting Trump as a habitual liar is not contentious, and so it's not propaganda at all. For those who support Trump, as reading between the lines you might (? this is an interpretation of your claim it is 'cheap propaganda' and 'thinly veiled as psychology') it would be disingenuous to claim he doesn't and didn't lie (I note you did not say this, btw); the thing is that _he's supported even though he does lie._ And that's exactly the phenomenon this article is about.