Recent research published in PNAS Nexus Politicians who frequently use personal insults receive significant media attention but show evidence that they are less successful legislatively and electorally than policy-oriented politicians. This suggests a shift in political strategy, with some lawmakers prioritizing national visibility and celebrity status over traditional legislative duties. These findings highlight a growing trend in American politics in which the pursuit of media spotlight sustains toxic forms of public debate.
Research consistently shows that American voters dislike political incivility and prefer that lawmakers focus on substantive policy discussions. Despite this clear public preference, hostile rhetoric, including slurs and character attacks, appears to be on the rise in American politics.
“Everywhere you look – in the news media, on social media, and even in Congressional debates – it appears that at least some politicians are becoming more insulting in their rhetoric,” said study author Marc S. Jacob, an assistant professor at the University of Notre Dame.
“These personal attacks have nothing to do with substantive policy discussions and undermine the substantive discussions needed to solve the urgent challenges facing the United States and other democracies, from infrastructure to building economic opportunity. What we wanted to bring to light is how common it is for members of Congress to prefer attacking others for personal reasons rather than having a real commitment to policy, which we call conflict entrepreneurs.And are there any concrete benefits that conflict entrepreneurs gain from attacking others personally?
The researchers wanted to test the assumption that negative rhetoric actually brings tangible rewards to politicians. Many commentators assume that hostile speech leads to increased campaign contributions and increased chances of electoral victory. Scientists hoped to explain the persistence of this aggressive political language by examining the true motivations behind divisive speech.
To investigate this behavior, researchers analyzed a large dataset of elite political communication. They collected more than 2.2 million public statements by members of the 118th U.S. Congress. The sample included daily floor speeches, press releases, official newsletters, and posts on social media platform X (formerly known as Twitter).
The scientists fed these statements into an artificial intelligence tool called a large-scale language model. Large-scale language models are computer programs trained on vast amounts of text to recognize patterns and classify languages. They programmed the model to specifically identify personal attacks in political speech.
A personal attack was defined as a statement that targets a specific individual or group and criticizes their personal characteristics, morality, or integrity. This is different from important policy debates, which involve arguing against the merits of particular laws or government measures. Researchers found that this advanced model was far better than older text analysis tools at distinguishing between legitimate policy criticism and actual personal insults.
The scientists then linked these classified statements to recordings of media coverage, including cable TV transcripts. They also linked text data to campaign finance records from the Federal Election Commission. Finally, they cross-referenced the statement with 2022 midterm election results and official financial disclosure reports.
The data reveals that a small group of parliamentarians known as “conflict entrepreneurs” are responsible for the majority of these personal attacks. Personal insults occur in both political parties, but are more frequent among conservative Republicans. The majority of representatives from both parties continue to devote most of their communications to substantive policy issues rather than insults.
The scientists also tracked exactly who was receiving these verbal assaults. They found that instead of focusing on lesser-known politicians, lawmakers consistently targeted opposition leaders, including presidential candidates. Opposing political parties as a whole were also frequent targets of these insults.
Data shows that lawmakers tend to change their tone based on the platform they use. Personal attacks occur approximately three times more often on social media than during formal speeches on the floor of the House or Senate. Official press releases and newsletters contain a moderate amount of derogatory language.
Researchers found that making personal attacks was strongly correlated with increased media exposure. Lawmakers who frequently insult their colleagues receive significantly more coverage on major cable news networks. It also significantly increases engagement on social media platforms, such as likes and shares.
“It’s remarkable that conflict entrepreneurs get attention for insulting others,” Jacob told Cypost. “Congress members who spend just 5 percent of their communications on personal attacks receive a level of cable news coverage comparable to colleagues who devote 45 percent of their time to substantive policy discussions. The 25 most combative Congress members receive more cable news attention than the 75 least combative Congress members combined.”
Despite this significant increase in visibility, researchers did not find a corresponding positive relationship with traditional political rewards. Entrepreneurs in conflict will not raise any further funding from out-of-state or local donors. Nor do they win elections by large margins compared to their policy-oriented brethren, even after controlling for the intensity of competition in their local constituencies.
These high-profile politicians also tend to be less effective in actual legislation. The data shows that conflict-driven legislators are less likely to co-sponsor legislation. Allocations to prestigious legislative committees have also declined, suggesting that party leaders do not reward this behavior with institutional power.
“In short, conflict entrepreneurship undermines the way elected officials interact with each other to discuss policy, leaving the public with only news of unconstructive insults instead of letting them know where their representatives stand on important issues,” Jacob said.
The researchers also looked at changes in politicians’ personal net worth over their tenure. A widespread suspicion is that the congressman is using his media fame to line his own pockets. The scientists found no evidence of immediate financial enrichment associated with their hostile rhetoric during their time in Congress.
The scientists also compared politicians’ statements to voters’ political attitudes. They used a large survey dataset of 140,000 Americans to estimate the level of partisan hostility in each congressional district. This analysis shows that there is no correlation between the use of insults by legislators and the actual level of partisan hostility among local voters.
This disconnect suggests that conflict entrepreneurs are not simply reflecting the anger of their local districts. Instead, it appears to be adopting a confrontational style to cultivate a national media audience. This form of discourse that seeks celebrity status can be detrimental to democratic norms.
Although this study relies on a large dataset, text-based classification systems have several limitations. Artificial intelligence models cannot easily detect implicit attacks, sarcasm, visual memes, or coded language. This means the actual number of personal attacks may be higher than the number reported by researchers.
“Our results are descriptive, not causal. There may be other factors related to both MPs’ insult choices and electoral performance,” Jacob noted. “For example, conflict entrepreneurs also tend to be more extreme in ideology. But it’s hard to think of a third factor that explains why conflict entrepreneurs attract much higher levels of media attention than their policy-oriented colleagues.”
“Entrepreneurs in conflict are being elected not only in safe districts but also in competitive districts. It remains to be seen in the upcoming midterm elections whether entrepreneurs in competitive seats will be confirmed or if voters will object to these personal attacks.”
Scientists plan to continue monitoring political polarization through the Polarization Institute. These future studies will help clarify how divisive rhetoric ultimately affects democratic institutions and voter behavior.
“This research is part of the Polarization Institute’s research, which studies polarization between politicians and the public in the United States. The Institute will continue to study why the public and elected officials are divided along partisan lines and how that affects American democracy. The Institute also offers tools to track the speech of lawmakers and candidates across the country: https://americaspoliticalpulse.com/elites.”
The study, “Entrepreneurs of Conflict: A Descriptive Analysis of When and How Political Elites Use Divisive Rhetoric,” was authored by Mark S. Jacob, Iftach Lerkes, and Sean J. Westwood.
