A new study co-authored by University of Notre Dame political scientist Marc Jacob reveals that personal insults in American politics primarily serve to generate media attention rather than legislative success. Published in PNAS Nexus, the research analyzes the 118th U.S. Congress to determine why elites engage in divisive rhetoric. The findings suggest that visibility often supersedes traditional policy goals for certain politicians seeking national recognition and influence. The study addresses widespread concerns regarding the degradation of public discourse among political leaders.
Researchers found that personal attacks are strongly associated with greater media coverage but show no correlation with fundraising, vote margins, or personal wealth. The concept of the conflict entrepreneur describes a legislator who disproportionately levels personal attacks on the integrity of their peers. This behavior represents a shift from policy disagreement to character assassination in modern democratic politics. Such rhetoric undermines the substantive nature of legislative deliberation.
To map this concept, the team conducted a large-scale descriptive analysis of the 118th U.S. Congress which convened from January 2023 to January 2025. They linked a comprehensive dataset of 2.2 million public statements to records of media coverage and campaign finance. Using a large language model, the team systematically distinguished between legitimate critical debate and personal attacks on character. This methodological approach allowed for a granular understanding of communication styles across the legislative branch.
The researchers found an asymmetric pattern where personal attacks occur 2.7 times more frequently by Republicans than by Democrats. Personal attacks also occur 1.3 times more frequently in the House of Representatives than in the Senate. This data highlights a specific distribution of incivility across different legislative bodies and political parties. The disparity suggests specific strategic incentives within the Republican caucus or House structure.
A legislator who devotes just 5% of their communication to personal attacks receives a level of cable news coverage comparable to a colleague dedicating 45% to substantive policy debate. The paper notes that the 25 most combative members of Congress receive more cable news attention than the 75 least combative members combined. Social media posts containing personal insults are shared far more frequently than those focusing on policy with an average of 606 reposts versus 244. This disparity highlights the disproportionate reward system for conflict in digital spaces.
This high visibility in the media appears to exact a significant legislative price on the offenders within the congressional system. The more frequently a member of Congress uses personal attacks, the less likely they are to engage in substantive policy discussion. Conflict entrepreneurs are less likely to co-sponsor legislation and receive fewer assignments to prestigious standing committees. Consequently, their ability to pass laws diminishes despite their increased public profile.
The study challenges the assumption that incivility is a reflection of a legislator’s polarized district or constituent pressure. The authors found no correlation between a legislator’s use of personal insults and the baseline partisan animosity in their constituency. Many of the most abrasive legislators come from districts with comparatively moderate electorates rather than extreme ones. This indicates that elite behavior is not always a direct response to voter demands.
This finding suggests that for a small cohort of elites, a politician’s primary career goal is not the traditional trifecta of re-election or policy influence. A retired member of Congress noted in the paper that recent additions to Congress do not care about policy but care about getting attention. This dynamic where visibility is decoupled from political accountability poses a significant threat to democratic norms. It indicates a shift where media celebrity replaces legislative achievement as a primary currency of power.
Researchers conclude that the primary incentive structure is maintained by a media attention economy that prioritizes conflict over substantive governance. Most communications made by legislators remain focused on policy, yet media gatekeepers unduly cover legislators who attack others. Political party leadership and media gatekeepers have a central role to play in shifting the incentive structure. They must decide whether to reward those who advance policy and stop promoting personal attacks as political entertainment.
If left unchecked, the corrosive nature of conflict entrepreneurs may continue to erode democratic discourse in the United States. The health and stability of American democracy depend on rewarding those who advance policy instead of promoting personal attacks. The study serves as a warning to political institutions regarding the future of public debate. Without intervention, the erosion of norms could lead to further instability in government functions.
