The increasingly vitriolic tone of American politics has prompted a crucial question: why do politicians resort to personal attacks? New research suggests the answer isn’t about winning arguments or swaying voters, but rather about securing media attention. A study coauthored by University of Notre Dame political scientist Marc Jacob reveals a striking disconnect between antagonistic rhetoric and traditional measures of political success, indicating that some politicians are prioritizing visibility over substantive legislative function.
The study, published in PNAS Nexus, introduces the concept of the “conflict entrepreneur”—a legislator who strategically employs personal attacks to garner media coverage. This isn’t about genuine disagreement on policy, Jacob explains, but a new communication style driven by the incentives of the modern media landscape. “Usually when we think about conflict in politics, it’s about political parties and candidates disagreeing on issues to discuss them and arrive at a compromise,” he said. “But we are seeing an increasing trend that is not about policy anymore.”
The Attention Economy of Political Insults
Researchers analyzed 2.2 million public statements made by members of the 118th US Congress (January 3, 2023 – January 3, 2025), including floor speeches, press releases, social media posts, and newsletters. They then linked this data to media coverage, campaign finance records, and electoral outcomes. Using a large language model, the team distinguished between legitimate policy debate and attacks on a colleague’s character. The findings were clear: personal attacks are strongly correlated with increased media coverage, but not with fundraising, vote share, legislative success, or personal wealth.
The data revealed an asymmetry in the leverage of personal attacks. While both parties engage in this behavior, Republicans delivered them 2.7 times more frequently than Democrats. Personal attacks were 1.3 times more common in the House of Representatives than in the Senate. This suggests differing dynamics and incentives within the two chambers of Congress.
Visibility Over Victory: The Cost of Conflict
The most significant finding, according to Jacob, is the lack of correlation between combative rhetoric and traditional political gains. A legislator who dedicates just 5% of their communication to personal attacks receives comparable cable news coverage to a colleague who focuses 45% of their time on substantive policy debate. The study found that the 25 most combative members of Congress receive more cable news attention than the 75 least combative members combined. On social media, posts containing insults are shared far more frequently—an average of 606 reposts versus 244 for policy-focused posts.
However, this increased visibility comes at a cost. The research indicates that “conflict entrepreneurs” are less likely to engage in policy discussion, co-sponsor legislation, or receive assignments to prestigious standing committees. “These findings suggest that politicians are using the attacks as a strategy to become part of the national political debate without relying on conventional means of legislative work and policymaking,” Jacob explained.
Beyond Polarization: A Career Path to Celebrity
The study challenges the common assumption that incivility is simply a reflection of a legislator’s polarized district. Researchers found no correlation between a legislator’s use of personal insults and the partisan leanings of their constituents. In fact, many of the most abrasive legislators represent districts with comparatively moderate electorates. This suggests that the motivation isn’t necessarily to appeal to a base, but to cultivate a personal brand and attract media attention.
This observation aligns with a quote from a retired member of Congress included in the study: “The most recent additions to Congress don’t care about policy; they care about getting attention.” This suggests a shift in priorities for some, where media celebrity has become a primary career goal, eclipsing traditional measures of political success like policy influence or institutional power.
The Role of Media and the Future of Discourse
The researchers argue that the media plays a crucial role in perpetuating this dynamic. The current media landscape, driven by an “attention economy,” often prioritizes conflict and sensationalism, inadvertently rewarding politicians who engage in personal attacks. “Most of the communications made by legislators are focused on policy,” Jacob noted, “But it is fair to say there is an overemphasis by the media, which unduly covers legislators who attack others. This attention incentivizes people to engage in incivility if the only way to break through is with insults.”
The study’s authors emphasize that this trend poses a significant threat to democratic norms. They call for a shift in incentives, urging political party leadership and media gatekeepers to prioritize and reward substantive policy debate rather than personal attacks. “It’s time to reward those who advance policy and to stop promoting personal attacks as political entertainment,” Jacob said, “and the media should reflect on what is truly newsworthy. The health and stability of American democracy depend on it.”
Looking ahead, the researchers plan to continue monitoring these trends and exploring potential interventions to promote more constructive political discourse. The next phase of their research will focus on analyzing the impact of social media algorithms on the spread of divisive rhetoric and identifying strategies to counter the incentives for conflict entrepreneurship.
What do politicians gain from personal attacks? The answer, it seems, is not power or policy wins, but a fleeting moment in the spotlight. Share your thoughts on this evolving political landscape in the comments below.
