Insults Get Attention, Not Results, for Some U.S. Lawmakers

A new study offers one of the most comprehensive analyses to date of how and why U.S. legislators deploy personal insults in public discourse — and what they stand to gain from it. The paper,
"Entrepreneurs of Conflict: A Descriptive Analysis of When and How Political Elites Use Divisive Rhetoric," examines more than 2.2 million public statements from members of the 118th U.S. Congress, including floor speeches, social media posts, newsletters, and press releases. 

Using a large language model (LLM) to distinguish personal attacks from policy-focused criticism, the authors identify a subset of lawmakers they call “conflict entrepreneurs” — legislators who disproportionately use insults targeting the integrity or intellect of their peers. The findings reveal a stark pattern: while personal attacks occur in both parties, they are more frequent among Republican legislators and are strongly associated with greater media coverage, but show no corresponding positive relationship with fundraising, vote margins, legislative success, or personal wealth. 

“Traditional theories assume legislators are motivated by reelection, policy influence, or institutional power,” says Yphtach Lelkes, associate professor of communication and co-director of the Polarization Research Lab at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, and one of the study’s co-authors. “Our findings reveal a subset of lawmakers who appear to optimize for something different: attention.”

Despite widespread public disapproval of political incivility, the authors find that media visibility – not electoral or financial reward — is the primary incentive associated with personal attacks in Congress. This rhetoric is particularly relevant in cable news coverage and on social media. Legislators who use more personal insults receive roughly the same amount of media coverage as those who spend more time engaging in serious policy debate. The authors argue this dynamic has important implications for democratic accountability. While criticism of opponents’ records is a long-standing healthy feature of democratic debate, they note, the shift towards insults and defamation raises concerns about the resilience of democratic norms and can result in increased partisan animosity, support for political violence, and reduced political participation. 

“American voters regularly say they don’t like rude or disrespectful behavior in politics,” adds Lelkes. “However, because attention is the main reward, politicians keep behaving badly without losing elections, committee roles, fundraising power, or influence. To curb this trend, institutional and media gatekeepers are needed.” 

The authors conclude that stronger party leadership could help curb the problem by denying frequent offenders things like leadership roles, key committee seats, or campaign support. Journalists can also play a role by explaining and contextualizing inflammatory comments instead of treating them like entertainment. 

“If we don’t address conflict entrepreneurship, we risk normalizing behavior that erodes democratic accountability over time,” concludes Lelkes. “The more politics becomes a performance of provocation, the harder it becomes for citizens to hold their leaders to real standards.” 

"Entrepreneurs of Conflict: A Descriptive Analysis of When and How Political Elites Use Divisive Rhetoric" was conducted by Marc S. Jacob (University of Notre Dame), Yphtach Lelkes (University of Pennsylvania), and Sean J. Westwood (Dartmouth College) and published in PNAS Nexus.