Last week, the Supreme Court struck down most of the tariffs President Donald Trump had imposed on imports from other countries. After the verdict, Trump referred to the justices as “fools” and “lapdogs.”
His attorney general, Pam Bondi, called a Democratic congressman a “washed-up loser” during a congressional hearing. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer labeled Trump a “total jackass.”
And on Truth Social, Trump attacked Representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib as “Low IQ,” “LUNATICS,” “mentally deranged and sick,” and suggested they “should be institutionalized.”
Was last week a new low in American political discourse? No, it’s just a colorful illustration of how U.S. politics currently operates.
Driver and Product
Donald Trump is both a product and a driving force of this style and arguably its most visible expression. He is the first president in recent memory who does not even attempt to reach out to the other side. Previous presidents have tried and failed, but Trump’s style has always been to double down that is, to divide and conquer.
Polarization Inc.
But to treat Trump as the sole cause of polarization and hyper partisanship would be misleading. He thrives in this environment because the environment rewards this kind of behavior. It is useful to remember his very first primary campaign in 2015/2016 in that respect, which was de facto a hostile takeover of the Republican Party.
Polarization has become both modus operandi and business model. Politicians compete for media attention because it leads to fundraising dollars. And it’s often the most outrageous statements and behavior that get media attention. This is particularly true in a highly segmented and politically polarized media ecosystem such as the one in the U.S.
If you are one of the more than 400 members of Congress, how do you get media coverage? Drafting a bipartisan amendment will not do it. Interrupting a presidential State of the Union address almost certainly will. A viral confrontation can generate more exposure in minutes than months of legislative work.
The shrillest behavior is not an accident. It is an adaptation to incentives.
The Social Media Effect
Social media has intensified this dynamic. Platforms are built around engagement, and engagement is driven primarily by emotion, especially anger and outrage. Users cluster in ideological bubbles, consuming information that confirms prior beliefs and hardens feelings about the opposing side.
Nuance obviously performs poorly in such an environment. Over time, that architecture shapes behavior. Politicians become more combative because confrontation travels further. Citizens become harsher because reinforcement is constant.
In short, social media has made us all meaner.
Voters Have their Share of Responsibility
All of my clients have the same goal; that is, they want to get elected. Politicians respond to the political demand and to the incentives set by media and ultimately by voters. Increasingly, politicians who attempt compromise face suspicion from their own base. Those who articulate anger most forcefully, on the other hand, are rewarded with applause, donations, and safety from a primary challenge.
As long as expressing outrage is a safer way for politicians to get reelected than striking deals, outrage will remain the rational choice.
Polarization Fatigue
One might think that at some point in time fatigue will set in and that the public will tire of the constant noise, gridlock, and permanent escalation. Eventually, voters will ask again for leaders that can actually get something done. But that moment has clearly not yet arrived. It seems to me that voters are currently very focused on voting against something, without too much consideration of what they are actually voting for.
It Doesn’t Have to Be This Way
The U.S. obviously has a tremendous cultural influence on countries around the globe. And in that sense, I’m afraid that the current state of political discourse in the U.S. shows other countries where they may be headed. Just look at the term “fake news” that was coined by Trump and conquered the political vocabulary around the world very rapidly.
But it doesn’t have to be this way. Consider the televised debate before the last general election in the United Kingdom. For an hour and a half, Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer debated the big, controversial issues facing their country. They disagreed sharply, but they did so without dehumanizing one another. In other words, they behaved like serious and educated adults.
A Choice, Not a Fate
The current state of American political discourse is neither inevitable nor irreversible. It is the cumulative result of incentives: media economics, social media algorithms, campaign finance pressures, and voter behavior.
If the political marketplace continues to reward emotional maximalism, politicians will continue to supply it. If voters begin to reward effectiveness and common ground, the system will recalibrate.
Political culture ultimately reflects what it rewards.