A few elected officials spend their time creating conflict, and it’s a problem for democracy
Americans of both parties are increasingly concerned about democratic backsliding and a loss of trust in our institutions. They have a negative view of Congress, with only a quarter expressing a positive opinion of the chambers, according to recent Pew data. This pessimistic sentiment is not surprising, as we are constantly exposed to news of partisan gridlock and politicians blaming the other side. The reality is that we hear the same clips of the same lawmakers replayed by the media, but we know very little about what all 535 federally elected officials are saying and doing while in office.
America’s Political Pulse, an interactive tool by the Polarization Research Lab (PRL), for the first time exposes which elected officials inflame partisan tensions and those who focus on the business of governing. PRL is directed by Sean Westwood, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College, and Yphtach Lelkes, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Communication at the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania.
Our analysis draws on more than 1.5 million texts from current federal elected officials. To achieve this, we collect all public forms of speech—floor speeches, newsletters, press releases, and Twitter/X—and use bespoke AI models to classify the text into categories: personal attacks, constructive debate, policy discussion, accomplishments, and bipartisanship.
Legislators who spend more of their time on conflict are less-effective policymakers, introducing and sponsoring less legislation than their colleagues.
Criticizing the records of political opponents is a longstanding, healthy practice that is essential for vibrant democratic representation. “There has been a noticeable shift from discussions centered on policy to exchanges filled with personal attacks and defamation, which not only serve no constructive purpose but also threaten the stability of American politics,” explains Westwood.
Westwood continues: “A thriving democracy hinges on civil debate on policy issues rather than inflammatory language that worsens polarization, and politicians need to be held accountable for this behavior.” When more time is spent on conflict, especially on the congressional floor, there is less time for substantive policy debate.
Elected officials who are working for their states and districts should be rewarded for their efficacy and civility. They can use these data to show that they get things done for their constituents, rather than seeking media attention.
The public hears a lot from a very small number of individuals in Congress who are firebrands. This is problematic because these clips get replayed over and over, forming misperceptions about Congress. The obvious conflict entrepreneurs stand out because of their focus on building their brand around conflict, but our data reveal that the most problematic members of Congress are still a relatively small group.
In new research using these data, we find that most federally elected officials either never make a personal attack (66; 12.2%) or do so in less than 1% of their communication (350; 64.8%). These representatives focus on the business of governing and advocating for the policy positions that their constituents elected them for. Although these elected officials do not receive the same media attention as their conflict-driven colleagues, they achieve more for their constituents while demonstrating civil discourse. PRL’s new dashboard is the first of its kind to offer evidence-backed data on who these civil lawmakers are, and they should be rewarded for their behavior.
Citizens can use PRL’s data to see if their elected official is working for their state and their district or harming democracy, and they can feel confident using this rigorous, real-time data to hold officials responsible in their giving and at the ballot box.
Effective institutions and public trust in those institutions lie at the heart of democracy. PRL’s data show that most elected officials from both parties spend their time working on the business of running the government. The current media landscape, paired with a small number of firebrands in Congress, creates a harmful cocktail of nonstop news of incivility and dysfunction. Holding the conflict entrepreneurs accountable and elevating effective lawmakers is critical to slowing the tide of toxic polarization in America. We hope that engaged citizens and organizations use our rigorous, real-time data on what elected officials say and do while in office to ensure that those in our government represent civility and not conflict.