By Christopher Miller
Blame was cast far and wide after the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump. Obviously, the shooter was to blame, but depending on your perspective, you also blamed Democrats, Republicans or both for the highly charged partisan rhetoric that has heated up American political life and, for at least some people, made violence seem like an option.
While the event was shocking, the underlying mood has been building for quite a while. The political times Americans are living through are increasingly described as a “crisis of democracy.” Much has been written about growing polarization, reduced public trust in small-d democratic institutions and long-standing principles of behavior often thought of as “democratic norms,” and increasing levels of public support for autocratic ideas and leaders.
Differences over politics and policy have a long history of being divisive, of course. But it’s one thing to disagree over substantive matters such as tax rates or foreign aid and something very different to undermine the legitimacy of your opponents.
It’s the difference between framing those who disagree with you as fair and equal competitors or as enemies who must be defeated. In that context, attempts at cooperation and compromise can be perceived as betrayal, and it becomes easier to rationalize ways that long-standing norms – including but hardly limited to the peaceful transfer of power – and even laws can be ignored or subverted.
As a scholar of American politics and policy, I’ve studied the causes and effects of trends like these, which make it increasingly difficult even for the most dedicated public officials to govern effectively. It’s no secret that Congress has been growing more dysfunctional and less productive for many years.
But how much are members of Congress themselves contributing to these problems with their own public rhetoric?
As it turns out, quite a lot.
Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
Pushback against democracy
These antidemocratic trends aren’t limited to the U.S., but when they are observed here, the first recourse of many commentators is to attribute them to Trump. Scholars such as Kathleen Hall Jamieson have identified distinctive characteristics in the former president’s public rhetoric that spurn expectations, dodge accountability and violate democratic norms.
Trump has attempted to cast doubt on – and overturn – the results of a national election and more recently has been attempting to undermine confidence in the justice system.
However, no one person is solely responsible for these trends. Shifts like these are shaped by the tone and content of public rhetoric from many sources – prominent among them, other political leaders.
Over the years, many scholars have studied how candidates and officeholders communicate with the public and found patterns of negativity, incivility and irrational language. You could call this “politics as usual,” but together they are critical components of a larger shift toward antidemocratic rhetoric, the kind of language that leaves policy and ideology behind and risks turning politics into blood sport.
I worked with a colleague to find a way to identify and measure this kind of language among members of Congress.
All the tweets
We gathered every official tweet – more than a million overall – from members of the 117th Congress from the beginning of 2020 to the middle of 2022. This spanned the 2020 presidential campaign year, the election and its aftermath, on through the beginning of the midterm cycle.
A computer can read text faster than any human, but it takes human awareness to identify phrases such as “count every legal vote” as provocative rather than innocuous. We built a lexicon to identify antidemocratic rhetoric, and our computer-aided analysis of the tweets revealed four key types of words and phrases that do not involve any substantive argument over policy or governance but do include one or more of the following:
- Delegitimizing political opponents and the democratic norms and practices that grant them respect. This rhetorical style is most likely to direct explicitly disdainful language at democracy itself. Some notable examples would include “fake news,” “woke mob,” “stop the steal” and “a republic not a democracy.”
- Autocratic thinking, embracing strongman-style leadership and other authoritarian traits, with contempt for perceived weakness. Examples include terms such as “weak leader,” “take power” and “so-called voting rights.”
- Conspiracy theories, displaying an inability to distinguish truth from mis- and disinformation, with a tendency to see anything and everything as a nefarious threat. Examples include terms such as “deep state,” “groomer,” “cabal” and “socialist agenda.”
- Ethno-nationalism, including racism, xenophobia and other forms of bigotry that demonize marginalized groups – promoting an “us vs. them” sensibility and a narrow view of what qualifies as a real American identity. This sort of rhetoric is especially likely to be veiled rather than explicit and includes terms such as “open borders,” “real America” and “take our country back.”
Our analysis found the use of antidemocratic rhetoric increasing steadily over time throughout our study period, with a significant increase following the 2020 election.
And while some observers hoped that the aftermath of Jan. 6, 2021, might provide an opportunity to cool political tempers, that didn’t happen, at least in Congress. Instead, antidemocratic rhetoric increased again after the attack on the U.S. Capitol and continued at high levels thereafter.
A classic example:
U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks, a Republican from Alabama, posted that tweet on Dec. 10, 2021, pulling off a hat trick: delegitimization, ethno-nationalism and conspiracy theory all in a single tweet.
Congress at odds with itself
This kind of language wasn’t being used by every member of Congress, of course. In fact, only 41 members of Congress used identifiable antidemocratic rhetoric very frequently – more than 300 times per member over 2½ years.
But that’s enough to warrant attention.
While members from both parties used antidemocratic rhetoric in their tweets, Republicans used it more frequently, by a ratio of more than 4 to 1. GOP members appeared to be targeting precisely the kind of voters to whom such language appeals strongly.
Male lawmakers also used antidemocratic rhetoric nearly twice as frequently as female members of Congress.
There wasn’t much variation between the Senate and the House, however, even though the House has developed more of a reputation for volatility in recent years.
Twitter has never been the entire political universe, and we’re still working to analyze more traditional forms of political communication, such as press releases and op-eds. Our early findings show trends similar to those found in the tweets.
None of this should be taken to denigrate Congress as a whole. But what’s clear – and unusual – is that many members of Congress have embraced styles of communication that effectively undermine not just their opponents but the very democratic systems that give legitimacy to their own positions of status and power.
This is not normal politics. It is not mere divisiveness, although American politics has indeed been growing more divisive for 30 years and more.
Antidemocratic rhetoric transgresses long-standing norms both of political tolerance and of constitutional limits on power. Without these norms and limits as guardrails, democracy is not likely to be self-sustaining.
Such rhetoric not only makes it more difficult for political officials to serve the public good, but by excluding from the political process those participants deemed unworthy, it negates the very idea of a shared public good that’s worth serving.
Christopher Miller is Visiting Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Richmond.
The Conversation arose out of deep-seated concerns for the fading quality of our public discourse and recognition of the vital role that academic experts could play in the public arena. Information has always been essential to democracy. It’s a societal good, like clean water. But many now find it difficult to put their trust in the media and experts who have spent years researching a topic. Instead, they listen to those who have the loudest voices. Those uninformed views are amplified by social media networks that reward those who spark outrage instead of insight or thoughtful discussion. The Conversation seeks to be part of the solution to this problem, to raise up the voices of true experts and to make their knowledge available to everyone. The Conversation publishes nightly at 9 p.m. on FlaglerLive.
nbr says
Well stated, because I disagree, I am NOT an Enemy to be silenced permanently. I am an opponent, to be spoken to rationally. I am NOT a traitor because I do not agree. Our system is based on compromise, ( discuss, debate, ) find that middle ground that’s works for all. We have lost sight of that guiding principal, guided by a small handful of lost souls.. I am exhausted of all the hate that is spewing out of some people mouth.
We need divine intervention, to put us back on the path for civil conduct in the political area.
Joe D says
I’m 70 years old…I was one of the FIRST 18 year old’s allowed to vote (“You can be sent to Vietnam, and die for your Country at 18, but you can’t VOTE” was the banner cry).
MOSTLY I voted Democratic, sometimes Republican…I tended to vote for the PERSON, not the PARTY…and invariably I would split my ticket for down ballot candidates. My argument was: If the current one you vote in for 4 years doesn’t do the job, you can vote them out in 4 years…how much DAMAGE can a disaster of a President/Senator/Congressman/Governor do in 4 years, was my belief…
Not after 2016… It looked to me that DEMOCRACY and the rule of LAW was thrown out the window! Conflicts of interest were IGNORED, discrimination was no longer subtly under the surface, it was brought FULLY out in the open…and SUPPORTED…And PERSONAL attacks:(color/race/gender/religion/sexual preference) became the NORMAL!
I couldn’t believe what was unfolding in front of my eyes. No longer was the middle class valued…nope…legislation and preferential treatment were aimed ONLY at the RICH and POWERFUL…with “hint” of Reagan’s DISASTROUS failure of TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS…as the justification.
Well this election will come down to who deserves to inherit AMERICA…the Privileged 1-3%, or a fair treatment for ALL regardless of their position at the top or the bottom of the income and power pyramid.
I too FEAR for AMERICA’S SOUL!
Al says
You were never a republican. You bought into the democrats class envy full on. I’m not rich but I’ve owned businesses and have always been surprised that the people you give a paycheck to always think you didn’t earn your’s. Why are illegals more valuable to the democrats than the people already here? If I broke into your house would you let me stay, no questions asked? Would you throw your children out the room so I could eat all the available food? Would you give me your credit card? If you answered yes to these then you’re a living POS, best I can say good luck as we’re the same age but in different universes.
The dude says
Yeah… you live in some crappy old boomer universe, and you want to force the rest of us to live there too.
We’re not going back.
Laurel says
Al: My husband was a lifelong Republican, from a Republican family. He changed to Independent when he felt his party drastically changed for the worse, and ditch all Republican values he learned about being a Republican. He still is Republican in his soul, but he doesn’t sound anything like you, so I don’t think you should determine who is, or was, Republican and who isn’t/wasn’t. You stated “You were never a republican.” “You bought into the democrats class envy full on.” I’m a lifelong Independent, and I disagree with your idea of what this so called “envy” is. How very self indulgent!
I believe immigrants should come here legally, and the bi-party attempt to make the law stronger should have never been thrown out to placate Trump. No one is throwing children out to feed you. Immigrants are not replacing us; we all come from immigrants. We still have the chance to fix this by bi-party agreement.
Sherry says
Very, very well stated, Joe D. Thank You!
Carole Roller says
Our Country has been misrepresented. We stared out as a Republic and our Country is called a Democracy. At this time in history it is neither we are a Corporation. This corporation is run by special interest groups with no thought of what the people desire or deserve. We are paying the bills that’s the only thing that matters.
JW says
I notice a change in culture. We have become a big business focused on MANIPULATIVE MARKETING. Trump is especially good at that and many politicians will follow. It is actually much easier than researching and understanding the issues first. The reason is FAILING EDUCATION
Most voters are more ignorant today than 50 years ago. This is almost uniquely American.
I think that we are the ONLY country where politicians, mostly republican, say they like less educated people (voters) who are easy to manipulate. I guess that illustrates the level of ignorance.
I must admit that the DNC last week was uplifting and Trump’s response embarrassing. Unfortunately, it will take a lot of time to educate, but Tim Walz gives me HOPE!
Ed P says
Not convinced education is as simple as a degree. I don’t think the following list of “less educated”people are/were easy to manipulate.
Bill Gates,Mark Zuckerberg, SteveJobs,Richard Branson, Michael Dell, Evan William ,Larry Ellison, Rachael Ray, Henry Ford, Ted Turner, Ralph Lauren, Walt Disney, Simon Cowell, John D Rockefeller, Ellen DeGeneres, Steve Wozniak, David Geffen, Paul Allen, Dave Thomas, and 1000s more.
Maybe the term less informed, enlightened, engaged or even less indoctrinated is a better description for the Democratic elites to use.
Jackson says
The primary mission of the GOP is not governance. It is to destroy Americans’ trust and faith in all of our institutions, public and private, including our democracy itself. The purpose is to make authoritarianism easier to accept. America is already a weaker country for it.
Sherry says
There are many times that I ask myself why it is that we must endure angry, foul mouthed cult members in Congress. Then I read the occasional comment here and remember that those horrific politicians receive votes from a constituency of angry, foul mouthed horrific cult members. Considering the source, and lamenting the complete waste of human potential.
BIG Neighbor says
“However, no one person is solely responsible for these trends.”
I don’t know about that statement. I could point to Steve Jobs, the man that saw the vision and potential to have a personalized PC service embedded into each of our intimate spaces, dwelling with us each and every moment. Because, after all, we know cell phone use is driving this. This notion of acting like a child, being indignant to those who dont think like us has exploded since the mechanized manipulation of masses through adictive subscription services on social media and distributed e-commerce marketplaces.