What Makes Our Politics So Nasty?

Jun 10, 2022, 4:24 PM

U.S. President Donald Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden participate in the final ...

U.S. President Donald Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden participate in the final presidential debate at Belmont University on October 22, 2020 in Nashville, Tennessee. This is the last debate between the two candidates before the election on November 3. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Conventional wisdom blames ideological polarization and the vast gap between left and right for the bitter nature of the attacks and counter-attacks on all sides. But the record of the last 75 years suggests that character assassination and smears intensify not when policy differences are profound, but when those agenda disagreements look petty and inconsequential.

In this primary election season, with ruthless candidates spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars to traduce their purported partisan allies, it should be obvious that the ferocious brawls of the moment bear little connection to philosophical disputes.

Consider the 18 presidential administrations since the death of Franklin Roosevelt in 1945. With Republicans and Democrats almost evenly divided in their occupancy of the White House during this period, only one chief executive could possibly be classified as a radical ideologue of any kind. Ronald Reagan compiled a formidable reputation as a consistent conservative, but his two terms as Governor of California, as well as both terms as president, showed a gift for bipartisan governance and for appealing to voters of the other party or no party. The most significant achievements of his eventful eight years in the White House – the rescue of the Social Security system, the restoration of our military to win the Cold War, the comprehensive tax reform of 1986 – earned surprising levels of Democratic support.

KIRO, KTTH radio hosts react to prime-time January 6 committee hearing

The other re-elected presidents since FDR – Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama – all catered to the center of the electorate and steered a moderate course that placed them in the mainstream of their respective parties; they avoided the clamorous fringes that demanded sweeping, across-the-board change.

In fact, the only nominees of either party – Republican Barry Goldwater in 1964 and Democrat George McGovern in 1972 – to promote such drastic and substantive agendas of reform, led their idealistic followers to election day disasters, carrying only six states and one state, respectively.

But if ideological stridency most often damages a candidacy, and contenders on both sides will instinctively migrate to the mushy middle in order to pursue votes, why have battles among moderates and centrists produced the brutish equivalent of “Destruction Derby?” Why, for instance, would Donald Trump, who felt close enough to Hillary Clinton to donate generously to her past campaigns, and to invite the Democratic Senator and her ex-president husband to attend his wedding to Melania in 2005, exchange accusations with such lusty abandon when they competed for the top job some 11 years later?

The pattern of indistinct, unfocused, non-ideological policy positions fostering spiteful attacks rather than constructive engagement, stems from a combination of current political reality and a timeless aspect of human nature.

In the United States, the two political parties have been closely competitive since the end of World War II, which means that election outcomes will almost always depend on turnout. This means that if your supporters feel more excited about a race and more willing to take the trouble to vote, your side will enjoy a meaningful advantage.

And while a heavy schedule of TV ads may not succeed in persuading cadres of new supporters to join your cause, the operating assumption holds that negative ads can suppress turnout for the opposition. That’s especially true for negative campaigning that focuses on character issues – portraying an opponent as a reprobate cad who somehow combines senility and conniving crookery. Such one-minute melodramas, according to common assumptions of campaign pros, leave more lasting impressions than questioning the complex details of Medicare reform or new tax plans, especially when the competing platforms display only minor differences.

Meanwhile, human nature makes it harder to change minds with arguments about ideas after a visceral reaction of loathing or discomfort. This has everything to do with President Trump’s prospects for 2024 and the great likelihood that any campaign in which he participates will focus on personalities and recent history more than new programs of governance. In his first term, Trump may have compiled an unexpectedly moderate record, offering few surprises (before the 2020 election’s alarming aftermath), to differentiate himself dramatically from a standard-issue Republican. But while his programs may have shunned radicalism, his rhetoric did not, making it all but irresistible for advocates and adversaries alike to concentrate on personality over policy, viewing the flamboyant former president as either a redemptive hero or a public menace.

That focus on larger-than-life characters makes it much harder to pursue compromise or cooperation. Politicians can always split the difference on tax rates or budgetary issues, but it’s impossible to negotiate over visceral hatred or deep-seated admiration. As the primary season of 2022 clearly indicates, concentrating on the personal flaws of even intraparty rivals makes for more damaging division than debating pending plans for retrenchment or reform. In practical politics, character counts and pushes polarization more destructively than any ideological issue on the public agenda.

Listen to Michael Medved weekday afternoons from 12 – 3 p.m. on KTTH 770 AM (or HD Radio 97.3 FM HD-Channel 3).

Michael Medved on AM 770 KTTH
  • listen to michael medvedTune in to AM 770 KTTH weekdays at 12pm for The Michael Medved Show.

Michael Medved


Michael Medved

Medved: The GOP should target Kamala Harris early and often

Vice-presidential nominees seldom become significant factors in presidential elections. In 2024, Kamala Harris could prove to be an exception.

25 days ago

Fox Dominion Deal...

Michael Medved

Medved: What the Fox-Dominion deal means for Trump’s prospects

The recent decision by Fox News to negotiate a quick, costly deal in its defamation battle with Dominion Software raises questions.

1 month ago

trump desantis...

Michael Medved

Medved: Could Trump Really Pick DeSantis for VP?

Could Trump and DeSantis become running mates, rather than rivals, uniting the Republican Party and leading the way to sweeping victory in 2024?

3 months ago


Michael Medved

Medved: As religious affiliation declines, why do believers still control Congress?

In 2007, only 16% of the public failed to identify with a specific religious faith, but that number has now nearly doubled to 29%.

4 months ago

social media...

Michael Medved

Medved: Social media “friends” and the pandemic of loneliness

“I believe loneliness is one of the defining health concerns of our time” with serious consequences to both emotional and physical well-being.

4 months ago

Trump President...

Michael Medved

Medved: Other ex-presidents who tried to recapture the White House

Donald Trump hopes to make history as the second President to ever recapture the White House after losing an election and leaving power.

6 months ago

Sponsored Articles

Internet Washington...

Major Internet Upgrade and Expansion Planned This Year in Washington State

Comcast is investing $280 million this year to offer multi-gigabit Internet speeds to more than four million locations.

Compassion International...

Brock Huard and Friends Rally Around The Fight for First Campaign

Professional athletes are teaming up to prevent infant mortality and empower women at risk in communities facing severe poverty.

Emergency Preparedness...

Prepare for the next disaster at the Emergency Preparedness Conference

Being prepared before the next emergency arrives is key to preserving businesses and organizations of many kinds.

SHIBA volunteer...

Volunteer to help people understand their Medicare options!

If you’re retired or getting ready to retire and looking for new ways to stay active, becoming a SHIBA volunteer could be for you!

safety from crime...

As crime increases, our safety measures must too

It's easy to be accused of fearmongering regarding crime, but Seattle residents might have good reason to be concerned for their safety.

Comcast Ready for Business Fund...

Ilona Lohrey | President and CEO, GSBA

GSBA is closing the disparity gap with Ready for Business Fund

GSBA, Comcast, and other partners are working to address disparities in access to financial resources with the Ready for Business fund.

What Makes Our Politics So Nasty?