Political Rhetoric in 2026 Mirrors Historic Levels of Incivility
Experts link the rise of aggressive campaigning and negative advertising to a long history of partisan attacks and structural changes in media.
By Elena Perry ·
A 2025 Gallup poll found that more than 60% of Americans believe Democrats and Republicans need to reduce their aggressive rhetoric. The data connects dangerous language to political violence, a trend experts note has accelerated following the fatal shooting of activist Charlie Kirk last year and attempts on President Donald Trump's life.
The current midterm campaign cycle features frequent personal attacks and threats. President Trump used a profanity when referring to Norway at a rally last week. This week, he described a reporter's appearance as disgusting to the press. In the Senate race in Maine, candidate Troy Jackson told incumbent Susan Collins to shut up. Democrats have used coarse language as well, including in a campaign ad for Illinois Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton.
Local politics shows similar patterns. Matthew Bianchini, the mayor of Pemberton Township in New Jersey, charged at a constituent during a recent meeting while threatening violence. These incidents represent a shift in public norms, according to analysts who say derogatory language is no longer viewed as politically destructive.
Ted Miller, a teaching professor of history at Northeastern University, stated that standards of political decency have never moved in a straight line. He pointed to the 1820s as a period of intense indecency. During the 1828 election, Andrew Jackson defeated John Quincy Adams. Jackson's allies accused Adams of offering an American woman to the Russian czar. Adams' supporters responded by labeling Jackson a violent duelist. The decade remains a notable chapter in U.S. political division.
Miller said the 1980s and 1990s helped normalize combative rhetoric. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich shifted political discourse toward character assassination. After the death of Vincent Foster, a deputy lawyer in the Clinton administration, Gingrich questioned the suicide ruling. This helped fuel conspiracy theories about the Justice Department. Miller described this era as one that was not exactly a time of high civility.
The rise of talk radio also pushed the boundaries of acceptable discourse. Hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern used confrontational and foul-mouthed styles. This cultural shift created an appetite for provocation in political advertising. Koen Pauwels, a distinguished professor of marketing at Northeastern University, recalled his first exposure to American mudslinging in 2000. He said the negativity surprised him because candidates focused on their opponents instead of their own programs.
Recent advertising campaigns have used personal details to attack rivals. In late October, Ohio gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy ran an ad featuring Amy Acton's mother questioning her daughter's veracity. The two women have been estranged since Acton's stepfather was charged with raping Acton when she was 12. The stepfather fled the state and died in 2004 without standing trial. The ad was removed after it aired. Yakov Bart, a research professor of marketing at Northeastern University, called the advertisement a violation of moral and ethical standards.
Research indicates that two-party systems are associated with affective polarization, or deep-seated distrust of the opposing party. Pauwels noted that candidates in a two-party structure spend more time attacking opponents. If a system had seven parties, candidates would have to focus on their own platforms to avoid wasting resources on negative messaging.
