A New Tool Shows 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. For the first time, a new tool exposes the elected officials who inflame partisan tensions versus those focused on the business of governing. The data is available via America’s Political Pulse, a free, interactive dashboard created by the Polarization Research Lab, which is directed by Yphtach Lelkes, Associate Professor of Communication at Annenberg; Sean Westwood, Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College; and Shanto Iyengar, Professor at Stanford University. 

“Criticizing the records of political opponents is a longstanding, healthy practice that is essential for vibrant democratic representation,” says Lelkes. “There has been a noticeable shift, however, 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.” 

The Lab draws on more than 1.3 million rhetoric items processed daily for all 535 legislators in the House and Senate. It pulls data from floor speeches, newsletters, press releases, and Twitter/X and uses bespoke AI models to classify them across five categories: personal attacks, policy discussion, constructive debate, accomplishments, and bipartisanship/compromise. In turn, voters can use the data to see if their elected official is working for their state and district or harming democracy and thus, can hold officials responsible in their giving and at the ballot box.

“When more time is spent on conflict, especially on the congressional floor, there is less time for substantive policy and debate,” says Westwood. “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.”

According to data compiled by the Polarization Research Lab, the most problematic members of Congress are still a relatively small group. Most elected officials either never make a personal attack (12.2%) or do so in less than one percent of their communication (64.8%). These representatives spend their time focusing on the business of governing and advocating for the policy positions that their constituents elected them for. They do not, however, get the same media attention as their conflict-driven colleagues. 

Using this tool, one can see who is most focused on discussing policy and bipartisanship and breaks down examples of how the elected officials communicate through individual profile pages. The tool also analyzes and visualizes the places from which these elected officials get political donations, which helps to illustrate who the politician views as their primary audience.

“The current media landscape paired with a small number of firebrands in Congress creates a harmful cocktail or nonstop news of incivility and dysfunction,” adds Lelkes. “Holding the individuals engaging in conflict accountable and elevating effective lawmakers is critical to slowing the tide of toxic polarization in America.”

Future work from the Polarization Research Lab will expand rhetoric data to the state level, enabling even greater accountability for the career span of elected officials from the state house to Congress. 

“We hope that engaged citizens and organizations use our real-time data on what elected officials say and do while in office to assist them at the ballot box and ensure that those in our government represent civility, not conflict,” concludes Westwood. 

The platform can be accessed by visiting the America's Political Pulse website here.