Most Americans Want Elected Officials and Candidates To Avoid Heated and Aggressive Language
By: Carah Ong Whaley, PhD
On September 11, the House Administration Committee held a hearing to address confidence in American elections. Without confidence in the electoral process, the legitimacy of government, the will of the people, and the very principles of democracy are at risk. In 2024, confidence in elections and in the people who administer them are at risk primarily as a result of false claims and rhetoric by political actors seeking to win office at all costs. (Note: Issue One submitted a written statement to the committee ahead of the hearing that addressed this very topic.) Michigan Sec. of State Jocelyn Benson, a member of Issue One’s Faces of Democracy campaign, stressed what is at stake: “We cannot have a secure democracy if we do not protect the security of the people who administer our elections. And, right now, we are enduring unrelenting harassment and threats.”
We wanted to hear from Americans on these questions because evidence suggests a clear and concerning link between the rhetoric of political leaders and increased risks of political violence, fear in vulnerable communities, and what can result in complicated law enforcement responses. Political figures not only at the national level, but also at the state and local level who use heated and aggressive rhetoric that demonizes political opponents and minority groups, further intensifies pernicious polarization and the potential for violence.
An overwhelming majority of Americans from across the political spectrum believe that elected officials and candidates for office should avoid heated or aggressive language because it could encourage some people to take violent action, according to findings from a national survey Issue One fielded in August. Democrats are more likely than Republicans and independents to say elected officials should avoid heated language. While 62.6% of Democrats strongly agree and 30.1% somewhat agree with the statement that “candidates should avoid heated or aggressive language,” 44.5% of Republicans strongly agree and 38.3% somewhat agree.
We also found differences in responses based on race. While majorities of Hispanic (59.3%) and Black (54.9%) identifying respondents strongly agreed that “candidates should avoid heated or aggressive language,” 49.4% of respondents who identified as White did so. And 51.8% of women and 51.6% of men strongly agreed that “candidates should avoid heated or aggressive language,” while 35.7% of respondents preferring to self-describe strongly agreed.
We saw similar results when we altered the language to ask about elected officials: 60.1% of Democrats strongly agree and 32% somewhat agree with the statement that “elected officials should avoid heated or aggressive language,” compared to 45.2% of Republicans who strongly agree and 39.5% who somewhat agree. Our findings build on previous surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center.
There were also similar differences in responses based on race, but larger differences in responses based on gender when we altered the language. While majorities of Hispanic (51.2%) and Black (64.1%) identifying respondents strongly agreed that “elected officials should avoid heated or aggressive language,” 47.5% of respondents who identified as White did so. And while 53% of women strongly agreed that “elected officials should avoid heated or aggressive language,” 47.4% of men and 30.2% of respondents preferring to self-describe strongly agreed.
How an individual comes to believe in the fairness, security, and transparency of the electoral process is shaped by more than assurances that votes are counted accurately. Research shows that public confidence is influenced by a range of factors — from media narratives and elite messaging, to personal experiences with the voting process. In particular, the outcome of an election can significantly influence trust levels depending on whether an individual’s preferred candidate wins or loses. Therefore, what preferred candidates say about election processes and outcomes matters greatly. This underscores the profound impact of political communication on shaping perceptions of electoral legitimacy.
While most Americans remain confident in elections, confidence has declined according to findings from several respected surveys. Even more concerning, the partisan gap in confidence that votes will be accurately cast and counted has widened. Findings from our own survey research at Issue One demonstrate an urgent need to address persistent distrust in this election year.
The current landscape of political discourse in the United States is increasingly marked by aggressive rhetoric and the proliferation of false information. These trends, particularly when they come from or are amplified by political leaders, contribute to deepening pernicious polarization and eroding trust in democratic processes and institutions. Indeed, we also found in three focus groups conducted between July and August 2024 that when political leaders or candidates question the legitimacy of an election before, during, or after the process, it can sow doubt among their supporters. Conversely, when political leaders endorse the legitimacy of the election results, even in defeat, it can enhance public trust in the process.
In addition, the growing challenges to the legitimacy of election outcomes have led to a rise in threats and harassment against public officials, including the very individuals who come from and serve our communities by administering elections. Election officials who serve on the frontlines of our democracy are one of the groups most impacted by the current environment. During the election season, the harassment of election officials and threats of violence have become the new normal, and they now face unprecedented risks to their safety and professional integrity. But even the election “offseason” now features a higher baseline of threatening calls, emails, and encounters, and in low intensity local and primary elections, people are showing up to the polls ready to yell.
While there is good news that most Americans agree that political violence has no place in our system, there are immediate risks of political violence that have profound broader implications for community health and well-being. Public servants are experiencing isolation, privacy invasions, and a sense of disconnect from the communities they serve. These hostilities are not confined to any single political party, as threats and violence are reported across the political spectrum.
The connection between the rhetoric of political elites, false narratives, public beliefs, and the potential for violence highlights the urgent need for political figures from across the political spectrum to exercise restraint and responsibility in their communications. Electoral integrity depends on political candidates and parties affirming the legitimacy of election results, even and especially when they lose. The normalization of language (e.g. terms like “rigged,” “fraud,” or “coup”) not only undermines the social fabric of democratic societies by encouraging divisiveness and violence, it also poses significant risks to the safety and well-being of communities and the broader public.
This year, the stability of democracy depends in large part on how the public perceives the legitimacy of election outcomes. The rise of election disinformation and false narratives, divisive political discourse, and escalating challenges to the legitimacy of election outcomes are all factors that have contributed to eroding public confidence in elections. Given that how political leaders communicate to the public is a major driver of public beliefs, elected officials and political candidates have a responsibility to commit to accepting the results of the election and to turn down the temperature in their political rhetoric. And Americans want them to do so.