“If Hillary Clinton can’t satisfy her husband, what makes her think she can satisfy America,” President Donald Trump wrote in a now deleted post on X in August of 2015.
Political debates since their beginning have been described as “ruthless” or “nasty,” but in recent years, there has been a clear shift from promoting values to promoting clicks. As technology advanced, so did the instantaneous publication of reactions, and thus the slow downfall of decorum.
Decorum is defined as “behavior in keeping with good taste and propriety.” Within political debates, behaving with decorum has allowed for conversation, not arguments, and beliefs to be clearly delivered to the public. However, there has been a shift in behavior in recent years, causing another level of polarization within elections.
“When you have two sides that are not speaking, essentially the same language, you have further separation,” AP government and history teacher Ted Manner said. “There’s no way you can come together to have an actual conversation. It’s very difficult.”
A clear example of a debate that showed decorum, while also showing a shift in politics, was the John F. Kennedy v. Richard Nixon (1960) debate.
The Kennedy v. Nixon debate was the first televised presidential debate, and it set a standard for later debates that were also shown directly to the public. This was the first time the public was able to “instantly” watch a debate and in turn react.
Something quickly became obvious. The audience who watched on television were quicker to side with Kennedy due to his tanned skin and youthful appearance while Nixon’s sickly, sweaty appearance deterred others.
On the other hand, those who opted to listen to the debate over radio were more likely to vote for Nixon. This clear divide between visual and audio media showed a turning point in American politics.
In the years following the Kennedy v. Nixon debate, television became central to political campaigns. Candidates not only became focused on policy but also public image and appearance. With the rise of social media decades later, political communication became even more immediate, allowing audiences to react both instantly and publicly to every moment of an election.
Politicians capitalized on this opportunity, and campaigns became less professional as attacks on policy increasingly turned into attacks on character.
“The Cold War kept us together,” Manner said. “We more or less moderated ourselves. That’s called a post-war consensus. There were competitive elections for sure, but not personally that nasty.”
These personal attacks now plaguing campaigns don’t just occur during debates. They spread like wildfire over social media.
Social media can be an effective medium of promotion, but that is not how it has been treated. It has accelerated political communication, meaning every debate moment can now be clipped, reposted and criticized within seconds. This fast-action media has resulted in shortened attention spans from the audience.
Politicians did not ignore this fact and official government accounts took to social media. These accounts are not just posting to promote their values but instead have begun competing to go “viral” instead of focusing on fostering thoughtful discussion.
These viral clips have affected what the general public values most when considering their opinions on the U.S. government. Outrage spreads faster online and candidates are able to directly address their audiences with zero filters. Before social media came into the game, polished addresses and thought out events were how candidates and presidents alike addressed the public, but in this new technological age, editing is gone.
Modern political media is overbearing. Information comes at the audience so fast the average person can’t fully take it in and react in a level-headed way.
“We spent a lot more time to process the overall picture of American government because current events weren’t always coming at us,” Manner said. “Like I said, we had time to digest it. Now it’s just overwhelming.”
When an audience is constantly receiving news, reactions are often both aggressive and reactionary. Now these debate moments and posts from politicians are consumed like entertainment rather then a reflection of the politician’s character.
This loss of thoughtful discourse and consumption of media is what drives “click politics.” On Dec. 24, 2025, Trump posted an extremely unprofessional message as a “Merry Christmas” post.
“Merry Christmas to all, including the Radical Left Scum that is doing everything possible to destroy our Country, but are failing badly. We no longer have Open Borders, Men in Women’s Sports, Transgender for everyone, or Weak Law Enforcement. What we do have is a Record Stock Market and 401K’s, Lowest Crime numbers in decades, No Inflation, and yesterday, a 4.3 GDP, two points better than expected. Tariffs have given us Trillions of Dollars in growth and Prosperity, and the strongest National Security we have ever had. We are respected again, perhaps like never before. God Bless America!!! President DJT”
This post not only attacked multiple groups of people, but it also wasn’t grammatically correct. In comparison, during Joe Biden’s 2024 presidency, he posted a simple message:
“For the last time as your president, it’s my honor to wish all of America a very Merry Christmas. My hope for our nation, today and always, is that we continue to seek the light of liberty and love, kindness and compassion, dignity and decency. May God bless you all.”
Another post exhibiting a lack of decorum is on Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social. On May 27, 2026, Trump posted a long “rant” following Ken Paxton‘s win as the republican nomination in Texas.
“Congratulations to Ken Paxton on such a tremendous win, and to John Cornyn for having run a strong and powerful race but, more importantly, having had a truly great career. John will remain my friend for a long time to come, as we both watch Ken become a fantastic, common sense Senator, one who is respected by all. His opponent, Alfred E. Neuman, may be the worst TEXAS candidate I have ever seen. A strong Open Borders advocate, he is WEAK ON CRIME, believes there are 6 genders, is insulting to Jesus Christ, will never support the Military, was a big Mask Wearer until recently, and is a Vegan who dislikes meat, not exactly a good way to be if you’re wanting to win an Election in Texas. Jasmine Crockett, a very low IQ individual, who is no relation to the legendary frontiersman, Davy Crockett, would have been a far better choice for the Dumocrats. I will do some nice, big, beautiful rallies for Ken. Texas, this will be FUN! GOD BLESS AMERICA. President DJT”
Republicans are not the only ones posting controversial content. U.S. representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made an equally controversial post on Dec. 31, 2021.
“It’s starting to get old ignoring the very obvious, strange, and deranged sexual frustrations that underpin the Republican fixation on me, women, & LGBT+ people in general. These people clearly need therapy, won’t do it, and use politics as their outlet instead. It’s really weird.”
AOC’s post ends up overshadowing her point due to her lack of propriety. California Governor Gavin Newsom is another democrat known for over the top posts.
“SLUMPY SEAN HANITY ON FOX NEWS WILL NOT COVER THIS BECAUSE HE IS BUSY “SUCKING UP” TO TRUMP IN “CHYYYYNA” BUT I HAVE BALANCED THE BUDGET!!! IT IS BALANCED NOT JUST THIS YEAR, BUT NEXT YEAR, AND THE YEAR AFTER. TRUMP CAN’T EVEN COMPREHEND THE BEAUTY OF MY PLAN BECAUSE HE IS “THE KING OF DEBT” WITH HIS HUGE DEFICIT (KEEPS GROWING!). HE HAS NO “PLAN” (JUST LIKE IRAN). MY PLAN IS AMAZING, LIKE ME! ALL FOR THE GREAT PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA! — Governor GCN”
This attention grabbing post, meant to mock President Trump, ends up sending a different message. While humor is the intention, he is still saying his point of view with zero decorum. Instead of writing a rebuttal to Trump’s actions, he further contributes to unprofessionalism in a position of influence.
This behavior on social media happens for a reason. While much of it is meant to be “clickbait,” the shock value statements and insults thrown around are there to break down one side and build up another.
“We have political division and then within those political divisions, we have made our enemies out to be subhuman,” U.S. history teacher and supervisor of fine & practical arts Kyle Tinnes said. “To make an enemy, fully an enemy, you have to dehumanize them first. We see that seeping into lots of elements of our culture…. We dehumanize them first, and then we talk about the caricature that we made of them.”
A loss of decorum doesn’t just reflect badly on American politics. It has many consequences. Debates have become less informative, polarization has increased, productive conversation has become harder, and voters focus on personalities over policies.
This behavior deeply affects democracy because voters are not making decisions that reflect the values they want in our politics. Decorum is not about being “nice,” its about making political discussion productive, something that has been disappearing.
Technology will continue evolving, that is not debatable, and so will political communication most likely. What needs to stop evolving is the manner in which the people meant to represent our country are speaking. Respectful discussion allows for true democracy, and is what America has built it’s foundation on. Disagreements are unavoidable, but maintaining decorum will be necessary for politics to remain informative.
“Political correctness isn’t the answer,” Tinnes said. “Civility is the answer.”
