Do politicians have to be jerks to win? Some are saying no.

GREELEY, Colo. ‒ The consultants kept pushing, and Scott James listened.
A longtime local elected official in northern Colorado, James was running for Congress as a plainspoken, common-sense conservative for constituents. 
But to flip the 8th Congressional District Republican and stand out against competitors, the consultants James hired insisted he go on the attack.
“They say in order to win a primary, you have to be a smash-mouth ‒ have to hit them in the nose,” said James, a former talk radio host in this conservative county north of Denver. 
The problem? That’s not James.
Sign-up for Your Vote: Text with the USA TODAY elections team.
“Ultimately I wished my campaign had sounded more like me: aspirational, not confrontational,” said James, who dropped out of the race in February.
Across the country, a small but growing number of candidates, political experts and ethical leaders are pushing to return civility and respect to politics at a time when politicians routinely bad-mouth one another, compare their opponents to Nazis or Communists, and threaten violence against people with whom they disagree.
Right now, being a jerk can help win elections, experts say, especially in gerrymandered congressional districts where extremist language gets rewarded in primary races.
Other factors include the loss of local media coverage, cable television programs that ceaselessly repeat the latest insults slung between members of Congress, and social media echo chambers.
“There’s really strong incentives for politicians to be disagreeable, to be virulent and to get reelected,” said James Piazza, a political science professor at The Pennsylvania State University.
Many of the efforts to cool the rhetoric are now coming from Republicans. 
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox has launched a “disagree better” initiative among the nation’s governors. And in Salt Lake City, fellow Republican and former Utah state Rep. Becky Edwards has started a political action committee to support Republican candidates who agree to maintain civil, productive discourse.
Edwards launched her PAC after losing a congressional race in which she spent months talking to thousands of voters. That experience persuaded her people are hungry for a change.
“We see this hunger everywhere, and it really starts with being willing to get familiar with people who have different backgrounds, different moral beliefs, moral perspectives,” said Edwards, who still speaks like the marriage and family therapist she trained as.
Edwards said divisive language in politics makes many Americans tune out, which creates even more space for those extreme voices. Her PAC is now supporting about 12 candidates for local offices in Utah, from school boards to the Legislature.
“People are feeling frustrated and unseen, unheard and ignored. And it doesn’t take a lot to do those things. Listen. Really understand. And by talking to folks with different perspectives, we start to build that Venn diagram that allows us to see people as human.”
Edwards said it’s too early to tell if her Governing Group’s PAC efforts will win elections, but she considers the work vital. And she said she has heard anecdotal reports from other candidates that they feel empowered to run a cleaner campaign knowing their opponent is, too.
“Quite honestly, it takes a lot of courage to be the person who can thread that needle between standing up with vigor and commitment to some of the horrific things in our past, but also being being willing to sit down with people who oppose you,” she said.
Cox, who has been pushing for Americans to “disagree better,” was booed by GOP delegates at the Utah Republican state convention earlier this year. Delegates then threw the majority of their support to his primary challenger, Phil Lyman, a conservative firebrand with a long history of aggressively opposing the federal government, which owns more than 60% of the state’s land.
In a debate June 11, Cox said it’s possible to simultaneously be highly conservative while treating people with respect. “I don’t just represent Republicans. I represent the entire state, I represent everyone, and our state gets judged by the way I that conduct myself.”
Responded Lyman: “I’m not against polite words, but there’s a point where we have to use aggressive rhetoric.”
Cox went on to defeat Lyman 54.5%-45.5% in the June Republican primary, setting him up for a likely easy win in the general election because Utah has so few Democrats.
At his victory party, Cox reiterated his belief in taking the high road.
“The destruction of institutions, destroying trust in our neighbors, destroying trust in our fellow Americans, destroying trust in the institutions that have made us the greatest nation on Earth and the greatest state in the nation, is not healthy for any of us,” Cox said, The Salt Lake Tribune reported.
It’s a mistake to think American politics has never been this coarse or dangerous before. President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by a Confederate sympathizer in 1865, and President Richard Nixon authorized illegal burglaries of his political opponents in 1972. 
“American politics have always been awful,” said Peter Loge, director of the school of media and public affairs at The George Washington University. “Where we are today is a direct result of where we were.”
But for many Americans, especially those who remember the 11th Commandment often invoked by Ronald Reagan during his initial races ‒ “Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican” ‒ the language of today’s campaigns feels particularly ugly.
Bob Mitchell has been fighting this battle for decades.
A Democrat from Michigan, Mitchell remembers a time on Capitol Hill when pragmatism and bipartisanship were goals, not criticism. But even 20 years ago, he worried that politicians were casting their opponents as something other than people as good faith, and he founded the Bipartisan Leadership Project.
More than 800 people have graduated from the project’s Michigan-based leadership program, and 65% of them have gone on to be elected, he said.
“We can disagree but we don’t have to be disagreeable,” said Mitchell, who ran a losing race for Congress as a Democrat in 1994. “You’ve got to be willing to listen, to discuss. The goal has to be to show that it’s possible for people who are very much in disagreement to work together.”
Experts say former President Donald Trump and the people surrounding him in particular have played a major role in coarsening today’s political discourse. In his first campaign, Trump often encouraged chants of “lock her up” about opponent Hillary Clinton, promised to pay the legal bills of supporters if they assaulted his critics, and lauded police for being rough with suspects. Earlier this year, he shared a picture of a bound Joe Biden displayed on the back of a pickup. 
“It all has a nexus back to Trump,” said James, who now sends socks with pictures of rhinoceroses on them to fellow leaders as a joke when they, like him, are called a “Republican in Name Only,” or RINO, for not adopting Trump-like campaign strategies.
The problem, experts like Mitchell and Edwards say, is that today’s political system rewards extremist behavior. If Americans want to change how their politicians behave, they have to change their expectations for behavior and speech, they said.
Asks Daniel Byman, a professor at Georgetown University’s School Foreign Service: “Is victory achieved by playing to your base or trying to work across party lines?”
Byman, who studies how extremist language leads to violence, said today’s political climate is driven by a relatively small number of people who often have stances well outside the mainstream. But because those voices are the ones amplified by the media, it starts to make people in the mainstream think they’re in the minority − and sometimes shifts their own thinking.
“Social media rarely makes people suddenly become racist. But … there was this untapped demand for racism. So when people started to post about it, people started to watch it. And then that intensified things,” he said. “There was a time when if someone said horrible things, it was a negative. People didn’t (avoid that) because they were nice, but because it would hurt them.” 
Policing language comes with a host of challenges, especially when it comes to the First Amendment and Americans’ expectation that they can say pretty much whatever they want, whenever they want.
“American politics have always been awful. It’s sort of this background noise that is the sound of democracy. But that doesn’t mean it should be completely unfettered,” said Loge, the GWU professor who also directs the Project on Ethics in Political Communication. “We need more people to say: ‘This is the right thing to do.’ And they need to be rewarded for that behavior.”
But Loge said there’s always a concern people will use polite language to maintain the status quo. He noted that that the role model for many of today’s leaders, Martin Luther King Jr., broke social norms in his fight for racial equality.
“I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice,” King wrote to white religious critics while imprisoned in the Birmingham, Alabama, jail for organizing a march without a permit. “But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or even more, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends.”
In other words, Loge said, Americans worried about losing rights or security might be justified in using bombastic language.  
Experts say the nation’s governors are among the best examples of politicians striving to find common ground using moderate language.
When wildfires, floods or hurricanes know no political boundaries, so too must governors work across party lines to serve their constituents. Extremism in governors’ races tends to be far less common, experts say, because governors usually must win over independent voters to maintain their positions.
“If any politicians are motivated to moderate, to work together, it would be governors,” said Piazza, the Penn State professor.
Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon finds himself in that exact place. Solving big problems like wildfires or carbon pollution require big solutions, and despite his political differences, Republican Gordon has partnered with the liberal governors of Colorado and New Mexico on a range of issues.
His own party has also censured and issued a vote of no-confidence against him, accusing him of having a “socialist agenda” for saying Wyoming needs to address climate change by working harder to adapt the state’s coal-focused economy.
Gordon said he has been frustrated that his fellow Wyoming Republicans are angry with him ‒ calling him an “environmental wacko” ‒ for speaking at liberal Harvard University or acknowledging that climate change is a concern. Parts of Wyoming are up to 3 degrees warmer than historical averages, snow is melting earlier and drought concerns are rising, according to federal scientists.
“Governors have to get things done,” said Gordon, speaking at a regional governors’ conference recently. “What is exciting is that regardless of our political differences, we have been able to work together over the years on an incredible number of issues.”
In northern Colorado, James is settling back into his “normal” elected office as one of the five commissioners who oversee Weld County, which is twice as large as Rhode Island. James said he initially felt called by God to serve in Congress, but prayer and reflection has helped him see he’s more useful at the local level.
He said he wishes the Democratic and Republican parties alike would pay attention to the issues, including extremist language, that are driving millions of Americans to avoid identifying with either party.
“(What) I keep saying to people is that part of the problem is that we’re no longer parties of principle but cults of personality. And they look at me like I’m a boring old white guy. I keep asking, ‘Do you want to self-govern or do you want to be entertained?'” James said. “People are far less concerned about policy and more about having old men shaking their fists at clouds.”