Profanity in politics - Behind the Headlines

While on television recently, President Trump used an expletive during a conversation with a journalist about the Iran-Israel conflict.

His choice of vocabulary shocked many but what does this instance say about profanity in the public eye and why is it important to take note of his behaviour?

Dr Joseph Phillips, a lecturer in Politics whose work focusses on polarisation, misinformation and attitudes toward political violence looks into profanity in politics and tells us, this isn’t something new.

Warning: This article contains edited examples of profanity.

Trump’s use of the word “f*ck” in regard to the Iran-Israel conflict is not an isolated incident, but an ongoing trend towards increased use of profanity in American politics.

It used to be rare for presidents, even as candidates, to swear in official remarks. Woodrow Wilson broke the profanity seal in 1919, recounting a time where he made a “conspicuous *ss of himself.” Since then, presidents, their seconds-in-command, and presidential hopefuls have used profanity at least 692 times.

87% of all uses of profanity (605) have taken place in the last 10 years, and 78% of all uses (538) have come from two politicians: Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Notably, both Trump and Biden escalated their usage over their terms, and Trump’s usage in his second term has outpaced his first. While Biden heavily relied on “damn,” Trump’s usage of profanity has been more varied, introducing “b*st*rd,” “b*tch”, “b*llsh*t”, and “f*ck” into the presidential vocabulary.

It may be tempting to focus on the personal idiosyncrasies of Trump and Biden as the source of the trend, but politicians at all levels of government are using more profanity than they used to. So what is the appeal of it?

First, profanity can be a signal of authenticity. In a time of low political trust, signals that a politician is “authentic” are at a premium.

Second, and relatedly, in an era of strong populist movements, it is often politically advantageous to appear as relatable, and ‘of the people.’ Ordinary people curse. Incorporating profanity into political speech makes a politician appear both more authentic and more relatable.

Third, profanity simply isn’t as profane to the American public as it once was. If recent YouGov polls are anything to go by, newer generations find swearing in a variety of situations more acceptable. Assuming trends continue, the pool of people who would penalise politicians for profanity is continually shrinking.

Finally, even if Americans do not like profanity in their politics, it is unlikely to shake their political allegiances. The Democratic and Republican Parties represent drastically different visions for the country and segments of the population, and enmity between the voters for each party is high. The distaste some may have for how their preferred politician talks will be small in comparison to the anger and fear they have toward their opponents.