“Political rudeness is not about expressing differences of opinion, but about denying the legitimacy of the other person,” van 't Riet begins. Political rudeness is therefore more than just a harsh remark. It is a lack of respect that suggests that the other person is not a full participant in the debate. You are essentially saying: your ideas don't matter, people don't have to listen to you. And that is a problem, because it makes substantive discussion impossible. Moreover, you are not only disqualifying a person, but also the entire party that person represents. Without having said a single word about the content.
The 3 rudest political television debates
Debates are supposed to be heated. But what if they are heated without substance? What if politicians no longer take each other seriously, but dismiss each other as Santa Claus, witches, lackeys or traitors? Communication scientist Jonathan van 't Riet researched political rudeness in Dutch television debates from 1981 to 2023. His conclusion: the tone is harsher than ever. And that is not a matter of style, but a democratic problem.
“Sinterklaas exists!”
Political rudeness is not something that has only emerged in recent years. Van “t Riet cites an old clip from a debate between Hans Wiegel and Joop den Uyl in the 1980s. Wiegel shouts: “Sinterklaas exists!” thereby ridiculing den Uyl's policies.
“What you're actually saying is: I don't have to take your policies seriously, because all you do is hand out presents,” says Van “t Riet. “It seems light-hearted, but it's a form of delegitimisation.”
Why is it so appealing?
Rudeness attracts attention. “In a media landscape where politicians have to fight to be seen, a sharp sneer is often more effective than a nuanced argument,” says Van ‘t Riet. “It deviates from the norm, sticks in the mind and gets quoted.” According to him, people are also naturally alert to conflict. “A debate between Lubbers and Kok is deadly boring. But Wilders calling Timmermans fat? That sticks with you.”
The top three most rude debates
Van 't Riet analysed 34 debates from 14 elections between 1981 and 2023 for rudeness. Criteria included dismissing arguments ('That's nonsense”), personal attacks (“No one believes you anymore”) and ridiculing appearance or character. Based on this, each debate is given a score for rudeness. The following three debates scored highest in Van 't Riet's research:
1. EénVandaag debate 2017: Rutte vs. Wilders
Wilders wants to close the borders and ban the Koran. Rutte responds:
It's just a fake promise! We'll make a note of it!
2. RTL debate 2012: Wilders against the rest
Wilders addresses Rutte, Samsom and Roemer:
You are lackeys of Brussels. Margaret Thatcher had more balls on her own than the three of you put together.
Read the live blog of the debate here.
3. RTL debate 2010: Pechtold vs. Rutte
During the debate on mortgage interest relief, Pechtold calls Rutte a “fair-weather candidate”.
When the weather is fine, Rutte is a candidate, and when the weather is bad, big sister from Brussels comes along [Pechtold is referring to Neelie Kroes]. You are the fair-weather candidate!
What can we do?
According to Van 't Riet, part of the solution lies with journalists and debate moderators. “They can structure the debate, give experts a voice and encourage politicians to focus on substance. In recent debates, he has already seen attempts to deepen the conversation, for example with statistics and expert interventions between debates.” But voters also have a role to play. Van ‘t Riet concludes: “We have to ask ourselves: do we want politicians who score with one-liners, or who seriously seek solutions?”
Contact information
- Contact
- Dr J.P. van 't Riet (Jonathan)
- Organizational unit
- Communication and Media, Faculty of Social Sciences, Behavioural Science Institute
- About person
- Dr J.P. van 't Riet (Jonathan)
- Theme
- Politics, Society, Language