PHOTO: La Discussion politique (The Political Discussion), Emile Friant on Wikimedia Commons
Julia Gillard’s 2012 misogyny speech is regarded as one of the classic powerful moments in the history of Australian politics. Immortalised in the National Film and Sound Archives, The Guardian dubbed Gillard’s speech as the ‘most unforgettable’ moment in Australian TV history. Pauline Hanson’s personal attacks on Anthony Albanese, meanwhile, have drawn widespread condemnation. Yet, both these politicians used confrontational, and sometimes, rude language against their opponents. Thus, where do we draw the line? Why is Gillard’s speech regarded as being brave whilst Hanson’s as offensive and against political decency?
The answer lies in the purpose, context and consequences of political incivility. Incivility in politics is nothing new, yet it has become increasingly prominent in an era dominated by social media outrage, where populist politicians can generate engagement and thrive on social media platforms. Yet, incivility in itself is not always harmful. Direct and sometimes aggressive confrontation may be valid or necessary to challenge oppressive policies or actions, however incivility that generates harmful rhetoric or prejudice may undermine democratic participation.
Democracy is characterised by votes, public appearances and freedom of expression. The United Nations defines democracy as being a form of government that endorses freedom of expression and opinion. However, one characteristic of democracies is the ability to act civilly when facing different arguments or even pushback.
The Australian Human Rights Commission posits that respect is essential to civilised society. Allowing voices to be heard, even though we may disagree, is key and the way we respond to those different arguments sets the stage for how we want society to be. Rather than shutting them down and ignoring their take, we should instead understand their point of view and reach either an agreement, or an agreement to disagree.
It is necessary to distinguish between impoliteness and incivility. Civility is defined by Zizi Papacharissi as behaviors that promote democratic discourse, while politeness predominantly concerns breaches of interaction that flow smoothly. Actions that promote stereotyping or threaten civil and democratic rights of others is defined as incivility, whereas impoliteness constitutes insults or shouting. Though impoliteness and civility may overlap, they are not to be mistaken as being interchangeable.
In the United States, 83 per cent of people feel that behaviour regarded as being disrespectful or unacceptable has now become normalised. 61 per cent of Australians meanwhile feel that civility and mutual respect is at an all-time low. In Australia, a rise in reactionary politics has seen Pauline Hanson, leader of One Nation, getting into hot water over calling Liberal MP and former Australian Defence Force member Andrew Hastie a ‘traitor‘ in connection with his evidence against former ADF soldier Ben Roberts-Smith in his defamation trial. But this begs the question: has civility always been a thing? And if so, what has changed?
The Myth of a Civil Past
PHOTO: John F. Kennedy (left) and Richard Nixon (right) prepare for the second televised coverage of the US Presidential Debate, United Press International on Wikimedia Commons
.jpg){kind=link}
Incivility is not something that is a recent phenomenon. Whilst it may be easy to perceive incivility in politics as a result of modern culture, it has been present on TV screens long before social media. During the 1968 US Presidential Elections, controversy brewed after Richard Nixon, the Republican nominee, approved a TV political broadcast labelled ‘Convention’, in which the advertisement utilised analog horror techniques which portrayed Democratic nominee Hubert Humphrey as associated with riots and the Vietnam War. The advertisement flickered between his face and images of dead soldiers and impoverished families, all while the traditionally happy waltz song ‘Hot Time in the Old Town Tonight’ played in the background, distorting into a screeching sound whenever Humphrey appeared on screen.
The Democratic National Committee protested sending telegrams to NBC, alongside furious members of the public, putting pressure on Nixon’s team to withdraw the advertisement. By modern standards, this may be tame or even expected for a political attack ad. This advertisement illustrates an important distinction between incivility and impoliteness. Negative campaigning is not inherently uncivil.
Politicians should be able to ridicule an opponent and question their judgements. Where this line may be crossed occurs when criticism of a political opponent relies on ad-hominem attacks, stereotypes or racial discrimination as opposed to political arguments.
During the 2024 US Presidential Election, Donald Trump’s campaign ran an advertisement, framing Kamala Harris as being for ‘they/them’ while he (Trump) was for ‘you’. Attacking the transgender community constituted 41 per cent of the Trump campaign’s advertisements, directing voters’ attention towards cultural anxieties rather than economic or political issues.
Yet Trump and the Republican party are not exclusive to using incivility in their campaigning. Hillary Clinton dubbed Trump supporters a ‘basket of deplorables’ in the 2016 election, while Joe Biden referred to Trump’s supporters as being ‘garbage‘ in response to a comic calling Puerto Rico a ‘floating island of garbage’ in 2024.
Transphobia and name-calling are not the sole acts of incivility in American politics. Xenophobia and racist tropes were reinforced in the 2025 New York Mayoral Campaign. Andrew Cuomo, an independent candidate, faced condemnation after posting an AI-generated ad on X criticised as being racist against his opponent Zohran Mamdani.
Cuomo legitimately criticised his opponent’s campaign policies decriminalising low-level offences and sex work. However, those legitimate criticisms were coupled with the video mocking Mamdani eating rice with his hands, an act Mamdani suffered racist abuse from such as politician Brandon Gill, who posted on X saying: “If you refuse to adopt Western customs, go back to the Third World.”
The clip further portrayed an African-American man stereotypically depicted as a ‘pimp’ while another African-American man sporting a keffiyeh, began shoplifting. Cuomo defended himself, quickly deleting the video and blaming a junior staffer for posting the ad without approval.
PHOTO: Donald Trump (right) meeting Zohran Mamdani (left) at the Oval Office, White House on Wikimedia Commons
Australia is not immune to this. Pauline Hanson labelled Sarah Martin, a reporter from The Guardian as a ‘trashy‘ journalist, prompting condemnation from the International Federation of Journalists. Hanson has also mocked Anthony Albanese’s late-mother, calling her lazy for having lived in public housing, despite her longstanding and serious arthritis.
Anthony Albanese himself came under fire for having made comments towards Angus Taylor in Parliament in 2024, where he joked if the Liberal MP had ‘tourettes or something’ after his repeated interjections.
Westminster style democracies are rife with parliamentary heckling, to a point where YouTube compilations of the best UK parliamentary heckles have been uploaded. The Age even published an article drawing back on the best moments for roasting in 2025 in WA’s Parliament, recalling moments where MPs brought props, and even referred to policies as polishing ‘turds’.
The common thread across these examples in the US and Australia is not just the fact that rudeness was displayed by politicians. Rather, the abandonment of solely focusing on valid political criticism in exchange for personal humiliation and discriminatory messaging that tarnishes civility in the political sphere. Nevertheless, this is something that has existed long before 2026.
When Incivility Becomes Justified
Before condemning incivility flatout, it must also be acknowledged that confrontation can be justified, particularly when one is challenging discrimination. Julia Gillard’s 2012 misogyny speech remains one of the most significant moments in the Australian political cannon. Her direct attacks on then-opposition leader Tony Abbot accusing him of being misogynistic were hardly civil in the conventional sense. Yet, with Gillard’s character repeatedly being under scrutiny, including being called a witch, Gillard refused to respond to misogyny with civility.
Her decision to berate the opposition leader and take a firm stand in the House of Representatives paved the way for other women experiencing the sexist culture at Parliament house to open up about their experiences and to not allow themselves to be mistreated. As said by Dr Julia Bowes from the University of Melbourne, “Undoubtedly, Gillard’s speech played an important role opening up the conversation about sexist and misogynistic treatment faced by female politicians and leaders everywhere.”
PHOTO: Then Prime Minister Julia Gillard speaks at the Australian Multicultural Council, Kate Lundy on Wikimedia Commons
If Gillard had not stood her ground, and utilised some form of incivility, it is unlikely that the impact on empowering women would have been more profound. When faced with oppression, it is unfair and sometimes unrealistic to assume one will act in a civil manner. After all, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr stated that defying unjust laws in effect expresses the highest respect for the law. Thus, breaking civility norms to fight against incivility may be justified when used to combat injustice such as sexism or homophobia. With Gillard’s speech as precedent, incivility does not always render a negative result. If used with the purpose to fight back against oppressive injustice, incivility may expose injustice at a more effective rate than a simple civil gesture.
Why Does Everything Feel Worse?
If political incivility has always existed, why do so many feel it has gotten worse?
The answer is not necessarily that politicians have suddenly become less polite. Rather, incentives surrounding political communication have completely changed, driven by the rise in populist politics and an attention economy that rewards controversy.
Politicians criticizing or attacking each other is one of the most effective ways to engage with users online. As humans tend to give more attention to negative news as per negativity bias, it is easy for politicians to capture citizens and journalists attention through negativity. Algorithms push people towards negativity, and with social media preventing feelings of guilt or empathy from being as strong compared to real life, politicians have understood that negativity may be the key to garner greater publicity.
Populist politicians use social media ubiquitously to win support. Guiding their anti-establishment personas, social media does not provide easy fact-checking mechanisms compared to traditional media. Furthermore, with the sheer speed of information and the accessibility to the internet, populist politicians are able to broadcast their views without pushback typically seen in traditional media outlets.
When confronted on television, populist politicians have less ground to work with. Trump’s claims in 2024 about Haitian immigrants eating cats and dogs stirred controversy and was pushed back by ABC News (America) reporter David Muir who fact-checked Trump’s false statements.
Politicians have stereotypically been seen as liars or those who bend the truth, and unfortunately, in the age of the attention-economy, false news spreads around six times more than real news.
Personal attacks on candidates also appear to have become a prominent feature of political communication. In the 2024 presidential campaign Trump called Kamala Harris ‘mentally disabled’ and ‘lazy as hell‘. Trump also berated Biden in a 2025 speech, calling him ‘angry’ and a ‘mean son of a b****’.
Compare this to Barack Obama’s attacks on Republican nominee Mitt Romney in the 2012 election, where he referred to his opponent as being a ‘pioneer of outsourcing’, calling him ‘the problem’ and not ‘the solution’. Obama’s language was hardly complimentary, however, it primarily concerned itself with Romney’s political and economic judgement, rather than relying on personal abuse.
With all these personal attacks, many are indeed nostalgic for when politics used to be ‘civil.’ An often reposted video surfacing online was John McCain, 2008 Republican Presidential nominee. In a clip, a supporter of McCain proclaimed she was afraid of Obama if he assumed the presidency, calling him an ‘Arab’. McCain did not double down, but instead corrected the woman, calling Obama a ‘decent family man’ and ‘citizen’ whom he has differences over fundamental policies.
PHOTO: Then-US President Barack Obama (right) meets with the late Senator John McCain of Arizona (left) in the Oval Office, Pete Souza on Wikimedia Commons
But this begs the question. Has civility died? Not entirely, and it would be disingenuous to say it always defined politics. From Nixon’s attack advertisements to jabs exchanged by Obama and Romney, political incivility has been a cornerstone in democratic elections. What has changed is the environment in which this incivility operates. While the old system rewarded those who played by civility, maintaining an appearance of fair and respectable politics, political debate is competing nowadays with personal attacks, clipfarming and viral outrage, dictated by humiliating opponents rather than debating their policies.
Yet Gillard’s speech does show that incivility is not always harmful. When used to challenge discrimination and hold those in power to account, incivility can be a useful and necessary tool. It becomes troubling, however, when personal abuse and stereotyping becomes the pillar of political discourse.
Changing this culture is the responsibility of politicians, the media and voters alike. Politicians must consider whether this era of personal attacks really develops and further the goals of their respective parties. Media outlets must refrain from rewarding outrage in favour of real civil political discourse. Finally, voters need to decide whether this behaviour deserves their attention, or whether it is best to look the other way. Civility has not died, but whether we want it to still remain, and whether we want prejudiced groups to feel safe and accepted in politics is up to us.
