Three years ago, I wrote a Roll Call column entitled “Anger has been the drug of choice for our political system for too long.” In it, I said, “We live in a political system that constantly stokes anger, taking it up a notch year after year and discouraging a focus on ideas and legislating. The players on all sides need to step back and examine their own conduct in a system that rewards the worst in politics as it divides us.”

It concluded, “The system is blinking red.” Last Saturday, unfortunately, proved that correct. 

The reaction from political and media figures to the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump has been to articulate the need to tone things down, to lower the political temperature. All well and good, but the important first step is understanding how our political discourse has become so destructive and the role they have played in creating a political arena where hatred and anger have dominated discourse. 

Most voters recognize that when it comes to political rhetoric, the country is in dire straits, and they are very concerned. Alayna Treene of CNN did an interview with Joseph Meyn, who was sitting in the bleachers behind Trump and had people near him who were shot, one of whom died. He told her, “There are a lot of angry people out there.” He followed up by saying, “We shouldn’t be at a level of political discourse in this country where this is going on.” 

The Wall Street Journal quoted Elizabeth Mullaugh of Pittsburgh, who said, “We’ve lost our ability to listen or to hear.” 

The political discourse in this country has been driven by a focus on anger and grievance as a means to get and sustain attention and “eyeballs.” This focus has become the central element of political campaigns, and the media has adopted it as well. The impact of constant negative speech and negative news coverage is reflected in the country’s attitude toward the direction of the country. 

In the Real Clear Politics average, you have to go back to 2009 to even find parity between voters who thought the country was headed in the right direction and those who thought it was on the wrong track. That is a decade and a half. Today, the RCP average is 23 percent right direction and 67 percent wrong track. 

This discontent has been a long-term problem, and yet the political hyperbole gets more and more stringent to capture the attention of the media. So while there is an immediate need to “lower the temperature,” it is a bit like taking an aspirin to bring down a fever. It may work in the short term, but ultimately, any cure must address the underlying cause. 

Over-the-top language questioning the results of a democratic election or arguing that the defeat of an opponent must be done “at all costs” only helps drive the antagonism we’re seeing. So does declaring it’s time to put an opponent “in a bull’s-eye” and demonizing his supporters by claiming they are fanning “the flames of political violence that are a threat to our personal rights, to the pursuit of justice, to the rule of law, to the very soul of this country.”

A robust discussion of ideas and policies has been replaced with dangerous hyperbole that is taking a toll on the stability of the nation.

Given the level of political discourse, no one should be surprised that we’re living through another presidential election where a majority of the electorate has a negative view of each of the parties’ nominees. Both party bases ought to ask themselves whether candidates whom the majority of the electorate sees negatively can effectively promote their policies. Although very liberal Democrats and very conservative Republicans combined only make up slightly under 20 percent of the electorate, their impact far outweighs their actual size. 

But these more ideological voters and their leaders are the media’s “go-to gets” to ensure the kind of red-meat rhetoric that ups ratings and readers. This fact is not missed by elected members of both parties. They understand that to get media visibility, you need to be willing to be hyperbolic. Thoughtful gets you nowhere.

Last year, the host of a political network show announced his retirement and stated the goals he had used for developing each show. He led with the goal of “make you mad.” It is a sad reflection on the media, social and otherwise, that complains about the tone of campaigns and yet consistently gives the most bombastic, ideological politicians and pundits a soapbox to launch partisan and personal attacks.       

Political campaigns follow suit, believing negative hits on their opponents are more effective than presenting a candidate’s policy ideas. The media encourages attack strategies because it provides conflict that gets them “eyeballs.” 

When the electorate is fed a constant diet of negatives about candidates, is it a surprise that they have a negative view of elected officials, and now a decadeslong negative view about the direction of the country?

On Sunday, Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, posted a tweet thread with a sobering warning. 

“In the pursuit of short-term political gain,” he wrote, “they are eager to exaggerate our differences and cast their political opponents as diabolical caricatures bent on destroying the country. As a result, it becomes easier to see those we disagree with not as fellow Americans who bring different offerings to the marketplace of ideas, but as enemies who would ruin us, to be defeated at all costs.” 

He went to say, “We can start by dropping hyperbolic threats about the stakes of this election. It should not be misleadingly portrayed as a struggle between democracy or authoritarianism, or a battle against fascists or socialists bent on destroying America. These are dangerous lies.”

In order to lower the temperature, the political community and the media that covers it need to take a hard look at the alarming state of political discourse and the role they have played in creating and encouraging it. 

If we are serious about toning down political rhetoric, a solitary focus on anger and grievance must be rejected, and candidates’ policies and ideas must become central elements of political discourse. Without that desperately needed introspection, expect the discourse to worsen. 

David Winston is the president of The Winston Group and a longtime adviser to congressional Republicans. He previously served as the director of planning for Speaker Newt Gingrich. He advises Fortune 100 companies, foundations and nonprofit organizations on strategic planning and public policy issues, as well as serving as an election analyst for CBS News.