Governing Makes Politicians Speak Less Simply — And Voters Notice

Why Rhetorical Simplicity Matters

Frederik Hjorth investigates a non-electoral dimension of the long-observed "cost of governing": the tendency for officeholders to lose rhetorical simplicity. Rhetorical simplicity here means using clear, straightforward language and emphases that make political messages easy for voters to process. If governing pushes politicians toward more complex or constrained speech, that shift could help explain persistent opposition advantages and popular frustration with mainstream parties.

Measuring Speech and Careers in Denmark

Hjorth tests this idea with rich longitudinal data on individual legislator careers and parliamentary speeches in Denmark spanning three decades. The empirical strategy combines textual analysis—quantifying rhetorical simplicity in floor speeches—with career and office-holding indicators to compare how the same legislators speak in government versus opposition. The paper also includes a survey experiment that exposes respondents to simple versus complex phrasing to gauge voter preferences.

Key Findings

• Membership in government is associated with reduced rhetorical simplicity in parliamentary speech, consistent with the theory that governing creates functional constraints on how politicians can communicate.
• Additional analyses indicate this effect is transitory rather than permanent and appears to stem from constraints on issue emphasis (what topics and frames officeholders can credibly stress) rather than, say, permanent stylistic change.
• In a complementary survey experiment, respondents show clear preferences for politicians who use simpler language, demonstrating a plausible downstream electoral cost to rhetorical complexity.

Implications for Parties and Populism

The results show a new mechanism behind the opposition advantage: governing constrains clear messaging, which in turn can fuel voter dissatisfaction. Hjorth links this rhetorical cost to the broader dynamics that empower anti-establishment and populist appeals that prize plain, direct language. The paper contributes to debates about accountability, political communication, and why incumbents often struggle to translate governance into popular support.

What To Watch For

Readers should note the study's mixed-method design—large-scale text analysis paired with experimental evidence—which ties changes in legislative speech to voter reactions without overstating causal certainty beyond the presented tests. The work opens avenues for exploring how institutional roles reshape political language and public responsiveness across different systems.