In politics, it is common to be attacked verbally or in writing for either policy positions or personal behavior. It is natural for people to be defensive when attacked. In fact, our instincts may make us want to respond in detail. But often, the best response is to downplay or ignore it.
Policymakers are generally subject to attack in three situations: in person, in traditional media (TV, radio, newspapers, mailers, signs), and online. The general rules apply in all situations. First, assess two things:
Reach: Who is seeing or hearing this—and how many? Is it confined to an audience that already opposes you, or is it reaching persuadable constituents in your district?
Impact: Will this affect your reputation, support, or real-world outcomes? Is it likely to spread beyond a single platform or news cycle?
If the attack is low-reach and low-impact, then do not respond. Engaging will only expand the audience for those negative allegations. Example: A local radio host criticizes your vote using misleading claims. The audience is limited to a niche group already opposed to you. Action: Monitor but do not respond.
If the attack is high-reach or high-impact, a response may be warranted. But do not engage the attack directly. Example: Allegations appear in a local newspaper op-ed and begin circulating among constituents and small business owners. Action: Respond with your values and/or record on the topic, without referencing the attack.
If the attack is high-reach and high-impact, you must defend yourself. Example: Allegations appear in a news story. Action: Respond directly, but whenever possible, let a credible third-party refute the attack.
Attacks in person: First, consider who is in the room. Is there anyone persuadable or a reporter who could spread your answer? If you’re talking to one or more political opponents, then just politely disagree. Don’t give them anything more to use against you. But if there are persuadable people in attendance, as when a hostile question is asked at a town hall, speak to them rather than the questioner. A little humor might go a long way.
Attacks in traditional media: Respond conventionally. The attack may give you the chance to present your side through an interview, a column, or a letter to the editor.
Attacks online: In today’s digital environment, the best strategy is often not responding at all. At its core, social media rewards outrage: extreme or misleading content drives engagement, which in turn drives profit. That means platforms often amplify harmful content and have no incentive to moderate it.
Because of this, responding to such attacks can unintentionally amplify harmful content rather than contain it. The goal is to protect your credibility, avoid spreading misinformation, and keep the focus on your values and record. For marginalized communities, this impact is even more extreme because the online environment amplifies long-standing narratives of misogyny and racism. Not only do these communities see attacks at a higher rate than their white, male counterparts, but the attacks appear differently qualitatively. For women, for example, they are much more likely to focus on character instead of policy.
Anyone who is the target of hate feels an instinct to respond, defend, and set the record straight. However, because of the cycle outlined above, responding to attacks can unintentionally spread them further.
When you encounter online attacks or disinformation, resist the urge to respond immediately. First, assess reach and impact. Then, if you must respond:
Don’t say… “X said ___ and that’s wrong.”
Say… the opposite, without referencing the attack, or shift the conversation to your values and record. Lead with your values, not their claims.
Remember: (1) reinforce what you stand for, (2) highlight your story and track record, and (3) elevate trusted third-party voices and validators when possible.
For example, perhaps a conservative radio host has been attacking you on his show for a vote you cast. His facts are off. He’s using a bill that you voted against for a very technical reason to try to say that you are harmful to small businesses in the district. On his social media, he’s posting clips of the same soundbites from his show. Still, the attack is predominantly remaining among his niche audience of far-right voters. At this point, you should continue to monitor, but a response from you would simply cause his attack line to spread further.
However, the next week, there is an op-ed in the local paper arguing that you are bad for small businesses. They’re making the same points he did, but this time the audience is reaching a wider swath of your constituents. Local shop owners begin expressing concern in neighborhood Facebook groups.
At this point, a response from you may be warranted, but you still don’t want to respond to the attack directly. Instead, you want to say the opposite. Lean into messaging around your support for local businesses and your strong record of leading policy to support them. You could even have local business owners post for you about why they believe in your leadership.
Finally, no matter what, do not repeat the attack! Never respond “X said ___ and that’s wrong.” That kind of response provides oxygen for the charges and invites another repetition from your opponents.