When Theodore Roosevelt referred to the Office of the Presidency as being a “bully pulpit” he was using the word “bully” in a different sense than we do in today’s culture. He used it as an adjective whereby he meant a grand and wonderful platform from which to speak, be heard, and to present your views. We now more often use the word as a noun or a verb meaning an oppressor of the weaker, or the act of so oppressing…
I’ve never liked bullies, and have remorse for the few times in my life I have even approached being one. It’s not a new thing, but despite the recent attempts to raise awareness and combat bullying behavior, bullies have permeated our society. In many segments of our culture using physical strength, psychological intimidation, brute force, and even violence to impose your will on others weaker than yourself is considered a value. Virtues such as meekness, humility, and respect for others are systematically being replaced with intimidation, bravado, and the imposition of demands. We are increasingly unwilling to tolerate those who are at odds with our own beliefs and goals, and view them as foes who must be humiliated and vanquished.
The annual spectacle of Black Friday shoppers behaving themselves like wild animals, replete with stampedes, pepper spraying, old men’s heads being bounced off the hard floor, and all the other countless acts of nastiness not egregious enough to make the nightly news, crystallizes for us this embarrassing element of what we have become. Much could be written about the sociological dynamics of what is happening to us, but for this blog we will restrict ourselves to how all this relates to the political landscape.
The Presidency may remain the ultimate “Bully Pulpit”, but thanks in large part to the cable news networks it is no longer the only bully pulpit. Varied Senators, Representatives, talk show hosts, actors, and public figures flock to the studios to share the platform. Add to this radio, print, and especially the internet and the movements it has helped to form, and we see the ability to effectively share one’s views and advocate for one’s position has never been greater. Sadly all these bully pulpits, from the Presidency to all the rest, are being redefined from the archaic use of the word, to the more conventional meaning. They are becoming platforms from which to bludgeon, intimidate, and impose one’s will on others.
Surprisingly, bullying behavior is generally a sign of some higher weakness. Intellectual inadequacy, moral inferiority, diminished self-esteem, or the inability to compete in the arena of ideas, brings on a reversion to the baser human instincts of violence, intimidation, coercion and conquest. We have become so weakened that we feel threatened by those with whom we disagree, to the point that there is a sense that they must be eliminated at all costs. Agreeing to disagree and showing respect in that disagreement, has been replaced with some bizarre death match mentality, and calling your opponent a nazi!
IMHO: Putting aside for the moment the influence of the changing of societal values as a whole, the centralization of power in Washington has only succeeded in putting all our eggs in one woefully inadequate basket. The stakes become so high that civility and virtue are considered quaint in this cut-throat battle. The metaphor of the melting pot of America is hardly a perfect one. We are melted and melded to each other in loyalty and allegiance, but we are clearly not one homogenous goo to be molded by our grand overseers in the Capital. Kansans are not Californians, and never will be; what works in New York City, doesn’t fly in Salt Lake City. “E Pluribus, Unum”; out of many, one. Such a unity will never occur through the attempt to bully one’s neighbor out of existence, but rather by finding a way to live peacefully with our differences. One way to do that is to decrease the number of things we need to agree on through a smaller government, or at least a more locally based one. One can have a wonderful relationship with all their extended family despite their quirks and differences, but imagine forcing them all to live in one house under the same rules, and having to develop those rules and vote on them? Would there be peace? Would there be bullies? If we want our citizens to live in peace, we ought to invest less energy hopelessly trying to impose our will on 300 million other people, and more on investigating ways we can peacefully remain e pluribus, unum.
Your observation that the political media landscape has turned into a bully pulpit in the modern sense of the word is spot on. The underlying problem appears to be an overall lack of respect for others, especially for those we don’t agree with. After all, it is much easier to humiliate and discriminate against others than to have a factual discussion and maybe discover the flaws in one’s own arguments. Unfortunately, in our age of modern technology, we can easily find whatever we want to find to support our own views in the matter of a few mouse clicks while factual information is increasingly getting buried under all the rubble of misinformation and distorted facts. In a time of information overload, the bully has the advantage of being heard, even if he has nothing to say. Given the influence of the mass media on society, it is not surprising that this bullying attitude has become an increasing component of our everyday lives.
In your last paragraph you are suggesting that Washington tends to bully individual states into adopting national policies (correct me if I’m wrong). I agree with you that we should strive for a less centralized and more direct type of democracy that places our lives under our own control. Whether this would constitute as “less government” (whatever that means) I don’t know since the underlying problem is that more people should be involved in governing the country. The distinction between us, the people, and our government by those who call for less government I fail to understand. Also, we must not forget that there are important matters of national interest that shape who we are as a country. Publicly-funded systems like Medicaid and Medicare could not exist without nationwide support.