Progressives, let's face the fact: the "bully pulpit" is not a magic wand.

[NJMaverick]

Quote:Progressives, let's face the fact: the "bully pulpit" is not a magic wand. It's time to stop reciting those two words as if they were a magical incantation that can transform public opinion.

As progressive frustration with Obama has mounted, the plaintive assertion that "If Obama had just used the "bully pulpit" of the presidency he could have transformed the national debate" has become one of the most widely repeated criticisms of his administration. In hundreds of op-ed pieces, articles, blog posts, comment threads and e-mail letters to the editor his failure to use the bully pulpit to dominate the airwaves with a full-throated progressive position on issue after issue is cited as the major and indeed single most important reason for the increased influence of Republican views.

The issue goes far beyond Obama or 2010 or 2012. If the bully pulpit view is correct, an uncompromising progressive should be able to dramatically shift the national debate once he or she is elected. If it is not, he or she will find that the bully pulpit is a relatively limited tool that cannot dramatically shift public attitudes. The issue is whether the bully pulpit actually "works" as described or if it doesn't. This is just as critical a question for a future president Krugman or Olbermann as it is for the present occupant of the oval office.

What is particularly striking about the "the bully pulpit can transform the national debate" notion is the way it is stated as if it were an entirely self-evident truth, one whose validity is so obvious that it does not need any empirical support or confirmation. In virtually every case, it is presented as a proposition whose certainty is simply beyond any serious question.

In fact, however, there is actually very little evidence in either the historical record or public opinion research to support this view. Even such famous examples of presidential rhetoric as Lyndon Johnson's "We shall overcome" speech supporting the Civil Rights Bill or Ronald Reagan's often quoted speech asserting that "government is the problem not the solution" did not produce any major epiphany-like transformations of attitudes that opinion polls could detect. Observation suggests that the bully pulpit has a real and to some degree quantifiable but very clearly limited influence on public opinion. It cannot, by itself, produce major attitude change.

The tremendous appeal of the "bully pulpit" notion is rooted in the fact that it provides an all-purpose, entirely irrefutable argument against Obama's (or any politician's) political strategy and tactics without requiring any evidence.

http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/s...he_fac.php

[jaxx]

Very good article. It led me to go look up the origin of the bully pulpit and I found this:

<..> A bully pulpit is a public office or other position of authority of sufficiently high rank that provides the holder with an opportunity to speak out and be listened to on any matter. The bully pulpit can bring issues to the forefront that were not initially in debate, due to the office's stature and publicity.

This term was coined by President Theodore Roosevelt, who referred to the White House as a "bully pulpit," by which he meant a terrific platform from which to advocate an agenda. Roosevelt famously used the word bully as an adjective meaning "superb" or "wonderful" (a more common expression in his time than it is today).

Its meaning in this sense is only distantly related to the modern form of "bully", which means "harasser of the weak". The word is related to the Dutch boel, meaning lover, and is also found in the German word Nebenbuhler, meaning a rival for a lady's affection. In English usage around 1700, "bully" came to be similar to "pimp," which gives us the connotation of a ruffian or harasser.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bully_pulpit

So what used to be superb is now harass. Which is what I think the bully pulpit dreamers want. Just sayin

[Cha]

(08-11-2011 09:22 AM)jaxx Wrote:  Very good article. It led me to go look up the origin of the bully pulpit and I found this:

<..> A bully pulpit is a public office or other position of authority of sufficiently high rank that provides the holder with an opportunity to speak out and be listened to on any matter. The bully pulpit can bring issues to the forefront that were not initially in debate, due to the office's stature and publicity.

This term was coined by President Theodore Roosevelt, who referred to the White House as a "bully pulpit," by which he meant a terrific platform from which to advocate an agenda. Roosevelt famously used the word bully as an adjective meaning "superb" or "wonderful" (a more common expression in his time than it is today).

Its meaning in this sense is only distantly related to the modern form of "bully", which means "harasser of the weak". The word is related to the Dutch boel, meaning lover, and is also found in the German word Nebenbuhler, meaning a rival for a lady's affection. In English usage around 1700, "bully" came to be similar to "pimp," which gives us the connotation of a ruffian or harasser.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bully_pulpit

So what used to be superb is now harass. Which is what I think the bully pulpit dreamers want. Just sayin

Oh yeah, I remember.. "bully for you!".. that kinda dates me. Thanks for the history lesson, jaxx.

PBO uses his jolly good pulpit wisely.

[Sheepshank]

I've never bought off on the opinon that the bully pulpit actually provides the infallible results people think it will.

Reminds of the old John Wayne-esque war movies. Soldier lying in a ditch. Intestines hanging out on the ground. Ready to die. His beloved team leader stands over him with hands on hips, growling, "Get up soldier! That's an order!!". And Hollywood being what it is, the soldier gets up and goes home and marries his highschool sweetheart. All because he was bullied to get up. What are the chances this could happen in politics? "Get off your fat asses! Vote the way I want you to vote because I'm right and you're idiots!" Surely that will get the vote? Really?

Speeches with heart, truth, a core of logical thinking...are so much more persuasive. I have a hard time reducing that type of public speaking to calling it a bully pulpit. Maybe I'm just against the term itself...it's sound much more like more of a Republican maneouver than a Democratic plan of action.

[mzmolly]

A very thoughtful piece. Thanks for sharing.

[yowzayowzayowza]

More often than not, those purveying the "bully pulpit" strategy are actually looking for a way to lord over our divided government. Not. Gunna. Happen.

Thx for the post!!

[Cha]

Reagan's "government is the problem not the solution" is because he and his freaking Orwellian dumbshits made it that way.

But, I digress.. back to "progressives" which is like calling those other idiots "conservative" who raised the debt ceiling 7 times when bush was in office without paying for it. Nothing "conservative" about the current crop's lies..now is there?

The "frustration" has mounted because they don't listen to anything except more whining and don't acknowledge anything that he's accomplished and never will. It's like talking to a brick wall..no need to

[RoyGBiv]

This is an excellent analysis, but it contains a rather large flaw. It's not necessarily the author's flaw, but it is there nonetheless and only tangentially addressed.

The setup for the analysis is begging the question of what the intent of using the so-called bully pulpit is. There is an assumption that its purpose is to alter public opinion, by which it is implied we mean national opinion on a grand scale. I realize many Obama critics do in fact accompany their use of this term with some variation of "influencing public opinion" on a national scale, but as the analysis makes clear, that's not what it's good for. I don't think Teddy Roosevelt or any other President who has used his office to push specific issues believed that's what it was good for either.

Roosevelt, for example, was an astute observer of, for lack of a better phrase, "how things really worked," and used his office to influence different, targeted groups of people who operated the levers of that machinery. His idea was not so much to try to convince everyone in the entire country of the benefit of his ecological proposals, for example, but to concentrate on individuals and groups who would receive the message and then themselves turn up the heat on politicians in Congress. He would even go so far as to target groups of people who were constituents of a specific congressperson or governor or even in some case a state representative or senator because those people were key to what he wanted to get done. A small group of congresspeople can do an amazing amount when motivated in the right way.

FDR did this as well, arguable better than his cousin. You don't hear about it a lot, except derisively, because his use of the bully pulpit was very often behind closed doors. The fireside chats were famous but not truly about changing public opinion. They were about instilling confidence and playing on people's emotions, and they worked. But they didn't actually *do* anything other than that. In terms of opinion making and influencing policy, however, FDR used his bully pulpit to command audiences with financiers, business people and others in order to convince them to put pressure on their representatives or on their organizations to get things done. There is a very clear example of this in the story of the run-up to his first inauguration, but I won't bore you with all the sordid details. Suffice to say it makes Obama's meetings with bankers early-on seem like a brief lunch at Burger King by comparison.

Of course, Obama does both things described above, and he's criticized for it by the very same people who are telling him to do it without realizing just what it is they are telling him to do.

As implied, the author suggests this idea, but he doesn't explore it much. I understand that wasn't the intent and so perhaps shouldn't have been explored much, but I also think he misses an opportunity to analyze how Obama has in fact used the bully pulpit to good effect on several occasions. To put it more succinctly, I think there's too much defensiveness in the way he approached the subject.

[nofurylike]

thank you for this thread and excellent discussion, NJMaverick.

thank you, all, for enlightening comments.