Political and Cultural Bullies

When it comes to a clever phrase or literary expression, I love irony, but in the real world irony is often painful. Consider the irony of the current campaign against bullying. Many among the educational, media, and political elite have christened bullying as the next evil to obliterate, and who would disagree? I was bullied as a teenager, complete with insulting names, physical intimidation, and feelings of shame, especially when I got chewed out by my father for not beating up the bully! Fortunately, God blessed me with a durable ego, and one day the bully discovered that his favorite victim had outgrown him; his attempt to trip me on the way to the cafeteria had an “ironic” outcome.

However, I find myself doubting the success of this anti-bullying campaign because it is up against a seriously powerful counter-force. I call it the political bully; and, as long as the political bully is not only permitted his intimidating ways but virtually lauded for his perceived effectiveness, the classic school yard or neighborhood bully is not likely to become extinct, any time soon.

The terrorist is another powerful counter-force, especially if his victims surrender to him. Refusing to name the bully, terrorist, or blackmailer, as such, doesn't remove their intimidation. A threat may be physical, emotional, or psychic; words may not break bones, but they obviously hurt, sometimes even when the intent is otherwise. The result is shame, humiliation, fear, self-doubt, embarrassment, risk avoidance, and of course physical injury, in the worst cases, self-inflicted. Once I became a rather big bruiser myself, I no longer worried about bullies; indeed, I went out of my way to avoid hurting others and, along with that, to control the temper that tends to run in my family.

So why, after being a victim, was I so determined not to turn the tables? I wonder how many victims of abuse vow, during their times of suffering, never to inflict abuse on another, only to break that vow later on? I recall a friend whose “rite of passage” experience as a medical student had convinced him of his right to have his turn. Victims of fraternity or other incidences of hazing turn around and haze the next group of newbies. More broadly, how do people come to perceive intimidation as a valid method of social interaction? Why does any kind of bully do what he or she does? Perhaps if people carefully examined the behavior in the broader arenas of life they might come closer to finding a strategy to “de-bullyize” the bully, rather than outdo him.

Now before someone attempts to accuse me of inconsistency, let me be honest and say that in books and movies, I enjoy seeing a bully get his comeuppance as much as the next guy, but I don't regard fiction as the real world; that's not where I learn how to live life (and you shouldn't either). More to the point, I do believe in justice, and I love to see justice played out in a story because often it doesn't in real life, where the good guys sometimes lose while the bad guys sometimes win—at least it looks that way. That seemingly disappointing reality occurs because God withholds justice for a time; if he didn't, the globe would be pretty empty. God's redemptive patience allows our lives to continue to enable us to find grace, forgiveness, mercy, and, hopefully in time, a measure of righteousness; a bully gets the same chance as I do or you do or anyone else does.

Still, I think the increasing prevalence of political bullying suggests some cultural developments that demand attention. The depictions of bullies convey a measure of understanding, but are they accurate? Is there more for us to understand? Consider this theory that seems largely accepted as valid: abuse victims frequently become abusers. Turn that around and you have: an abuser was once a victim of abuse. Stated that way, should we despise the abuser or sympathize with him? I have a gay friend who was sexually abused as a boy; I strongly suspect his orientation now is a result of abuse. Another friend was the likely victim of some sort of sexual molestation, while another was raped at a fairly young age; both have struggled with maintaining a “normal” sexual involvement, even with a husband. I appear to have lots of company in feeling little pity for Jerry Sandusky, except I wonder if we'll ever learn where his life turned from victim to victimizer (I just read about two of his adopted sons, one a victim and one a victimizer, not surprising in either case).

So, in our enlightened age, why is “gay-bashing” still so common? Kids have been taught to accept a gays as just a different kind of person, same as one of a different color or ethnicity. Yet gays still suffer unkindness, mockery, and worse. Please, don't blame the Church! “Hate the sin but love the sinner” does not justify scorn or cruelty; the problem is bullying wherever it hides—inside a church, inside a school, inside a gym, office, or bar, or even a government office!.. As a result, we now have a bullying gay rights movement that fails to understand that its efforts only encourage the very thing they oppose, because the movement tends to use exactly the same method, intimidation. Pushing leads to pushing back; oppressive power will be answered by oppressive power. Those who resist this pattern are often regarded as gutless and suitable to be bullied.

All across the political spectrum, intimidation has become the favored, almost celebrated, method of choice in striving to win one's agenda. The Obama campaign used intimidation by creating a caricature of Mitt Romney and labeling his own naysayers as racists and the like. Obama also used strong-arm tactics to drive earlier opponents out of opposing him. Some of his successes have been helped along by comedians who use humor to bully and intimidate, for of course bullies love to create laughter at the expense of their victims! Mr. Romney doesn't get a free pass either; he used some bullying methods to defeat his Republican rivals. No one should be surprised because the pundits, popular press, talk show hosts and callers often encourage a “give what you have gotten” attitude. Ronald Reagan was probably the last prominent politician to be able to rise above bullying tactics and win handily; this part of the world is becoming a much meaner place in recent decades.

So, one might conclude that bullying persists in politics and social action because it works, but does it? In my experience, the bully doesn't worry much about the societal effects of his behavior. He's just doing what works for him, whatever his intent may be. My personal bully was short; I don't know if he suffered for that beyond the insecurity it may cause. Was he “bullied” at home? That wouldn't be unusual; it is pretty common for bullies to be victims in another place or at an earlier time of life.

So what is inside the heart and mind of a bully? Is he or she just a mean, bad person? Sometimes, the answer is simply yes. Yet often I suspect that inside a bully is a baby, crying in fear and self-doubt. Insecurity may sometimes come from natural factors—perceptions of a deficiency of intelligence, of a lack of beauty or handsomeness, or of some other inadequacy. Self-doubt may have been reinforced even by a parent or teacher, leading to further erosion of self-esteem. The game that schools play of making everyone good by giving everyone a gold star doesn't help; such pretense doesn't eliminate differences that are obvious. Some are athletes, some are oafs. A few are attractive, a few are homely, and many are simply not sure. I was one of the bright ones, labeled in the sixth grade as a “teacher's pet,” one of three. My Mom just happened upon my old grade cards, and I had all “A's” in sixth grade; but I didn't do anything special to gain the teacher's favor, if I had it, other than being a good student. Did I deserve to be called names for that? And how did we get to a place where being bright or studying hard was worthy of insults? To this day, I am confident in my ability to do just about anything that I can read about, learn from a book, or just figure out for myself; and, to this day, I still struggle with personal feelings of self-doubt in personal relationships. Even where I am fairly certain of the love and affection of others, I never completely escape that little voice that wonders if they really do.

So that is the irony, and it's a bitter pill! The effects on the victim from being bullied are painful and long-lasting, and I suspect they are far more common than anyone has established. For years, I never shared a nickname that I hated back in high school; I was so glad to go away to college where no one had ever heard it, and I sure wasn't going to tell anyone! People prefer that no one knows the shame of their humiliation, if they can escape it. It was “Worm” (from bookworm I think). I love books, I have a house full of them (and not much else), and I haven't stopped reading since I learned how. I am a bookworm, but “worm” was intended to hurt...and it did! Today, I'm kinda surprised, and I don't really recall what I felt. Those feelings have faded into oblivion. Does that mean I'm invulnerable to that sort of bullying now? Nope. If I heard someone using an unflattering name behind my back, it would still hurt. If someone calls me a racist, I'm likely to be defensive. I have been labeled and thus disregarded in numerous religious and political ways, and I've never liked that. None of that is as bad as a painfully derogatory nickname, but I can tell you one thing, for sure; I never call people names (except perhaps under my breathe where they never hear me)!

So why are name-calling, personal bullying, and ad hominem attacks so widely used and accepted in politics and public life? Since I assume most people agree with me that being called an unflattering name hurts, how do people rationalize name-calling as acceptable in the most publicized, virtually never-ending, and ubiquitous arena of political campaigns? Of course, it is easy in an argument to say, “You're an idiot” rather than demonstrate the superiority of one's own thinking, especially since people are often hard to convince or just plain stubborn. Losing an argument can be painful, too; losing an election, painful in its own way, going all the way back to feeling that your classmates liked the other guy better than you, when she won the election.

Are you getting the sense here that bullying is not only rather common but largely accepted? Is it any wonder our campaigns among teenagers seem doomed to fail? How can we discourage an attitude and a behavior we so readily value and utilize throughout much of our culture? The adults who create the anti-bullying campaigns—apart from those who have lost a child to suicide after being humiliated by bullies—are attempting to change a cultural value at one level, among children, that many happily accept at another level, among adults. If we cannot change that, then I doubt the problem of kids bullying kids will be solved. I do not oppose the effort; I simply doubt its effectiveness, as long as this hugely obvious contradiction continues.

Were I a bit more cynical, I might suggest that bullying is similar to tolerance, where the elite advocate something that they themselves hypocritically ignore. Many who preach tolerance are, in reality, the most intolerant, demanding for example we accept the “religion of peace” while scorning those who follow the “Prince of Peace.” Lately, anyone who disagrees with our “first post-racial President” gets tagged a racist, cynical both in the area of race and in the use of bullying tactics. Less cynically, I will allow the possibility that many who are political bullies have never considered that possibility, though someone should make the aware of it.

So can bullying and intimidation be “solved” in the broader culture? I believe it can but not easily. In my view, the place to start is with the prevalent belief that it works, that intimidation produces the desired results that bullying advocates seek. In part that means people must examine the nature of winning and losing. The problem with winning, in the sense we often mean, is that losing isn't the end; it is merely a beginning of the next campaign. Germany lost World War I, and the winners mostly wanted to make Germany pay, big time. In their efforts to punish, they created the basis for the rise of Adolph Hilter and the Nazi's program of, essentially, revenge. Fortunately, by the end of World War II, we had learned that making friends of former enemies breaks the win/lose cycle, and today Germany and Japan are allies.

In the realm of issues, apart from politics, I recommend a similar strategy. Instead of trashing and bashing to defeat those who hold opposing views, work to win them over. Instead of name-calling, actually talk, listen, and deal with the underlying interests that motivate people to support a particular issue or idea. One of the best events I ever attended gave black Christians a chance to share their honest feelings with other Christians who honestly wanted to break down the racial barriers among believers. Those who did so were not seeking a livelihood as civil rights leaders who profit from continuing to attack presumed racism; these folks sought engagement and understanding, and it was good. Whether it is gay rights versus traditional marriage, abortion rights versus right to life, socialism versus capitalism, unions versus right to work, universal healthcare versus individual choice, or a host of other controversies, we will do better as a people and a culture if we work to understand each other rather than seek to bully or even destroy the opposition.  In fact, in more than one case, I'm sure the best answers lie between the opposing views, ready to be uncovered by those who talk to rather than throw names at each other.

One important qualification regarding my suggestion is this: beware of those who use the language of compromise and collaboration but intend it to be one-sided. Lip service to negotiation is common while maintaining a win/lose agenda. Our former President was a master at this combination of talking collaboration and bi-partisanship but acting clearly as a only-my-way leader. As a virtually constant campaigner, he never stopped thinking about winning whatever was at hand.

Indeed, we must realize that many who bully and intimidate in the political realm only care about winning and the power they will gain. Rather than “come together” as they often claim, many clearly want to divide Americans along a number of divides that they seek to increase between us. I spend a huge part of my time with young people from third world communities—Asians, Africans, and Central Americans—people who are “red and yellow, black and white,” teenagers and others who speak Korean, Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Dinka, Farsi, and any number of other language. Yet, if I dare oppose the President, I must be a racist? Get real! That's nonsense, and that is bullying. I won't be intimidated into silence. Who knows? Perhaps one day, a bully like that will “trip” over his own words instead of striving to trip up his loyal opposition.

Unfortunately, waiting for a bully to “defeat himself” isn't enough. We need to work at denying the bully his power to intimidate. We must ignore their efforts to discourage and divide us. Instead, we must talk to each other, respect each other, and find ways to help each other. I firmly believe that most either/or issues have solutions that are unifying rather than divisive. Honestly, humbly working together, we will discover unspoken, hidden agendas that we all can oppose. Most issues are deeper, far deeper, than the rhetoric we hear. Abortion rights are about a woman's right to choose...really? Sorry, but I doubt that millions of women really prefer to kill a baby growing inside. I have long been baffled by the contradiction of those who favor abortion but also oppose big business but ignore that abortion is big business. I have been astounded by the inconsistency of a woman's movement that seeks to see that women not be regarded as sex objects but refuses to protest places where sleazy men pay women to expose themselves for the dubious benefit of other sleazy men. Do they really think the right of women to strip will defeat the sexual objectifying of women? I see no evidence that suggests that anyone yet understands homosexuality or any of a number of other sexual proclivities. By the same token, it is obvious that some want to foster an attitude that encourages sexual exploration into some pretty bizarre areas, helped along by a very prosperous pornography industry. This may, in some respects, be the hardest for people to discuss kindly; many can barely discuss sex at all unless it's smutty talk. Too many harbor unspoken fears that they prefer to leave unspoken, but those issues color their opinions in strange ways. Yes, there is a very real homophobia, but, no, not all opponents of gay marriage are homophobic. I believe and support traditional marriage of one man to one woman, but defending that position is complicated by the culture of serial polygamy (frequent divorce and remarriage) and unmarried co-habitation; yet, why must gays marry, and why do they want a piece of all that? Why not simply seek legal domestic partnerships, and leave marriage to the Church and other religious institutions?

Does God hate fags? While I am reluctant even to acknowledge folks like that as Christians, we all know that Christians have been guilty of bullying, too. Christians have been awfully guilty in the area of name-calling, disparaging others who claim to be Christ followers, and shaming those with whom they disagree. Instead of being the encouragers we've been called by our Savior to be, many are much better at discouraging, tearing down, and intimidating those who dare to hold contrary opinions. Pastoral bullies are despicable! They boom and bombast from their pulpits and become petty tyrants in their oppressive little fiefdoms. I fear those who seek and cultivate the pastoral calling have become prone to favoring the type-A workaholic with a domineering attitude over the humble shepherd of the sheep who is told not to lord it over their flock. Of course, pew-sitters who want 24/7 service for a less than 40 hour salary are likely to get what they pay for; that, too, is a kind of bullying (Could it be that God allowed my youthful victimization to prepare me for the Christian adult version a decade or so later?).

Put this all together, and two primary methods for addressing the problem of bullying and intimidation stand out. On the one side, we need to help the victims of bullies heal without themselves becoming bullies. We must look for the inner pain that drives people to express outward anger and seek to rise above their inner doubts and fears by pushing others down. We must be careful of punishing a bully unless he has simply gone too far to avoid it; that only fosters the idea that those with power prevail (or as those in child-rearing say, “Powerful parents produce powerful children,” and not in a good sense!). Punishing a bully may only serve to confirm the person's need to bully, just as imprisonment can make an even more hardened criminal; both are challenging puzzles requiring  healing rather than worsening.

However, even when possible, healing the bully is not enough, especially as long as social and political bullying remain as acknowledged and acceptable methods for pursuing an agenda or a candidacy. We must stop our “culture wars¹” and find better ways to achieve our goals, better ways that involve gentile but rational persuasion. I have no delusions about this; it will not be easy. People like to show off their opinions, especially when they can get support from their own peanut gallery². I'm quite conservative, but I don't like to hear those who share my views trash-talking those who disagree. I give Lars Larson a lot of credit for putting “naysayers at the head of the line” and then discussing their views calmly and kindly. Of course, no one has developed trash-talking to a fine art like some on the Left; I'm afraid those will be the last to consider another way. Sadly, we also face an entertainment industry that has turned the insult into a game show. Don Rickles used to be unique, but now comedians who trash talk are grossly popular. Nevertheless, none of that should stop us from beginning where we are to promote civil discourse rather than verbal intimidation and political bullying.

[If you would like to know more of the techniques I have only briefly described here, I would gladly direct you to them or provide them myself. Generally, I refer to them as Biblical peacemaking which is more than merely a spiritual version of interpersonal negotiation or mediation. Working within an organization that sought “to resolve conflicts Biblically emphasizing reconciliation,” I quickly became convinced that those principles and methods had a broader application, one I have been seeking to promote every since. Sadly, we seem to have moved in the opposite direction culturally, making my purpose even more critically important.]

1  I worked as a radio broadcaster at a station in a family-oriented network for almost 15 years, and I heard the beginnings of the traditional values, moral majority campaign. I also observed the numerous local efforts of congregations to get people to come to their various events. In my opinion, both share a common characteristic in seeking to accomplish their goals impersonally! In another post (Toward a Better Future), I revisit my belief that we must return to the only truly Bible model for outreach or societal and cultural influence: direct, personal, one-on-one interaction. Over the last decades of “Christian Right” political activism, starting I'd say with its response to Roe v Wade, I believe many have been personally persuaded to a conservative point of view, but the movement has mostly failed politically. During the same time-frame, the Church has both lost influence and weakened internally, perhaps because external focus allowed internal needs to be neglected, although this seems also to be an extension of a longer time of sectarian strife that has also been a debilitating influence. I am inclined to regard the current shift away from both denominational identity and political action and toward a greater interest in helping the needy and other social concerns will be good for the Church, as long as we do not also shift away from the gospel.

2  “Peanut gallery” or cheerleaders, supporters, or whatever the current expression is for those who always agree.
(Edited 11/21/16, most to correct spelling or grammar; updated 2/19/19)