I still remember the first time I heard the term “bully pulpit.” What a weird way to describe the presidency, I thought. To me, a pulpit was a place of influence, where leaders spoke with purpose and conviction. But a bully? That implied force, coercion—maybe even intimidation.
Later, I learned that Theodore Roosevelt meant it as a compliment, using “bully” in the old sense of “excellent” or “great.” He believed the presidency was a powerful platform to advocate for change—a place where words could inspire action, not just demand it.
But watching the shouting match that unfolded in the Oval Office last Friday, I couldn’t help but wonder: Has the bully pulpit become more about the bully than the pulpit?
Power vs. Influence: The Leadership Divide
There’s a fine line between strength and coercion, between negotiation and intimidation, between leading and posturing.
Roosevelt saw the bully pulpit as a megaphone for ideas—a way to persuade, unite, and mobilize. But history has also shown us what happens when power is used to pressure rather than inspire.
Gandhi led a revolution without an army, proving that moral authority and steadfast resolve could dismantle an empire. In contrast, Mussolini built his rule on bluster and brutality, mistaking fear for loyalty—until it could no longer sustain itself.
Influence endures. Force—no matter how loud or commanding—eventually crumbles.
Last Friday in the Oval Office wasn’t just a meeting gone off the rails. It was a case study in what happens when leadership becomes transactional instead of transformational—when the bully pulpit is no longer used to inspire, but to corner.
As a leader, regardless of your role, there will be moments when the stakes are high, the room is tense, and all eyes are on you.
WWYD:
- Do you escalate the tension, or do you de-escalate the moment?
- Do you corner people, or do you create space for real conversation?
- Do you use power as a blunt instrument, or do you apply influence with precision?
Real leadership is not about who holds the most leverage—it’s about who creates lasting impact.
This isn’t just about political leaders. It’s a wake-up call for how we, as educators, are shaping the next generation.
Are we teaching our students to recognize power plays for what they are? To navigate high-stakes situations with wisdom rather than impulse? To lead with integrity rather than intimidation?
If moments like this reveal anything, it’s that our role isn’t just to impart knowledge—it’s to cultivate the kind of leadership the world desperately needs. The next generation will inherit a world shaped by today’s choices. We need to equip them not just to react to it, but to lead it better.
Are we teaching them to use their own bully pulpit to inspire and unite—or just to dominate and control?
The lesson from the Oval Office isn’t just about what transpired in the room. It’s about what we choose to take away from it.
A shakedown may win the moment, but it rarely builds anything lasting. True leaders don’t just play for leverage—they play for legacy. Because leadership isn’t about winning a negotiation; it’s about what’s left standing when the deal is done.
Slava Ukraini.
