From the mind of critic: “If the American President commands fear and aquiescence because they speak from the bully pulpit, how can we ever be diplomatic? If our leader is seen as a bully no matter who holds the office, how can we ever be respected? Does the illusion of power which flows through all elites work overtime in America, because it must portray the illusion of democracy as well? Language is the ultimate double meaning concept, in that it means everything and nothing at the same time. We don’t have to use the term bully pulpit, surely we’ve had leaders that were less bullies and more diplomats than others, but it’s still in use. Is this because somewhere ingrained in our American psyche, we know we’re bullies and don’t care? Do we know not all of us are bullies but still use outdated traditions without questioning their meanings, because if we did they’d hold non-illusory power over our actions, instead of illusory power derived from our ignorance? The key to acheiving balance with language is admitting meaning, and to keep using it if we agree, stop if we don’t, and not obsess about it either way. Whether we agree with a phrase or not, it will only hold power over us if we allow it to or we ignore. We can have a bully pulpit or a unification pulpit, it’s up to us. We can make big changes if we aren’t afraid to make small ones.” 🙂