Joe HonickJoe Honick
By its standard definition, the “Bully Pulpit” is thought to be a wonderfully prominent place from which passionate and concerned speakers can address issues of great importance. It’s not so much a stage or rostrum as it’s a special spot or environment known for the attention it may attract. It’s a place to be used with respect. It’s not a place for bullies.

The 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 used the word bully as an adjective meaning “superb” or “wonderful,” a more common usage in his time than today.

America presents such a platform every four years for worthy political opponents to debate and otherwise lay out competing credentials for voters to determine the nation’s leadership. In times such as the one in which we presently reside, our hopes and expectations rest on the typically confident sense that worthy contenders — freely selected, though at unimaginable expense — will articulate their plans and ideas for the most powerful position on earth, giving us reasons to support them.

Sadly, the American Bully Pulpit of 2016 is rife with contenders and reportage that embarrass the nation on the world stage. Even the least politically sophisticated citizen understands there will be some unpleasant media commentary and candidate back-and-forth, but what is neither expected nor acceptable, even among the least politically savvy, is the insistent schoolyard bully patter that is mostly the work of candidate Donald Trump, whose boasted wealth and position suggest he knows better.

Trump’s lack of respect for the position he seeks may well suggest how he would treat that office if elected. That said, it should be instructive to his opponent as well. Given the unique circumstance in American history that features a woman contending with a male competitor for the Presidency, Hillary Clinton may well have been drawn into the trap that demands her stooping down to Trump’s rhetorical level in order to appear sufficiently tough … something that hardly dignifies the campaign, the candidacies or the expectations of the American people.

Even more sad is the reality that our “mainstream” print media, straining to compete with all sorts of new operations on the Internet and elsewhere, have bought into the journalistically discredited idea of “if it bleeds it leads,” and are doing a disservice to voters trying to deal with this mess of a campaign. In doing so, these media have failed to help readers understand the issues or events shaping the world today.

Having assessed one of the most contemptible campaigns in history, some suggestions are in order. I don’t expect agreement with my suggestions and would hope others would quickly have more. However, I think they represent a start.

First, I suggest each candidate be required to present a one-minute essay with the title: “Why I should be elected President of the United States,” with presentations held to that single minute.

Second, each candidate should submit his or her definition of a President of the United States, with supporting reasoning, and be required to read it before media questioning begins. Again, it should be limited to one minute.

Holding both to a one-minute limitation by ringing a bell will not only get their attention but the attention of the viewing and listening audience as well.

Given the shallow depths of what has now embarrassingly passed for a campaign, restraints that don’t deny either candidate later commentary also demands their care in articulating and qualifying themselves for the position they seek.

* * *

Joseph J. Honick is president of GMA International in Bainbridge Island, Wash.