By Brandon Tatum, Ed.D, Taubman Center Visiting Fellow
Theodore Roosevelt famously described the presidency as a “bully pulpit.” Today the phrase is often misunderstood. In Roosevelt’s time, the word “bully” did not mean intimidation or cruelty. In early American slang it meant excellent, admirable, or first rate. Roosevelt used the phrase to describe the unique platform leaders possess to elevate the country’s character and call citizens toward higher ideals. The bully pulpit was not intended as a weapon. It was a moral megaphone.
More than a century later, American politics faces a paradox. The tools for public communication have multiplied dramatically, yet the spirit Roosevelt intended for the bully pulpit has eroded. Platforms that once elevated civic life now amplify anger, contempt, and division.
And yet new research suggests something important: the American public is not comfortable with this environment. In fact, many Americans are hungry for something different.
A Country Exhausted by Division
A recent national survey conducted with Hart Research reveals deep dissatisfaction with the tone of public life in the United States. By a fifty-six point margin, Americans say they are dissatisfied with how people treat each other today: seventy-eight percent say they are dissatisfied, compared with just twenty-two percent who say they are satisfied. Even more striking, seventy-seven percent of people surveyed believe the problem is getting worse, not better.
Political division now ranks among the most serious concerns Americans identify facing the country. Eighty-three percent say division is a very big problem, placing it just behind the cost of living at eighty-six percent. In other words, the public views political hostility as a national crisis that rivals economic pressure.
The consequences of this environment are increasingly visible. Political violence and threats against public officials have risen in recent years. Public trust in institutions has declined. Digital information ecosystem rewards outrage and conflict. New data from The Institute for Strategic Dialogue and the Impact Project’s Security Map shows just how serious the trend has become. The updated dataset tracks incidents between 2015 and 2025 and reveals a dramatic escalation in threats directed at public servants. During that period, threats against local public servants increased by 2,030 percent. Even more concerning, threats against the families of public servants increased by 3,700 percent, with thirty-four percent of those threats occurring in 2025 alone.
What makes these findings especially troubling is that the problem is no longer limited to federal officials or high-profile political figures. Increasingly, intimidation is directed at people working quietly in their communities: school board members, sports officials, government employees, and other public servants responsible for keeping local institutions functioning.
The Public Sees the Problem and Shares Responsibility
One of the most revealing findings in the Hart research survey is how Americans distribute responsibility for division. While respondents most frequently cited responsibly as lying with media organizations and political leaders, sixty-three percent of respondents say responsibility lies with all of us, rating shared responsibility between seven and ten on a ten-point scale.
This matters. The public is not solely pointing fingers at institutions. Many Americans recognize that the tone of civic life is shaped collectively. At the same time, many feel powerless to change it. At the beginning of the survey, only twenty-one percent believed they personally could have a big impact on reducing division. Half believed they could have only a small impact or none at all.
But something interesting happened during the course of the survey. After reflecting on questions about dignity and civic behavior, the proportion who believed they could personally make a difference rose nine points to thirty percent. Even modest shifts like this matter. They suggest that awareness and leadership can move public attitudes toward greater agency and responsibility.
Americans Believe in the Principle of Dignity
Despite frustration with the tone of politics, the survey reveals strong agreement on a core moral principle. More than nine out of ten Americans agree that all people deserve to be treated with dignity, with seventy-six percent strongly agreeing. Majorities across political lines also agree with statements describing the positive consequences of dignity and the damaging effects of contempt.
Perhaps most powerful is the message that resonated most strongly in testing: the example we set for children. Americans may disagree about policy, but the desire to model healthy civic behavior for the next generation remains deeply shared.
The Public Is Ready to Act
The most hopeful finding in the research may be the willingness Americans express to act themselves. The data show overwhelming support for behaviors that promote respect and reduce contempt in civic life. Ninety-seven percent say they are willing to model respectful behavior for young people in their lives. Ninety percent say they would support candidates who prioritize treating people with dignity. Eighty-five percent say they would refuse to vote for candidates who treat those who disagree with them with contempt. Large majorities also say they would talk with family and friends about treating others with respect, disengage from media that promotes contempt, and stop following individuals who encourage hostility online.
These numbers reveal something important. The public appetite for a healthier civic culture is far larger than many assume.
Reclaiming the Bully Pulpit
The challenge before American leadership today is not simply policy disagreement. Democracies are built to accommodate disagreement. The deeper problem is the breakdown of civic norms that once enabled Americans to disagree without diminishing one another’s humanity.
This is where Roosevelt’s original idea of the bully pulpit becomes relevant again.
Leadership platforms, whether presidential, gubernatorial, legislative, or civic, carry an extraordinary capacity to shape the tone of public life. Used poorly, they can inflame division. Used well, they can elevate national character. The survey data suggest the public is ready for the latter.
Americans are exhausted by contempt but remain committed to respect. They recognize the problem but still believe healing is possible. Seventy-two percent say it is definitely or probably possible for the country to overcome its division. In other words, hope remains a national resource.
A Leadership Opportunity
Reclaiming the bully pulpit does not mean suppressing disagreement. Healthy democracies require debate. It means demonstrating that disagreement can occur without humiliation, contempt, or violence. It means reminding citizens, especially younger generations, that the health of our public life depends not only on institutions but on the character of the people who serve. The early twentieth century bully pulpit was meant to inspire citizens toward higher conduct. In a moment of rising polarization and political hostility, the opportunity before today’s leaders may be to restore that original purpose. The American public, according to the data, is ready for it.
