How Donald Trump’s Exchange with Bishop Mariann Budde Helps Illustrate the Nuances of Bullying
Last year, Dr. Phil, the TV personality and now Trump follower and apparent ICE embed, felt compelled to defend Trump’s interpersonal style by proclaiming that he is “not a bully.” Dr. Phil based this conclusion on a definition of bullying developed by the late Dan Olweus, which requires, in part, an “imbalance of power” between the aggressor and target. Since Dr. Phil sees Trump and those he deals with as “equal in power,” no bullying occurs in his view. However, the conclusion reached by Dr. Phil is intellectually dishonest. Why? Two reasons.
First, there is no such thing as a “bully.” The word is a label, simplistic and dehumanizing. Individuals use bullying behavior in their interactions, but no person is a bully. Second, the definition developed by Olweus has, in the past two decades or so, been discredited by scholars and is no longer considered accurate. In fact, Olweus’s definition makes identifying and resolving bullying issues more difficult. Anyone who professes to be an expert in the field of bullying, as Dr. Phil does, should know these things.
The appropriate question to ask about Trump, however, is this: does he use bullying behavior? The answer to that question can help to illustrate the nuances of bullying. Bullying is defined as any behavior used by an aggressor to maintain or enhance their own social status in a peer group that causes emotional harm to the target. The emotional harm caused to the target is specifically a feeling of diminished social status within that peer group. In other words, the aggressor’s behavior makes the target feel rejected by peer group members. Both the behavior and the harm must be present for bullying to occur. The peer group plays a critical role in the bullying dynamic as peers determine one’s social status. That’s why almost all bullying behavior occurs in front of a peer audience.
The Inauguration Day exchange between Donald Trump and Episcopalian Bishop Mariann Budde serves as an ideal interaction for understanding bullying. During the service at the National Cathedral, Bishop Budde made a direct plea to Trump to have mercy on those targeted by his policies—specifically immigrants, whom Trump labels as criminals and has begun deporting, and members of the LGBTQ+ community, whom Trump dehumanizes and refuses to recognize.
The public calling out of Trump by a high-ranking member of a Christian church carried the risk to Trump of diminishing his status in his peer group, which, for lack of a better term, I’ll call “MAGA followers.” MAGA followers identify as Christian, so to be publicly called out by a high-ranking Christian leader who highlighted the anti-Christian nature of Trump’s policies clearly made Trump feel diminished in the eyes of his peer group as evidenced by his response. He responded with a variety of behaviors that are typical of juvenile aggression. He called the bishop a derogatory name, labeled her, denigrated her position in the church, mocked the service, claimed that he was the victim, and demanded an apology.
Did Trump use bullying behavior? Absolutely! The behavior he directed toward Bishop Budde was intended to restore his diminished status among MAGA followers and in turn try to diminish her status. What makes this situation more interesting is that the members of his peer group, who are largely adults, approve of these juvenile behaviors—but that’s a topic for another post.
Was the exchange between Trump and Bishop Budde bullying? For bullying to occur, the target of the aggression must suffer emotional harm, specifically a feeling of rejection by the peer group. While Trump’s bullying behaviors toward Bishop Budde certainly diminished her in the eyes of MAGA followers, this was not an instance of bullying because Bishop Budde indicated in subsequent interviews that she was not affected emotionally by their disapproval. She does not seek or have a personal need their approval. It’s reasonable to assume that Bishop Budde could have been harmed if the personal and denigrating attacks had come from senior leaders in her church or other Christian organizations, her peer group. But no, she was not harmed, so bullying did not occur.
Does the absence of harm excuse Trump’s behavior? Of course not. And the lesson for educators is that whenever they observe bullying behaviors in their classrooms, they need to address them. While one target of aggression may not be affected, another target might be harmed. Educators should help students who use such behaviors learn better and more constructive ways of engaging with peers and gaining their approval.