For most of my life the “Bully Pulpit” has been a major leadership tool of U.S.
Presidents… FDR’s fireside chats, HST’s “The Buck Stops Here” and the
Marshal Plan, Eisenhower’s dreams of a Federal Highway System and his refusal
to put conditions or limits on the use of nuclear weapons. Kennedy was a master
of the bully pulpit from the Cuban missile crisis to “We will land a man on the
moon by the end of this decade!” Reagan was a maestro on subjects from
patriotism to basic economics.
What would these presidents have to say about the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
Would they whine that Russia should offer a retreat path for escaping
Ukrainians? Would they need to be badgered to stop imports of Russian oil or
would they crawl to Iran and Venezuela to pump more oil and earn more dollars
to fund their mischief? Would they publicly whimper fears about Russian nuclear
weapons, announcing to all that we can be intimidated or blackmailed by anyone
with nuclear toys? Would they tolerate the imperfections of Ukraine’s
governance as an excuse for brutal and unprovoked attacks on civilian targets? I
think not any of the above!
A U.S. President with a sense of the power of the bully pulpit would first stake
out a moral position as the leader of the free world and only then, quietly and
privately through diplomatic channels, determine appropriate collective
responses. One could possibly claim that this path was taken with rapid and
unprecedented sanctions, but that was only a baby step. With a moral compass
sanctions could have been a response to military buildups before the first shot
was fired. Since then, without a clear moral compass, Ukraine and NATO have
been on defense. We should ask ourselves, what might be the result if the U.S.
President had used the bully pulpit at any time after Putin fired the first shot that
disrupted the existence of citizens in Ukraine?
What would be the result if the leader of the free world, even now, were to stake
out the following moral position from his bully pulpit?
“Free people in the twenty-first century cannot and will not tolerate a wanton
invasion such as we are seeing in Ukraine today. The excuse that Russia fears its
neighbor or its neighbor’s neighbors is as absurd as the United States invading
Mexico for fear of armies of immigrants or Canada for unfair prices on milk and
lumber. We have many international forums for nations to address grievances
against each other, yet Russia has used none of these. Russia, by its willingness to
invade a smaller, weaker neighbor, has fully proven the legitimacy of Ukraine’s
need for collective security through NATO membership. It has also proven that
yielding their southern flank to Russia in 2014 materially increased Ukraine
vulnerability.
“We must all recognize this entire invasion for what it is: a relentless war crime.
It is the malevolent, selfish, and baseless disruption of the lives of forty-two
million human beings. It is the theft of their way of life, the breakup of families,
the displacement to foreign lands of over five million, the destruction of their
homes and workplaces, their incomes, and for many, their lives. The imperative
response of the free world to this horror must be to prove to all that this behavior
is completely unacceptable in the twenty-first century. If not, we are all Ukraine.
“Our call to Russia must be to stop this criminal invasion and to immediately and
completely withdraw from Ukraine, including from Crimea. If Russia does not
heed this call, the consequences for them must be dire. This is not a threat or a
promise of any specific action by the United States. Rather, it is the recognition
that Russia, by this criminal invasion, has made herself a pariah and isolated
herself from the community of nations. Every Russian who has any power or
influence over this invasion will be unceasingly impoverished by international
sanctions, and all Russians will be impoverished for at least a generation by
constriction of commerce with the free world. Russia must recognize the reality
that their neighbors will likely no longer want to be counted as federated with a
Russian government so evil that it recognizes no state’s sovereignty and no value
in the lives of citizens. Russia must realize that if they escalate the horror of the
weapons they use, military response from the free world can suddenly, surgically,
and completely destroy their entire military capability.
“At the same time, allies and apologists for Russia must face the inexcusability of
this criminal invasion and the consequences of believing that Russia might ever
be their friend. Russia is under treaty to defend Ukraine. They are violating a
promise made in 1994, pledging to protect Ukraine from invasion. No other
promise they have made or might make today can be considered sacred to them.
All of the signatories of the Budapest Memorandum have a right and an
obligation to hold Russia accountable to that agreement.
“Most of all, we all must keep goodwill for the Russian people. None should
bear any enmity to the Russian people or wish them any harm. But the citizens of
any country, free or not, bear the consequences of the actions of their
government. It is important that every Russian citizen understands the immorality
of the lawless and cruel invasion of Ukraine by their government, and the
ultimate consequences it may bring to all Russian people and to their children and
grandchildren.
“May God bless the people of Russia and Ukraine and all peace-loving people
across the world. May God give us all the wisdom to recognize evil when we see
it and the courage to stop it in its tracks.”
There were good reasons why the British replaced Neville Chamberlain with
Winston Churchill in 1940. Chamberlain used his bully pulpit to plead for mercy
and peace, believing he might count on Hitler’s word. Churchill was a grand
master of the bully pulpit, gaining the support of the people and
King George VI by calling out Hitler as the evil he was and preparing all for the
struggle ahead. Not everyone admired Churchill at the time, but most historians
agree that Chamberlain was forging a path toward certain and immediate defeat.
Churchill explained using George Santayana’s famous adage, “Those who fail to
learn from history are condemned to repeat it!”
Michael Moffitt
May 2. 2022