There’s been a lot of commentary about the tendency of Republicans to be “bullies” while Democrats are seen as “scolds.” These traits are also often associated with masculine (bullying) and feminine (scolding) traits. While bullying and scolding sometimes gets the desired result of compliance, both have serious downsides and are not considered positive approaches to persuasion. Here’s a quick comparison:
- Intent. Bullying intends to harm, dominate or control the target. Scolding intends to correct behavior, but it is done out of frustration.
- Delivery. Bullying can be persistent, personal, and humiliating. Scolding can be impulsive and situation-specific rather than addressing larger issues.
- Power Dynamic. Bullying involves a power imbalance in which a stronger person preys on a weaker one. Scolding is authority-based correction and also portrays a power imbalance (e.g. parent, teacher, or boss).
- Impact. Bullying creates fear, anxiety, and lasting emotional harm. Scolding provokes guilt, resentment and defensiveness.
- Frequency. Bullying is ongoing and deliberate. Scolding is short-term and reactive. Both can create feelings of helplessness.
The linkage to political parties is a stereotyped observation and there are also counter-examples. Republicans often use rhetoric that is designed to project strength, toughness and dominance, including bombastic, combative or aggressive rhetoric. Democrats often come across as lecturing, moralizing or shaming those who don’t align with their values or priorities, emphasizing things that some find condescending or nit-picky (e.g. political correctness, inclusivity, or social responsibility).
These tactics are effective, but only in the short term. They instill guilt, fear and shame in their targets, but over time, they lead to rebellion, resentment or disillusionment. Ideas are only as good as their actual buy-in, and when you use fear to gain compliance, that compliant behavior goes away as soon as the authority figure isn’t monitoring it.
This is one reason that these tactics don’t work well, including in religion, but they are certainly very common in religious communities. Here’s how they look in a religious context:
Bullying involves intimidation, coercion or punishment to enforce conformity.
- Hellfire & damnation. Using fear of eternal punishment to pressure people into obedience is a common religious tactic and has support in scripture. A softer version of this that is prevalent in Mormon teaching is “sad heaven” or “no empty chairs,” turning family relationships which should be based on love and support toward the church’s aims of policing other family members’ orthodoxy or behaviors to ensure they stay “in the good ship Zion.”
- Excommunication. A culture of threatening one’s membership in the church based on behaviors or beliefs is a bullying tactic to ensure compliance. Being excommunicated often comes with shunning behaviors by members of the community due to loss of social status.
- Religious extremism. In some religious cultures, threats or acts of violence to enforce beliefs and behaviors exist (e.g. blasphemy laws, honor killings). While there is a history of this in the earliest days of the church (blood atonement), it’s fortunate that it is not a current practice and is far enough in the past that most members don’t even know about it.
- Authoritarian leadership. Some religious leaders use their power to control followers in ways that lead to abusive practices and exploitation. Examples like Warren Jeffs or Jim Jones are more obvious, but some have pointed to LDS missionary experiences as potentially exploitative (free labor at the expense of the member with severe restrictions on freedom or passports taken by the mission president).
Scolding in a religion includes moralizing, guilt-inducing or shaming believers for failure to meet religious standards or beliefs.
- Public confessions or repentance rituals. Some religions include public shaming for sins (e.g. Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter). A Mormon version of this is the policing of beliefs and behaviors inherent in the worthiness interviews for youth and for temple recommends.
- Purity culture or modesty rules. Shaming women for appearance or behavior, essentially making women’s bodies enemies to be subdued or controlled, creates shame or guilt in women who take these messages to heart. In Mormon culture, garments literally add another layer to this modesty policing.
- Moral superiority & judgmentalism. When a religious culture casts suspicion on non-believers or “lax” observers, calling them morally corrupt, sinful, or “lost souls” this is at play (e.g. “lazy learners” who “want to sin.”)
- Guilt over natural human behavior. Teaching that normal emotions (doubt, desire, anger) are sinful can lead to lifelong guilt and self-flagellation.
Some religions emphasize love, compassion, and encouragement rather than fear. These groups focus on spiritual fulfillment, community support, and personal growth rather than punishment. Research suggests that belief in a benevolent deity rather than a punitive one is associated with greater happiness and well-being. My personal experience is that the Church contains both bullying and scolding, but it also contains the positive traits. There are too many people in it for it not to have both positive and negative approaches. But, those negative approaches are definitely in the well-used part of the toolbox, and there are some reasons for that.
Bullying can be effective specifically when “softer” actions have not led to the desired changes. Bullies are also effective at exposing weaknesses that need to be addressed; it’s one reason we use terms like “a come to Jesus meeting” or saying someone needs to come in and “kick some asses.” Bullies also create a competitive environment that can lead to success (for them anyway, while beating others). And authoritarian styles in general use control to prevent chaos, but at a moral cost.
Scolding feels condescending, alienating and counterproductive and leads to defiance rather than change. But it can be effective at pointing out injustices, encouraging responsibility, correcting harmful behaviors or revising and upholding social norms.
Even if they are effective strategies in the short-term, though, the long-term results don’t hold up. Effective leadership involves assertiveness without cruelty and moral guidance without condescension. The use of bullying and scolding loses hearts and minds rather than creating community and positive change.
- Do you see examples of these two approaches in politics?
- Do you see these at church? Does the church favor one over the other?
- What examples of positive persuasion do you see at church and in politics?
- If the church used less bullying or scolding do you think member retention would improve?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Good and timely post. In terms of church, I used to see more scolding/bullying than I do now; most folks in my ward are good people and don’t use either strategy, but when I do encounter a strategy, it’s a kind of passive/aggressive shaming thing. Actually, what I mostly encounter at church in terms of the few folks who seem to want me to do/say things I don’t want to is the whole fake friendship/fellowshipping thing. I’m an outsider at church and can be outspoken about stuff I disagree with, so folks who don’t know and need to talk to me for some reason are usually a combination of cautious and insincere. That’s really easy to spot; they were also that way with my son, who’s an independent thinker (something Mormonism simply doesn’t tolerate) and therefore survived many awkward encounters with people who didn’t know what to do with him.
In terms of politics, I’m old enough to have seen a reversal of sorts. When I was a teenager in the Reagan 80s, the American Right and the Moral Majority were big on shaming and scolding, and the Left was more likely to be kind of pushy (left over from the radicalism of the 60s, I think). Now, it’s reversed. I’m not surprised by the bullying of the Right; it’s what Trump is so good at and now that the leader of the party does it all the time, it’s become the sort of de facto strategy (see MTG telling the English reporter to go back to her country, e.g.) and, sadly, it works. See how quickly people and institutions (like Columbia University!) fall in line when they’re bullied. It’s quite pathetic. Also, the Democrats have run into several obstacles because of their shaming approach: 1) They realized too late that most people don’t like to be shamed/scolded and that’s a turnoff for voters (especially rural ones) who may have initially leaned blue. 2) The kind of self-righteousness that the Democrats currently exhibit makes true self-reflection really difficult. If you’re so convinced of the “rightness” of your cause that you can’t seriously reflect on/analyze what caused you to lose a national election, you get the confusion and disorganization that we’re now seeing among the Democrats. The chief advantage of Republican politics in our current moment is that none of them believe what they’re saying, which means any kind of moral or ethical considerations are secondary to the brutal world of realpolitik. And in our current political climate, cynical manipulation of people and systems is FAR more effective than sincere, “righteous” belief, which is why the Democrats lost and will continue to lose for a while until they adjust, if they’re ever able to.
As for the Church, I can echo Brother Sky’s comment. As for politics, however, I disagree with his assertion that “none of them [Republicans] believe what they’re saying.” One of the lessons of Signalgate is that the folks on that chat actually do believe what they’re saying. Which is even scarier.
I think C. S. Lewis’ spoke on this subject. Maybe Lewis’ robber barons are the OP’s bullies and his moral busybodies are the scolders.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
Please add “incessant whining” and “eternal victimhood” to the Scolders and the Moral Busybodies……….
Thank you for reminding me why I am no longer LDS or Republican and why I’ll never be a Democrat or a member of any other organized religion.
To some extent bullying is in the eye of the recipient even if the bully is trying to have fun in good faith. Years ago a “fun” YW leader would give silly hats to first-time attendees of summer girls camp. This went on for years until the stake heard that girls dreaded it and even didn’t want to attend because of the hats. The leader was shocked and was legit trying to lighten the mood or include them or whatever. I guess she forgot what it was like to be 12 and homesick and scared.
It’s easy to cross the line especially with marginalized groups or when there’s a large power distance.
I’m not sure bullying ever works as a teaching mechanism but scolding can at times. There is evidence that pilots for example learn best from a mixture of positive reinforcement and getting yelled at. One effective lesson for me was when my dad yelled at me for using a firearm incorrectly. I remember it 40 years later.
At church I got scolded many times and decided I was done, so I left. Maybe pilots and children know to expect scolding, and in the case of pilots even pay to receive it. I think the less a recipient signs up or expects the scolding the less appropriate. It should be rare at church except our leaders believe they do us a favor by scolding and bullying.
I think that of the two, bullying is worse. Scolding is only useful if the people actually agree that the scolded is correct and they feel guilty. So, mostly it is harmless or ineffective and ignored. Bullying works on anybody you can intimidate, whether they think you are correct or not. It can force you into behavior you would otherwise never do, from giving your lunch money to the school bully to congressmen caving into voting for something because they are afraid of repercussions. So, that makes the current Republican Party worse.
But by that standard, the church is worse because the church uses an abundance of both. They use scolding unless and until it doesn’t work, then they bully. So, they scold believers. When the scolding doesn’t work, maybe because the person sees nothing wrong with green tea because the WoW specified black tea, or because the person has decided they no longer believe that the “prophet” IS a prophet, then they resort to bullying with lack of temple recommend, then if that doesn’t work, the next threat is excommunication and/or loss of family.
While I don’t like bullying, I am not sure that scolding is mostly harmless, ineffective, and ignored. It is scolding for moralizing do-gooders that causes much guilt in people, and this can be very harmful. I do not see bullying and scolding as two separate things, and bullies can scold and scolders can bully, as the OP acknowledges. The loading of guilt on someone, the point of the finger, the placing of shame, is this the work of a bully or of a scolder? Admittedly perhaps both, but usually it is the action of the self-righteous scolder. The bully threatens, and this is bad, but the scolder might even do more harm. I can recognize a bully and can try to avoid his bullying, but a scolder does insidious damage in her labelling, shaming, embarrassing, and the like. That’s why I posted the C. S. Lewis quote. Bullies are bad (and I am not saying otherwise), but do-gooders who want to shame others into compliance cause great, almost incalculable damage to people’s minds and hearts and souls. Too many in the church are bullies (do what I say because I’m the bishop or RS President or whatever), but too many in the church, leaders and those in the pews beside us, are scolders, finger pointers, shamers–people who lead by guilt and not by uplifting and building. Many members are not afflicted with these problems, but too many are. The bullies are easy in my mind for me to deal with; the scolders are far more dangerous.
” I can recognize a bully and can try to avoid his bullying…“
Please be good enough to explain how the rest of us — and that would include the world community — can avoid Musk and our own Imelda Marcos and their effects that will be damaging for generations?
Are there people who are so naive that they don’t recognize that there will be exemptions from tariffs like the ones already extended to Putin and Russia, that they will come with hefty price tags and go directly into Trump’s pockets while the rest of watch retirement money we worked a lifetime for go up in smoke?
Alice, I assume that your question is directed to me. Please disregard everything following if that is not the case.
I do not see everything through a political lens, though some people do. I can have a discussion with someone and never mention politics. There is more to life than Trump, and bringing everything back to Trump seems sad to me. One way that I avoid bullies in politics is to turn off the news. I recommend it.
The OP is broad, and appropriately so, but the issues can be looked at from a non-political angle, and I chose to look at it that way. I do not propose or suggest how one can avoid Musk, Trump’s tariffs, and other political things. What I try to do, however, is not let what happens in politics eat at and corrode my soul and consume my being, so that my every utterance is political. If someone tells me in genteel conversation that the grass is green, I do not conclude that the person hates/loves Trump, or opposes/supports climate change, or is Democrat/Republican. Might we pay higher prices under Trump’s tariffs? I respond yes, this is a possibility, but that is not a statement in support of Trump or against him. I might pay higher prices for some things under Trump, but I might have paid higher prices for other things under Harris. I choose not to let hate for politicians govern my life. I may not like where we’re heading, but I can vote again in 2026 and in 2028.
One type of scolder might be the anti-Trumpist who demands that everyone around him or her see things through an anti-Trumpian lens, and articulate anti-Trump words. It is the one telling another how he or she should feel and speak and act. I agree with Mr Lewis: I fear the tyranny of the robber barons much more than I fear the tyranny of moral busybodies.
Correction: I fear the tyranny of the moral busybodies much more than I fear the tyranny of the robber barons. Sorry!
josh h, You can be a Democrat without being a member of an organized group. Just ask Will Rogers.
God I hate it when people can’t simply answer a question but instead try and answer a different question.
Anna provides on example of a bully showing how his power isn’t something we can just wave away. How does georgis respond? By telling her not to be so political.
Must be nice to consider park rangers and scientists and veterans losing their jobs and benefits as a political issue rather than as a humanist issue.
Reminds me of Trump responding to signal gate pretending to wonder if the Atlantic was still in print. Full on deflection and thought stopping technique. Its gross.
Chadwick, I did respond to Anna, but she said nothing political and I said nothing political in response to her post. Alice asked a question about politics, and I answered her, though apparently not in the way that you would have wanted me to, hence the finger-pointing to induce shame and guilt. I don’t obsess about politics. I can turn off the TV news and read a book or listen to a symphony or a mass, or like Voltaire’s Candide I can work in my yard, or I can visit friends and not talk politics. Everything isn’t political for me. If Trump is a bully and one of Lewis’ robber barons, and he might well be, this tyranny will likely pass (elections in 2026 and 2028!), but the tyranny of the scolders and moral busybodies, those who want to tell others how to speak and think through shaming them and pointing the finger, that’s a tyranny that is quite oppressive and heavy. Amazingly, those who would put this tyranny on others don’t see it as tyranny, because “they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” I tend to be more live and let live than some, and I try not to impose my values on my friends. Take care!
Georgis-
I’m going to assume that you’re young or in your earning years. And certainly not working for any government agencies. Or universities losing their grants.
These things being true, it’s remotely conceivable to think votes in ’26/’28 can correct the damage Trump is doing. Maybe. If there are allies who will still trust and being willing to support us or work with us. If there are countries who haven’t come up with new sources of agricultural products and don’t have new networks for consumer goods. I mean, cross your fingers and toes and then maybe.
But while you’re watching movies and gardening, I’m older and living off a retirement account. So are a lot of us Baby Boomers. And we’re watching money we saved a lifetime for for these retirement years when working is no longer even possible evaporate. OK. Everybody has an attitude about Boomers. I get that. But if we can’t make it on what was once a lifetime of savings, guess which adult children with children and grandchildren of their own to get past measles epidemics and into what colleges and universities are left and hoping there will be jobs in a receding economy, are going to be helping support Mom & Dad.
Yes, it’s possible to stay distracted and gain some short term peace of mind but the reality of the situation will come for us all — those of us who did our best to avoid this catastrophic administration AND those who didn’t care to remember who he victimized sexually or extorted financially or has threatened and bullied his entire life. Or the lies he’s addicted to and a lot of voters pretended they could believe.
Call it politics or call it life. The time when it can be overlooked is past.
God!, I wish we could edit posts… I don’t know when I’ve seen so many run-on sentences in one spot. Sorry.
Thanks, Alice. A lot of people think like you. If I may, maybe it is a little like Chicken Little (Henny Penny) with the sky falling. I don’t say that to attack; that feeling is probably an engrained personality trait (I am not a psychologist). Diehard Republicans were the same way under Biden, glued to their Fox News TV, seeing disaster on the horizon. Maybe the sky is falling under Trump 2 and only gloom awaits; maybe our fates are sealed and America is irretrievably collapsing. My personality is a little different in that I don’t see a parade of horribles. I fully expect the Republicans to blow governance, and I think the Democrats will do well in 2026 and in 2028 if they can focus on things that matter to most voters (so far, I’m a little pessimistic on this topic).
I can’t stop the sky from falling, so I choose to cultivate my own garden and find some modicum of peace. I moved most of my retirement savings from stocks to bonds shortly after the election, so I am not panicking with the current drop in stock prices. Maybe the Trump tariffs will bring inflation, but Biden’s policies brought significant inflation, if I remember correctly. Hey: I’m trying to raise a family and to make things work. I try to vote responsibly, and I am optimistic about some course changes in 2026 and 2028. This, too, shall pass.
Abraham Lincoln spoke on this topic in September of 1859, when things were looking very bad for our country, and in fact would get much worse. Said he: “It is said an Eastern monarch once charged his wise men to invent him a sentiment to be ever in view, and which should be true and appropriate in all times and situations. They presented him the words, ‘And this, too, shall pass away.’ How much it expresses! How chastening in the hour of pride; how consoling in the depths of affliction! ‘And this, too, shall pass away.’ And yet, let us hope, it is not quite true. Let us hope, rather, that by the best cultivation of the physical world, beneath and around us, and the intellectual and moral worlds within us, we shall secure an individual, social, and political prosperity and happiness, whose course shall be onward and upward, and which, while the earth endures, shall not pass away.”
I like how President Lincoln thought. He wasn’t a pessimist. Even in adversity, I’ll try to cultivate the physical, intellectual, and moral world around me.
I will just assume that anyone who is more afraid of a little shaming and scolding has never been really bullied. No, you cannot escape or ignore bullying when it is much more than minor school yard bullying. My kid brother was bullied in boy scouts. You know, little things that Georgia’s is suggesting are easier to live with than scolding. Like they set his tent on fire during the night with him asleep inside of it. He was pushed once, above a cliff that was hundreds of feet straight down. There were several things like that which the scout leaders treated like no big deal, but were life threatening bullying. My mother tried to get the bishop to make the scout master take it seriously before the bullies killed him. But the bishop shamed her because it was just a “few pranks” and everyone needed a sense of humor.
And it is only us pessimists who are worried about tRump and his bullying, and we are just obsessed over politics and screaming that the sky is falling. But in this case, we are closer to correct than “bury your head in the sand “ types who think the next election will fix everything. No, our nations allies will never trust us again with damned good reason. It will take generations to undo the damage of the ice caps melting and damage to our environment due to global warming that cheeto in chief is making worse, and tRump’s taking away all the rules about not dumping pollution into our air and water will be years and years to clean up. I could go through pages listing things tRump has damaged that are simply not repairable, like people in poor nations dying because Trump has cut the aid they need to prevent disease or get food. But bury your head in the sand and think those of us who are worried are “obsessing over politics”.
I’m changing the focus a little.
We have been trying to figure out what we personally can do to help those who are struggling.
We have told our gay daughter that we will help pay for the legal work to protect her family should her marriage be annulled by the state or federal government. We are targeting donations to organizations losing financial support from governments. We’re trying to show up and support family and friends who are struggling with either bullying, scolding, or contempt.
LDS Church leaders recently encouraged us to “kindly and courageously speak up for the dignity and rights of those who are harmed or marginalized.”
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/race-and-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng
I would love to have suggestions for other things we can do to help anyone struggling in our difficult world.
PWS, your shift in focus is really helpful. (and who the heck downvotes a comment like that?)
I was thinking a bit more about the difference between a “bully” and a “scold,” and I think something missing here (and why I would infinitely prefer a “scold” to a “bully”) is that a bully threatens others for their own gain, to get the things that they want or that benefit them personally (e.g. your lunch money, power, sexual access to attractive girls), but a scold lectures and shames you for things that they believe you should do for the social good, according to their own values (e.g. share, don’t hit your sister, don’t steal cookies from the cookie jar before dinner, don’t stay out past curfew). Once you are old enough, you can ignore a scold if you don’t agree, but a bully and his or her enablers can actually harm you or steal from you.
Good distinction, Hawkgrrl. Jesus taught against the scolders, the Pharisees, those who shamed the people for things that they (the Pharisees) believed the people should do for the social good, according to the Pharisees’ own values. He didn’t say much about the Romans or the Herodians, the bullies with the power to hurt and take and kill.
If someone takes your coat (a bully), give him your cloak also. If someone strikes you on the cheek, turn to him the other. But avoid the leaven of the Pharisees. Leaven is good. Without it the bread does not rise. This is a fascinating discussion. I can frequently avoid a bully by not going where he is, but the scolder comes to where I am. Jesus taught to not scold a neighbor for the little mote in his eye when we have a large beam in our own. Bullies are bad, no doubt, but maybe scolders do more long-term and deep damage than bullies. If a bully takes my lunch, I miss a meal, but there will be another meal. If a scolder makes me feel worthless by his criticism, finger pointing, shaming, and blaming, then my spirit is crushed, and this lasts longer tjan a missed meal. Can one really ignore a scold?
Georgis: Very interesting thoughts. I really appreciate your perspective. I do think the words of scolders can burrow deeply into us, particularly when we feel a criticism at a vulnerable time. Consider how many people are filled with self-loathing or sexual shame. These feelings can rob us of our autonomy, enjoyment, and choice throughout the years.
Given how quiet and private excommunications are in the church, I don’t think that it’s a bullying tactic. Plus, it’s never been taught to shun someone who has been excommunicated. There are people who get excommunicated, stay active, get rebaptized, with only spouse and local leadership knowing about it.
It’s not just a couple of diehard democrats claiming the sky is falling georgis. The entire financial system is responding very negatively to our country’s bullying of our allies. Remind me, how did the stock market react to Bidens scolding?
There may not be explicit shaming in excommunication but it’s there nonetheless. When you cannot take the sacrament or pray, people notice. Trust me.
We moved 1.5 miles two years ago as we were finally able to buy a home. That move put us in a new ward and stake and since we were kind of done anyway this move was the perfect chance for a clean break. Our new ward hosted a Pie night on March 15 and all our kids had plans that night so my wife and I decided to go. A member introduced herself and when she realized who we were she informed us why we don’t attend church and asked if we would talk about it as her family was going through something similar. As I said, never been to church in this stake, hardly know anyone here, and here we were with everyone claiming to know our story. It’s fine. People are curious. They were partly right. My point is that if people notice those who don’t even attend, they definitely notice those subject to church discipline.
Anna, I’m so sorry about your brothers Boy Scout experience. I too was bullied at camp and I never told anyone because the bullies flat out told me not to because they would deny it and no one would believe me. It sucks.
Regarding excommunication being a bullying tactic, holding the threat of excommunication over someone’s head can be a bullying tactic, extremely coercive, particularly when it aims to silence difference of opinion or political diversity, and unfortunately, we’ve seen that it is used this way at times. For a similar comparison, how do we feel about citizens re-entering the United States being asked to hand over their phones so an officer can check for social media posts that are critical of the administration?
But Chadwick’s comment about people in the ward noticing those who don’t take the sacrament reminded me of something I was told when I was a young teen. One of the women in the ward said that (unlike everyone else was the unstated assumption) she admired it when someone didn’t take the sacrament because it meant they took it seriously and were self-reflective enough to refuse it if they didn’t feel worthy. But of course when she said that it occurred to me that by contrast most people were in fact watching and judging who took it, but not her because she was above that pettiness. So basically, it made me realize that the norm was judgmentalism, and she was the righteous exception. If people weren’t judging, then her lack of judgment would have just been unremarkable.