Though the harassment and its effects certainly spill over to the opposite gender, the Bobbie Ts are primarily attacked from those within their gender.

So it was with our Bobbie T.

There was that small handful of boys within our class who routinely launched the attacks, calling him a wimp, a dork, a fag, tripping him as he entered the classroom, yanking his pants down in front of the giggling girls on the playground. Etcetera.

And then there was that larger handful of boys who, though they didn't land the verbal and physical blows, hit Bobbie T even harder -- because they laughed when he was taunted and because they shunned him. Because they did nothing.

I belonged to that larger handful.

Though I secretly felt sorry for Bobbie, though sometimes I felt rage for him when the bullies went to particularly cruel extremes, I never did or said anything to stand up for him for one reason alone: I did not want to get taken down along with him.

I did not want to risk being ridiculed and laughed at by the bullies and therefore laughed at and shunned by everyone else for defending a "wimp." No one wanted to take that risk (save some of the teachers, which only made matters worse.) So no one did anything.

We're Still Afraid of the Bullies... and We're Paying for It

Most adults have not grown up. They just suffer from the delusion that they have grown up. In reality, they've only developed more sophisticated ways to repeat the behaviors of their youth.

As I have suggested throughout my previous columns -- and as I am telling you outright here -- those in the business of marketing in all its names and variations take full advantage of this delusion by targeting the unaware with tactics that prey directly upon it.

The reason I am still haunted by not standing up for Bobbie T - versus merely feeling a bit guilty - is because I repeated this behavior well into adulthood. In fact, I stood silently by and watched certain peers transform this same type of bullying without fear of repercussion into a sinister but highly effective marketing tactic, building their careers, their clients' careers, and their pocketbooks on it.

The tactic even has a name - "jeer pressure" - whose basic definition is "conformity to a harsh, demeaning, or otherwise divisive viewpoint out of fear that you, too, will become the subject of the ridicule."

This tactic is used to moderate extent in the marketing of products and services, though I predict that if patterns discussed below don't change soon its use will escalate there.

BUT it is now being used to an excessive and deadly extent by those in U.S. politics and media who are marketing their chosen party, their set of ideas about what is right and wrong, and their representatives.

I am of course referring to certain Republican and Democrat politicians and especially to certain well-known "commentators" who champion rightist or leftist agendas and who dominate talk TV and radio ... "commentators" of course being just another word for rabid marketers.

As many and perhaps most American adults now readily agree, the political divide between the right and left has widened to a disgusting and deadly degree -- particularly disgusting and deadly for the horrid lessons it is teaching our youth about how to deal with those who hold viewpoints different than their own (i.e., call them names, defame their character, attack the individual not the ideas!)

And make no mistake: it IS primarily the sinister, extremely effective marketing tactics these politicians and commentators and editorialists are using to increase their own position and power that is contributing to the great big ugly divide.

Case in point?

Well, before I go there, let me stress that endless examples exist from BOTH the left and right, such as Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Don Imus. But by way of example I will focus on Ann Coulter, who is by far the Queen of Vitriol and Jeer Pressure.

In her new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, she writes about "Miss Landolphi," a sex educator who appears to have gone way overboard in her presentation to a high school ... so overboard that if presented in a diplomatic and rational manner Coulter could have used it to solidly support her overall case. INSTEAD though here is part of what Coulter writes:

Like most people who enjoy talking to strangers about sex, Miss Landolphi, to put it as charitably as possible, is physically repulsive in appearance.

Huh? More personal attacks on Miss Landolphi follow, and the book is loaded with similar personal insults, including the infamous attacks on 9/11 widows. (What's funny is that most of these attacks, if you ponder them just a bit, are also often bizarre and plain stupid ... at that moment in her writing above, for example Ann Coulter is talking to strangers - her readers - about sex... think about it.)

The irony is that Ann Coulter claims to support Christian values (love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, Christ's compassion, etc.) but she is an ace practitioner of vitriol. She claims to support traditional family values but practices harsh language and name-calling as the way to handle those whose opinions differ from your own (and children are of course led by example.)

Of course, Coulter and her advisors - marketers such as producers and editors -- are 110% aware that the reason she is one of the most popular "commentators" and a #1 bestselling author is because of these attacks, because of the vitriol. Hate is a powerful lure. Her advisors undoubtedly help her "spice up" her act where she may forget to personally insult someone she disagrees with.

Like all the other politicians and "commentators" from the right and left using these same despicable marketing tactics, if you administered truth serum into Coulter's veins she'd admit aloud that she actually doesn't give a damn about improving America and families and children, etc. ... how could she if what she does is so contrary to what she preaches?

What she definitely does give a damn about is improving her power and fortune. And that is certainly working.

Breaking Through the Jeer Pressure

Ann Coulter and her ilk from both sides of the political divide are going to keep doing the deadly thing they do as long as you keep giving them money and attention for doing it. So...

IMPORTANT Reminder to Those Who Consider Themselves Conservatives: You ARE allowed to continue to voice and explain and debate your support for conservative ideals while publicly denouncing the ugly, divisive (un-family values, un-Christian) tactics of Ann Coulter and all the rest. They are two quite different things, and must be separated ... like removing a parasite from its host.

IMPORTANT Reminder to Those Who Consider Themselves Liberals: You ARE allowed to continue to voice and explain and debate your support for liberal ideals while publicly denouncing the ugly, divisive (uncompassionate, intolerable) tactics of all the Ann Coulter-with-a-liberal-twist wannabes (NONE of them even good enough at copycatting the sinister tactics to mention by name here.)

With so many people proclaiming how sad and dangerous the growing political divide is - but then so many people's behavior supporting those (being "entertained by" those) doing the dividing - there is an obvious disconnect here.

That disconnect is due to the jeer pressure tactic --- most people are still afraid of standing up and saying something aloud, same as back in elementary school, because of what everyone else might say about you if you do.

Maybe for criticizing Don Imus' tactics, Mr. Liberal, you're afraid all your liberal friends will say YOU FASCIST, YOU MUST LOVE GEORGE BUSH!

Maybe for criticizing Bill O'Reilly's approach, Mrs. Conservative, your conservative friends will holler YOU COMMUNIST, YOU MUST ADORE HILLARY CLINTON!

But so what. That would make them the ignorant ones still repeating the insecure behaviors of their youth. That would make you the strong one for standing up for what you believe in - and living it.

Time to grow up, adults. On a personal basis for each individual, and as a nation and even world, we will all greatly benefit from some courage and fortitude from the public. I can't change a past of not standing up to the bullies, and neither can you, but we can do the Bobbie Ts and ourselves the honor of not repeating the same mistake now, when we really do know better.

Columnist Brian W. Vaszily (pronounced "vay zlee') is the author of several books including the acclaimed novella Beyond Stone and Steel and co-author of the bestselling Dr. Mercola's Total Health Program. He is President of TopMarketingPro, a "conscientious marketing" consultancy, and has over fourteen years of marketing and management experience in Fortune 500 and entrepreneurial environments. More than any of that, he is a father, husband, son, explorer, messenger, and humble appreciator. Even Ann Coulter would like him.

But increasingly in recent months, Bush has left town without a chartered press plane, often to receptions where he talks to donors chipping in hundreds of thousands of dollars with no cameras or tapes to record his words for the public. Barred from such events, most news organizations will not pay to travel with him. And so a White House policy inclined to secrecy has combined with escalating costs for the strapped news media to let Bush fly under the radar in a way his predecessors could not.

"A lot of it is a reflection of the times," said C-SPAN's Steve Scully, president of the White House Correspondents' Association. "The whole thing is changing."

For veterans of past administrations, the changes are striking. "When the president moved it was a big deal, and I can't even remember an occasion when we didn't take a charter," said Ed Rollins, who was Ronald Reagan's White House political director.

"Go back 20 or 25 years and say we're at war and the president is traveling around the country and there are only, what, three people with him?" asked Joe Lockhart, who was Bill Clinton's White House press secretary. "That would have been unthinkable."

In some ways, it may not seem to make much difference. Like presidents before him, Bush still always travels with a small media pool that includes wire services, television cameras and a single newspaper reporter who files a report to others left behind. The advent of instant video feeds, cable television, the Internet, e-mail and transcripts of the president's every public word has made it possible to cover Bush without being anywhere near him.

Yet fewer eyeballs on a president means less scrutiny, in the view of some media and government watchdog groups. Fewer reporters, they say, means fewer questions and fewer versions of what happens available to the public. News accounts written from a different time zone invariably miss context and texture. And in closing the doors of some fundraisers, the White House has reversed a policy adopted under Clinton after fundraising scandals raised questions about what donors are seeking when they hobnob with presidents.

Patrice McDermott, director of OpenTheGovernment.org, a coalition formed three years ago that includes groups such as the American Library Association, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters and the Society of Professional Journalists, called the changing pattern of coverage "quite disturbing" and part of a "rising tide of secrecy" in Washington.

"It's another way of closing off responsibility and accountability and shutting themselves off from public view," she said. "I think the public would prefer that somebody be in the room who is not there for their own interests to be served."

White House spokesman Tony Snow said there is nothing insidious about closing fundraisers in private homes and noted that news organizations choose whether to pay for a plane follow the president. "It's really all about money," he said. "It used to be that media organizations had more dough."

Given the changes in communication technology, he added, "I think presidents are more widely available than at any point in American history." And he said he makes a point of finding ways for at least some reporters to see Bush when there are major developments. "If there is big news, we make sure the president's available," Snow said.

The cost of covering the president has risen dramatically at a time when the news media, anxious about economic pressures, are aggressively cutting costs. For a one-day trip to St. Louis, for instance, the White House billed The Washington Post $3,317. To go to Yuma, Ariz., for a day, the bill came to $3,795. A two-day trip to Europe cost $8,283, not counting hotel charges.

And so even for trips where there is a press plane, sometimes only a handful of journalists are on board. Newspapers that used to travel regularly, including USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune and others, now do so more sporadically. The Boston Globe no longer even has a White House correspondent, focusing on breaking exclusive stories rather than writing about the president's everyday activities.

"It's not like we're ignoring it completely," said Joe Williams, the Globe's deputy Washington bureau chief. "But the lineup we're using right now gives us flexibility to attack a broader range of stories than we would if we had a designated White House correspondent."

Bush is not the only one to find ways of escaping much public notice as he flies around the country. Vice President Cheney manages to leave Washington for days, and sometimes weeks, at a time without public announcement. Few in the capital even knew he was in Texas in February, for instance, until he accidentally shot a companion while hunting quail. And he has been in Jackson, Wyo., since July 29 without any national news media mentioning it.

The Jackson Hole News & Guide found out Cheney was there only because it spotted his plane and the radar dish that serves an anti-missile battery that protects his house when he's in town. "In the past, they've been kind of weird about it," said Thomas Dewell, the paper's co-editor. "They'd say, 'His airplane's here and the missile base is here, but we can't tell you if he's here.' " This time, he said, Cheney's office confirmed his presence when asked.

Cheney aides said they announce his movements only when he makes public appearances but will provide his whereabouts if reporters call to ask. The vice president, who has already headlined 81 fundraisers in this election cycle, plans to return to Washington on Sunday before heading out to events in Arizona, New Mexico, Montana and Idaho next week, his office said.

Clinton agreed to stop holding closed fundraisers in response to criticism of his campaign finance tactics. When a fundraiser was held in a private home, the White House permitted a single print reporter into the room to record the scene and the president's words for the rest of the pack. The Bush White House changed that, leaving fundraisers open if located in hotels or public spaces but closing them in private homes. "The thought was having the presence of reporters would disrupt the intimacy of the events," said Ari Fleischer, who was then White House press secretary.

Lanny J. Davis, who was White House special counsel during the Clinton fundraising scandals, expressed surprise that the change has not generated more criticism. "I marvel at their ability to get away with it," he said. "I have to grudgingly admit to some envy. I admire their chutzpah."

Bush has traveled out of the Washington area at least seven times this year without a press plane, including four times in the past month to closed Republican fundraisers -- in Milwaukee, in Cleveland, in Charleston, W.Va., and on Thursday here to Green Bay to raise $500,000 for House candidate John Gard. He also headlined a fundraiser in Texas yesterday that was closed to the media. That may serve the interests of candidates who want the money Bush can raise but don't want a public embrace with a president suffering low approval ratings.

Scully said he may raise the issue of closed fundraisers with Snow. "As we move into the fall campaign, if this happens more often, we're going to put pressure on Tony and others to open these events," Scully said. "He is the president. He is traveling at government expense. . . . We should be in there to hear what he has to say."

In the past, major media organizations felt it was important to be near the president even if they were kept out of the room, a "body watch" mentality sparked by the Kennedy assassination and reinforced over the years by any number of unexpected crises, including the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"There's going to be a time when something's going to happen and the major national media's not going to be there," Lockhart said. "They're going to have to rely on technology. Will this have a major impact on our democracy? Smarter people than me will have to answer that."

© 2006 The Washington Post Company