There's a big kerfuffle out there about the President's desire to talk with the nation's schoolchildren, much of which is ado about nothing, some of which is worth discussing. So here goes.
1. George Bush The Elder did the same thing in 1991--Conservatives are not widely on record as complaining then.
2. George Bush the Elder did the same thing in 1991--Liberals WERE widely on record as complaining then.
3. The creation of a "lesson plan" and the like by the White House is overkill.
4. Making it an "all at the same time" kind of thing is overkill. The President could easily have created his message and appended it to the White House Web Page, then they could have publicized it and urged classroom teachers to visit the page--which individual teachers and systems could have done.
5. What's missed here by the "what's wrong with what the President is doing" crowd is that this action isn't occurring in a vacuum. It is occurring in the context of an already overexposed public figure with a record of fostering a messianic following.
An advance of this is set to be released on Monday. Since it will have been scrubbed and sanitized by then, it will be positive and encouraging and the right will look silly for opposing.
ReplyDeleteBut on the heels of that creepy celebrity 'I pledge allegiance to Barack Obama' video, the White House totally screwed up the rollout of this with the 'lesson plan' you referred to.
I'm kind of relieved the Junior Patriot in this house is not in public school so I don't have to give it that much thought. If the young kittens were potentially going to hear this, would you want to screen it ahead of time?
I’m not against the President addressing school children by challenging them to study hard, listening to their teachers, and behaving themselves in general. This is essentially what Bush the Elder did in ’91, much to the chagrin of some on the Left as you point out.
ReplyDeleteBut what I find a bit disconcerting is the tone of the original lesson plan (why there is even a lesson plan is another thing) put out by the DOE (since revised after the initial uproar) with such exercises as having children write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. The letters were to have been collected and redistributed at a later date so the children could track their progress.
Another assignment for students after hearing the speech was to discuss what "the president wants us to do."
Inappropriate? Not necessarily; but the creepy needle is pushing red.
Now compare the DOE’s collectivist approach to BTE’s speech:
"So, let's just put it on the line. You've got the brains. Now, put them to work -- certainly, not for me, but for you...
...Let me tell you something, many of you may find very hard to believe this. You're in control. You're thinking: How can the President say that about kids like us when we don't even have our driver's license? But think about it, and you'll see what I mean.
Think about drugs. You see films. You hear police experts and tough speakers from the outside. You get stern lectures from everyone: movie stars, athletes, teachers, parents, friends. But you know and I know that all the drug prevention programs, all the pledges, all the preaching in the world won't pull you through that critical moment when someone offers drugs. At that moment, everything comes down to you. Yes or no, you've got to choose, and the answer will change your life. Your parents won't make the decision. Your teachers won't make the decision. Your friends won't make the decision. It's up to you. It takes guts to take control.”
Individualism vs. collectivism – I think this is why those on the Right, and more specifically conservatives, are critical.
President Regan was even wiser than we think.
ReplyDeleteWe would not even be having discussions about the faux pas of the DOE and the inexperienced White House had he been successful in eliminating the DOE.
President Reagan made a campaign pledge to eliminate it, and renewed his promise in his first State of the Union address in January 1982: "The budget plan I submit to you on Feb. 8 will realize major savings by dismantling the Department of Education."
Unfortunately, President Reagan was unable to achieve his goal because of solid opposition by the Democratic House.
Our country was more successful and it was almost impossible for national political parties to indoctrinate our children when education policy was a local issue with parents deeply involved in the process.
Go to your local Wal-Mart Smoothfur and look around. While these may be "decent, hard working" Americans who are doing the best they can. I'm going to go out on an elitist limb and say that they probably aren't the best people to determine education policy and curriculum.
ReplyDeleteI hate bureaucracy as much as the next guy, but I dare say that passing AP Creationism is going to help prepare our youth to value learning in science, technology, engineering and mathematics that will help us awaken from our national stupor.
If we all are good parents, we might say this, your president is going to speak to you today in class. I'll watch the webcast when I get the chance and we'll talk about his message and what it means.
And as far as the tone...unless I misread it, it was ONE freaking sentence. Ill advised, yes. Probably put in there by an overzealous staffer and slipped through the cracks. Let's maintain some perspective here.
Text of the original "menu" of activies Pre, Post and Extension of the Speech.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.docstoc.com/docs/10582301/President-Obama%E2%80%99s-Address-to-Students-Across-America-September-8-2009
I believe the activities outlined in this document is what CW was suggesting in point #5 (but certainly don't mean to speak for him) - and it is certainly not shaped by one freaking sentence.
I don't mind a pep talk by the President. He enjoys a certain popularity with this demographic, so it makes both practical and political sense.
The "teachable moment" thing though - creepy. But perhaps that's just me.
A guy in Germany did the same thing in 1937 and followed it up with a "youth movement".
ReplyDeleteThis speech by the president is inappropriate and not necessary. My son is only 6 and he does not need any political indoctrination, nor do we as his parents approve of it. Where is the permission slip for this event that I should be able to sign?
ReplyDeleteWe pay a lot of taxes -- the only thing we want is a normal education for our son.
I would like to thank Obama for reminding me to indoctrinate my 15 and 7 year old daughters. It's been awhile since the Nobama election bumper stickers and he's had 8 months of material we need to catch up on as a family.
ReplyDeleteObama is losing it. Deliberately or not, he's retreating to his core of left wing loonies. I welcome more events like this to alienate him further from the voting center.
I can understand your fears that President Obama will use the opportunity to speak to schoolchildren -- taken by numerous Republican Presidents before him -- to "indoctrinate" them with his political agenda, given that this is what was done previously by the much revered President Reagan, who spoke to our children (or us, at the time) about the importance of self-government and low taxes.
ReplyDeleteIt's natural to think that the principles upon which the majority of this country elected Obama might set the tone for this occasion.
But why not wait until Monday, when you'll know the substance of the message before pushing the red button and pulling out the comparisons with either Hitler and Jesus? Because, really, the uproar over a Presidential back-to-school speech, simply because it's our elected President speaking, is looking pretty crazy and is just another example of the Right crying wolf just ... because... .
Ghost
ReplyDeleteDo you think there is ANY chance that the speech we will see posted today was changed from the original, based upon the public protest? You know, the same way that the Department of Education revised it's lesson plans to accompany his speech... based on the public outcry.
And "numerous" Republican Presidents addressed schoolchildren? Great numbers of Republican presidents have addressed schoolchildren? Did you miss math or English class on the days you were obliged to watch their speeches?
TDP, you take issue with my math and English skills. Admittedly, I attended a none-too-well known public school of little stature in NY and somewhat more well known undergrad and graduate programs in central VA, where I met the fine, upstanding CW, and could very likely have been distracted during our Calculus and Shakespeare and Caribbean Poetry 101 classes.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I should have said that EVERY Republican President in my lifetime has taken the opportunity to address schoolchildren, but I can't be certain that Ford ever took up the 'stay in school' mantle or spoke to schoolchildren about the world they were facing, busing, whatever the issues of the day were. I recall Presidents Bush, Reagan, Bush, Nixon speaking with schoolchildren, and I'm quite certain my parents would never have wanted me to miss something as thrilling as a speech from the President, regardless of politics.
You may want to check with our resident speechwriter to find out if he thinks that a Presidential speech would ever change from first draft to what's given on the dais, as I'm no expert on that process, but I'd guess most definitely. As for response to public protest: I look forward to reading the draft tonight, and then seeing what changes between then and tomorrow based on the protest you expect will follow.
If you end up liking the speech, the message, what then? Will you let your kids go to school?