RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Did Anyone Freak Out in ‘91 When George H.W. Bush Asked School Children to ‘Help Us Achieve Our Goals’?

by Ryan Rodrick Beiler 09-08-2009

I blame the media for much of this manufactured controversy. Just because a conservative fringe now feels entitled to a major meltdown every time Obama makes a public statement doesn’t mean it’s a news story. I was at least encouraged over the weekend to see some coverage of the remarks of former President George H.W. Bush in 1991, making a statement to America’s children that sounded nearly identical to what has made so many wingnuts loosen their hold on reality another quarter-turn:

Let me know how you’re doing. Write me a letter — and I’m serious about this one — write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals.

“Let me know what you’re DOING”? Help the president with his AGENDA?! Hello Big Brother — 1984 came seven years late!

That, my friends is sarcasm — as distinct from the hysteria displayed by paranoid parents across the nation. Sigh. Well, I guess 1991 was a simpler time, since apparently other than some Hill Dems accusing George H.W. of electioneering, most folks saw the event for what it was — an encouragement of our nation’s children to take their education seriously. And yet, in 2009, the Obama White House is forced to backpedal on the exact same request:

The Department of Education sent out a list of suggested classroom activities that teachers could use to accompany the speech. One among dozens suggested that teachers could have students “write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.”

Some conservatives focused on the letter-writing activity as an effort by the administration to use classrooms to build political support for the president. Department officials on Wednesday replaced that initial suggested activity with one in which students would “write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term educational goals.”

The original activity, Mr. Duncan said Sunday, “wasn’t worded quite correctly.”

Among those criticizing plans for the speech was the chairman of the Florida Republican Party, who accused Mr. Obama of seeking to spread what he called “socialist ideology.”

If anything, this episode reminds me why I don’t watch cable news. (Except through the satirical lens of Stewart and Colbert — come back from vacation, America needs you!) Over the holiday weekend while visiting family, I saw knuckleheads with no sense of history accuse Obama of being “Orwellian” for doing exactly what past Republican presidents had done without controversy. And it is the fringe. Even arch-conservatives such as Newt Gingerich were quoted in the Times article cited above as being supportive of the event. And yet “controversy” reigns supreme.

Media, White House, everybody — please do not let this thug fringe hold the rest of us hostage to their paranoid dystopian fantasies.

Ryan Rodrick Beiler is the Web Editor for Sojourners.

Categories: Faith and Politics
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • lumens
    What's not happening on the "other side"? Tell me what it is and I'll find you a chapter and verse between Google News and Sojo's blog roll.
  • lumens
    "That may take some time"

    .11 seconds via Google News. Time, WaPo, MSNBC, Scripps News Service et al. ran the Gephardt quote. He said it. He said it about Bush. The end.
  • dfischler
    Exactly, vp. Beiler claims that past Republican presidents had done the same thing "without controversy." But:

    "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," said Richard Gephardt, then the House Majority Leader. "And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.'"

    Democrats did not stop with words. Rep. William Ford, then chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate the cost and legality of Bush's appearance. On October 17, 1991, Ford summoned then-Education Secretary Lamar Alexander and other top Bush administration officials to testify at a hearing devoted to the speech. "The hearing this morning is to really examine the expenditure of $26,750 of the Department of Education funds to produce and televise an appearance by President Bush at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, DC," Ford began. "As the chairman of the committee charged with the authorization and implementation of education programs, I am very much interested in the justification, rationale for giving the White House scarce education funds to produce a media event."

    Methinks that some apologies are in order.
  • That's how I can say that. Let me add that it's not happening on the "other side"; if it were the conservatives would be able to quote chapter-and-verse.
  • ando
    Nothing like being impartial and non-partisan....
  • That may take some time, and it's simply not about checking facts but also putting them in the proper context. That is where my antennae went up.
  • 4HisGlory
    Yes, I can understand your concern as i have suspicions about certain media types myself. But in looking at the article again, it should be fairly easy to fact-check the assertions. If you are a journalist - and I have no reason to doubt it - check it out and let us know. Again, if that piece is true, then Mr. Beiler did not do his journalistic duty or homework.
  • carlcopas
    Well, heck, Canuck, the Michael Jackson thing had gotten rather stale . . .
  • canucklehead
    And, by the way, Mr. Beiler, "knucklehead" is a great word, leave it alone!
  • canucklehead
    OMG!!! The U.S.A. is having another political tempest in a tea-potty! How can life as we know it go on?
  • justintime
    Ronald Reagan, The Great Indoctrinator, in a speech broadcast to classrooms nationwide on November 14, 1988, pushed his anti-government, low-tax ideology, bragging that he had supported "negro" educational institutions. Excerpts in this clip: http://www.dailykostv.com/w/002107/

    The text of Bushdaddy's speech to schoolchildren on October 1, 1991 is non political and parallels Obama's speech -- eg. education is important, stay in school, etc. I must say Obama's is a much better speech.
    Unfortunately, after the Bushdaddy speech was delivered, Richard Gephart made a big deal out of nothing.

    The difference here is that Florida GOP chairman Jim Greer made a big deal out of nothing BEFORE the speech was delivered and created a media frenzy that resulted in frightened parents keeping their children from being 'indoctrinated' by that 'evil socialist', President Obama.

    GOP hypocrite Jim Greer has given many political speeches to public schoolchildren which have included Hilary Clinton jokes.
    It's hard to see this brouhaha is anything more than harassment of the Obama administration by an impotent nutjob Republican party.
  • letjusticerolldown
    I don't really hear anyone reading/commenting on this site particularly offended by the Obama speech.

    So I would really like it if we as commenters and Sojo as editors and contributing writers as providers of content would ease up on the accelerator.

    If the media amplified this way out of proportion--then let's not add fire.

    There are commenters here who have sympathy with the opposition voices because they have serious opposition to Obama and/or Obama policy/actions. Employing language like the 'thug fringe' becomes problematic.

    My antenna always goes up when I notice someone effectively asserting power to define others. So original reactions to the opposition to the speech as "This seems crazy!" was perfectly legitimate to me.

    But then when the PR propogandists start crafting messages to take advantage of the situation and play the media (and the media play them) then it goes too far.

    Then persons on this site (and in the nation) who have some sympathies with those opposed to the speech feel themselves getting shoved into a corner and are going to shove back.

    For me, this is a serious problem I have with how Sojo has connected itself to the PR apparatus of the White House. The media and politicians are forever, inherently, inclined to make themselves the story. The public, the citizenry, and the world be damned.

    Those of us who want to "take back a nation that is self-controlled and self-governed and moral and just and a good steward" must learn to control our language and ramp down conflict; this includes not playing into the manipulative storylines created in the media-political strategy sessions.
  • letjusticerolldown
    Thanks for post. I would love it if contributors to this site would read prior posts related to their piece and incorporate a response to those postings (and comments). In this way, writers could model how to conduct a useful exchange of ideas, building on what others have said. It does not preclude saying what one has in mind to say; it simply builds a more valuable dialogue.

    I suggest you pose a question to each writer offering posts to this site: "Are you committed to dialogue or to dissemination of your views??"
  • lumens
    The thug fringe talk comes from the Democratic press releases. They are making a concerted effort to discredit any opposition to Obama's plan by focusing on its most extreme elements.

    Of course, that strategy would not include acknowledging the extremism on the liberal side, or the irony of decrying fringe talk while linking to Dailykos, which is the fringe gone mainstream.
  • Faydine
    As I see it, this a just a photo op of sorts for both sides, so they both take full advantage of it.

    You sound fairly paranoid yourself there.

    If you think Obama is wonderful for wanting to do this, you have to think Bush, Sr was wonderful for his speech as well.
  • LadyJess78
    The suggestions for activities were not "curriculum crafted at the federal level." Take a look at any educational tool out there and you will see "suggestions for related activities." Why? Why are these suggestions included? Because teachers are under-paid, overworked and underaided, that's why. The letter writing activity wasn't required (as curriculum is). It was simply a suggestion of an activity that a teacher could do with her class, alter slightly and do with her class or disregard entirely. It is a tool, not curriculum. In fact, NASA has concocted tools designed around space launches that contain science and math work, the treasury department has tools to teach young children the value of certain coins and counting games. Is that "curriculum crafted at the federal level?"
  • DITE
    This is a third post on Sojo that essentially says, “Why a people so crazy about the President giving a speech to school children?!?! TEABAGGERS!!!!!” But the issue was never a president giving a speech to school children. The issue all along was the original ridiculous curriculum that accompanied the speech. The white house later realized this and changed it.

    I’m not worried about President Obama indoctrinating the nation’s children, but it’s starting to become concerning how often the White House does something that anyone with the least political sense would know is a bad idea. How could nobody in the administration have realized that this creepy curriculum is a bad idea?
  • lumens
    If the response to Obama's speech constitutes freaking out, then certainly accusing a president of breaking the law constitutes same. I don't know if what Bush did was illegal, but it was certainly politically calculated and lame.


    "Help the president with his AGENDA?! "

    Not what he was asking. Here is the context.

    "If you take school seriously, you won't have to settle for a job, just any job. You'll have a career. If you make it your business to learn, one day you'll be a better parent. You may not think about it now, but one day your children will want to look up at you and say, ``I've got the smartest Mom and Dad in the world.'' Don't disappoint them.

    Let me leave you with a simple message: Every time you walk through that classroom door, make it your mission to get a good education. Don't do it just because your parents, or even the President, tells you. Do it for yourselves. Do it for your future. And while you're at it, help a little brother or sister to learn, or maybe even Mom or Dad. Let me know how you're doing. Write me a letter -- and I'm serious about this one -- write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals. I think you know the address."

    "Our" refers to "Mom", "Dad", "little brother" "sister" and the students themselves, and explicitly DOES NOT refer to the president. Also, all he did was suggest the students write a letter. That is quite a bit different from crafting a curriculum at the federal level.
  • I also checked the website and noticed that it was editorially conservative, which -- in the experience of this journalist -- is suspect.
  • Lord_Voldemort
    Since you mentioned the "thug fringe" and their "paranoid dystopian fantasies", what's your take on 9-11 Truther and "Green Jobs" Czar Van Jones? Wasn't he a hoot?

    LV
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008