Does President Obama Want to Brainwash Our Kids?

If parents or school officials are upset about the very fact that the President will address school kids then I think they have their Obama-sensitivity meters set a little to high. Recent presidents have all taken time to address school kids. It's a piece of harmless, fluffy American tradition.

I definitely understand parents who were concerned about the related materials sent to schools telling teachers to instruct their children to write essays on "how they can help the president". Sending something out like that was idiotic and thoughtless. (If you think that's bad, check out the politicization of the NEA that's already begun.) If GWB had done something you'd have heard howls from protest from people on the left. The materials were probably devised by some lower-down over-eager staffer at the Dept. of Ed. Now that the Administration has retracted them I don't see what all the fuss is now about.

A very small point - are there not millions of people in America who don't believe in Jesus? Why would a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist etc child ask "what does Jesus want me to do"? If you want all children regardless of cultural and parental influence to ask this question, then are you fine with children from Christian backgrounds asking, "what does Mohammed want me to do"? It's an extreme point I know, but the context of this discussion (it seems to me) is the freedom for parents to control and opt out even of government issued messages. A parent can surely then opt out of the Christian issued message too.

There are a few reasons why this became a big deal.

1) Conservatives fundamentally approach government as something to be limited. It is therefore not the job of the people, and certainly not the children to help the President achieve his goals of expanding government. While the assignment has been changed, that's what initially drew attention here.

2) The timing is terrible. Obama is sinking in the polls, and he reaches out to the children. The impression is that he is trying to influence votes from the ground up. If he can't win over adults, go for more impressionable minds.

That's going a bit far of course, but its hard for anyone to believe that those responsible for orchestrating this are not at least considering the political implications.

3) While his speech is unlikely to be non-partisan, Obama brings certain ideological assumptions to the table. Children lack to the perspective to discern between those assumptions and empirical truth. Conservatives have little confidence that a mostly-liberal teaching staff is going to add any nuance.

4) Republicans don't particularly want a Democrat speaking to their kids. You would see a similar phenomenon among the left if Bush had done the same thing.

5) There is a legitimate question of why the federal government is crafting a curriculum at all, much less around a single personality. This particular personality has been overexposed, which lends an Orwellian feel to the proceedings. Again, if this were Bush, the Orwell references would be flying.

6) There doesn't seem to be any particularly good reason for this. After all, as you mention, the speech will be available as a resource for parents. If something is unnecessary, even a weak argument against it gathers steam.

PreK-6 Menu of Classroom Activities: President Obama's Address to Students
Across America

http://www.wlap.com/cc-common/mlib/1202/09/1202...

Teachers can ask students to imagine being the President delivering a speech to all of the students in the United States. What would you tell students? What can students do to help in our schools? Teachers can chart ideas about what they would say.

As the President speaks, teachers can ask students to write down key ideas or phrases that are important or personally meaningful. Students could use a note-taking graphic organizer such as a Cluster Web, or students could record their thoughts on sticky notes. Younger children can draw pictures and write as appropriate. As students listen to the speech, they could think about
the following:
What is the President trying to tell me?
What is the President asking me to do?
What new ideas and actions is the President challenging me to think about?

Students can record important parts of the speech where the President is asking them to do something. Students might think about: What specific job is he asking me to do? Is he asking anything of anyone else? Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?

Students could discuss their responses to the following questions:
What do you think the President wants us to do?
Does the speech make you want to do anything?
Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?
What would you like to tell the President?

Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.

Some of that may (may) be innocent enough, up until that last. Perhaps that has been rephrased, but it still seems a bit revealing that it was the original phrasing.

This isn't about respect or disrespect. Those concerned with it are rightfully concerned given the aura of the cult of personality that Obama has, whether his fault or not. It isn't about the strict fact that a president should or shouldn't give a speech to children who attend government schools. It is about the nature of Obama's personality and his charisma that has a powerful effect on the most impressionable in our society.

What do you mean by "you people"?

That doesn't really gel with the manner in which liberals behaved toward Bush. Graduating classes turned their backs on him. Protestors hissed and screamed. He was compared to Hitler over and over and over. You might not have roared, but I assure you that other liberals would have.

Apples and oranges. Bush became the POTUS thanks to a dubious SCOTUS decision, acted as an imperial president and made bad decisions, the consequences of which we see today. Folks were upset with Bush because of what he did, not because of who he was.

Did GWB address school kids by arranging for them to take time out of their school day? Certainly, he spoke to school kids (and read stories to them, rather famously) but I can't recall Clinton, GHWB or Reagan doing this while I was in my primary school years.

I know Mr. Rogers gave an address at the onset of Desert Storm, and I was at a hippie school during the Reagan years, so maybe they opted out.

"If Ronald Reagan were giving that same speech..."

I read today that Ronald Reagan did indeed give a speech to school children, that included political commentary about taxes. My son would have been in school then, and I have no memory of a ruckus among us liberals. It would never have occurred to me to keep my child away from a presidential speech to school children. He was the president, for heaven's sake.

This situation is just insane.

Jane

I'm interested in what good people should do when they believe something is wrong. You need to stop seeing this as us vs. them.

I will when that's no longer part of the discourse. Unfortunately, it is right now and has to be addressed as such because, to be truthful, there's a whole lot of hypocrisy going on, with accusations of bad faith from people who themselves consistently act in bad faith.

If parents or school officials are upset about the very fact that the President will address school kids then I think they have their Obama-sensitivity meters set a little to high. Recent presidents have all taken time to address school kids. It's a piece of harmless, fluffy American tradition.

I definitely understand parents who were concerned about the related materials sent to schools telling teachers to instruct their children to write essays on "how they can help the president". Sending something out like that was idiotic and thoughtless. (If you think that's bad, check out the politicization of the NEA that's already begun.) If GWB had done something you'd have heard howls from protest from people on the left. The materials were probably devised by some lower-down over-eager staffer at the Dept. of Ed. Now that the Administration has retracted them I don't see what all the fuss is now about.

He's our PRESIDENT. For...crying...out...loud. Used to be a time in this nation when we would have had enough respect to air the speech regardless of the party of the president. What is happening to this country?

And no, I would not have protested President Bush addressing the nation's children, had he done that. Nor do I think you would have seen nearly the uproar from the Libruls as we are seeing here from conservatives.

It sends a message to our children when the office of the president is disrespected in this manner. I may not have liked having Bush for president, but he was still my president whether I liked his politics or not. Perhaps I cringed when I said "he's my president", but I still said, "he's my president." Why can't conservatives suck it up and do what liberals did for eight years?

Edward,

You people allready have the whole month of febuary. Why enroach any more then that? Childrun need time to learn.

There are a few reasons why this became a big deal.

1) Conservatives fundamentally approach government as something to be limited. It is therefore not the job of the people, and certainly not the children to help the President achieve his goals of expanding government. While the assignment has been changed, that's what initially drew attention here.

2) The timing is terrible. Obama is sinking in the polls, and he reaches out to the children. The impression is that he is trying to influence votes from the ground up. If he can't win over adults, go for more impressionable minds.

That's going a bit far of course, but its hard for anyone to believe that those responsible for orchestrating this are not at least considering the political implications.

3) While his speech is unlikely to be non-partisan, Obama brings certain ideological assumptions to the table. Children lack to the perspective to discern between those assumptions and empirical truth. Conservatives have little confidence that a mostly-liberal teaching staff is going to add any nuance.

4) Republicans don't particularly want a Democrat speaking to their kids. You would see a similar phenomenon among the left if Bush had done the same thing.

5) There is a legitimate question of why the federal government is crafting a curriculum at all, much less around a single personality. This particular personality has been overexposed, which lends an Orwellian feel to the proceedings. Again, if this were Bush, the Orwell references would be flying.

6) There doesn't seem to be any particularly good reason for this. After all, as you mention, the speech will be available as a resource for parents. If something is unnecessary, even a weak argument against it gathers steam.

"Nor do I think you would have seen nearly the uproar from the Libruls as we are seeing here from conservatives."

That doesn't really gel with the manner in which liberals behaved toward Bush. Graduating classes turned their backs on him. Protestors hissed and screamed. He was compared to Hitler over and over and over. You might not have roared, but I assure you that other liberals would have.

Also, I'm not sure simply being president gives license to craft curriculum, nor does it necessarily mean he must be heard. I've never been moved by the "respect for the presidency" argument, and I heard not one peep about it from you prior to Obama's election.

PreK-6 Menu of Classroom Activities: President Obama's Address to Students
Across America

http://www.wlap.com/cc-common/mlib/1202/09/1202...

Teachers can ask students to imagine being the President delivering a speech to all of the students in the United States. What would you tell students? What can students do to help in our schools? Teachers can chart ideas about what they would say.

As the President speaks, teachers can ask students to write down key ideas or phrases that are important or personally meaningful. Students could use a note-taking graphic organizer such as a Cluster Web, or students could record their thoughts on sticky notes. Younger children can draw pictures and write as appropriate. As students listen to the speech, they could think about
the following:
What is the President trying to tell me?
What is the President asking me to do?
What new ideas and actions is the President challenging me to think about?

Students can record important parts of the speech where the President is asking them to do something. Students might think about: What specific job is he asking me to do? Is he asking anything of anyone else? Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?

Students could discuss their responses to the following questions:
What do you think the President wants us to do?
Does the speech make you want to do anything?
Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?
What would you like to tell the President?

Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.

Some of that may (may) be innocent enough, up until that last. Perhaps that has been rephrased, but it still seems a bit revealing that it was the original phrasing.

You conceded my point.

I did no such thing. There's nothing that Obama can do to please his enemies; meanwhile, the liberals who otherwise despised Bush at least gave him slack concerning 9/11.

"Two words: Bill Clinton"

That is exactly what I have been thinking. The right wing spent 9 years trying to destroy the Clinton presidency. (They started before he was actually elected, as I recall.) They did it mostly through the courts. This time they are using the internet and their own media to whip up their base into a screaming frenzy at every little thing. Apparently the right wing will never tolerate losing a presidential election.

Jane

True, the courts -- some conservative activists filed suit in Federal court in Arkansas to have him removed from the ballot before the 1992 election. But right did its damage done mostly through its media, which made allegations without actually proving anything, and the MSM fell for it. It stopped with Hillary's VRWC complaint, which the MSM, upon investigation, realized was true. Today, because its game has been exposed and its media have been discredited, the right no longer even bothers to hide its intentions.

To the author of this post, I would respond by asking you to see it from a perspective of a skeptic, not from the perspective of an anti-Obama, right-wing nut. Or perhaps seek to look at this from the perspective of somebody who would also have a problem with any president in this scenario, not just a democratic one.

The children whose parents cannot afford to send them to private school are forced to attend the government-run schools on whose televisions this will air. They are all mandated to be where they are at the times they will be encouraged to watch. The teachers who will choose to tune in are teachers predominantly teaching history, science, and social studies only under the approval of the government. The children who sit under these teachings are being taught to believe versions of history, science, and social studies what the government has approved. So when the teachers who tune into the presidential address for their students, they are adding one more element to the structure already mandated by government, and that is the personality of a president who is very persuasive and charismatic (not bad things) and has a lot of "personality" surrounding him. Children are taught not simply to respect him but revere him for communicating good things to the children.

The whole scenario is wrapped in a government-mandated requirement for these children to be where they are, with very easy access to the majority of them for a given amount of time. I'd be very unsure no matter which president is in office. Why not a radio/TV address in the evenings, maybe twice in the evenings, when parents can listen with their children? To me that is a better option than waiting to hear from them after returning from their required attendance at a government-run school taught by teachers who teach government-approved curricula.

Those who know my posts know where I come from on the idea of government running schools. But even putting that aside, and even assuming government schools are just fine, does it not seem a bit dubious or peculiar?

It is about the nature of Obama's personality and his charisma that has a powerful effect on the most impressionable in our society.

If Ronald Reagan were giving that same speech the liberals wouldn't have gone this hog-wild.

I don't remember Clinton, et al addressing school kids via the internet the way Obama is doing, for obvious reasons, but I'm sure those Presidents went to at least one school during their presidency and spoke to kids. I really don't see what the big deal is if the President speaks to students for 10 minutes and tells them to stay in school and study hard.

Why does this have to be about liberals and Reagan? I don't really care what liberals would have done. I'm interested in what good people should do when they believe something is wrong. You need to stop seeing this as us vs. them.