Your email address is safe with us. View our Privacy policy.
Author Bio:
Kathleen Parker is one of America's most popular opinion columnists, addressing the country's mental health through her views on current national ...
Read more about Kathleen Parker.
Kathleen Parker is one of America's most popular opinion columnists, addressing the country's mental health through her views on current national ...
Read more about Kathleen Parker.
What Was All The Fuss About?
Kathleen Parker
WASHINGTON -- Just when you thought things couldn't get any stupider,
schools across the nation decided to censor President Obama's speech
urging kids to work hard because "being successful is hard."
And that, ladies and gentlemen, was the terribly scary bit of propaganda that prompted certain Americans to cry "socialism" and "indoctrination," and force some schools to opt out of hearing the president's message Tuesday.
When and how did we become so ridiculous?
As it turns out, we've been this way for a while now. Such protests aren't new, a review of which follows shortly. The difference is that now, the masses are technologically enabled, amplified by a twillion tweets. Everybody's got a megaphone, bless democracy's heart.
But when a protest of one (or a few) can instantly morph into a babble of thousands, rabble-rousing becomes a hobby -- and rational debate becomes an oxymoron.
Granting a supersized benefit of the doubt to protesters, Obama's speech originally included classroom instructional materials from the Department of Education that asked students to express how they were inspired by the president and how they might help him.
Too political, critics said. Indoctrination, charged Florida Republican Chairman Jim Greer.
"As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology," Greer said.
Some conservative radio and television hosts latched onto the specter of youth camps past and encouraged parents to keep their children home from school in protest.
OK, benefit-of-doubt rescinded. Even asking kids to help the president improve the nation doesn't justify charges of socialist indoctrination. John F. Kennedy's famous "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" is hardly considered a bugle call to summer camp in the Urals.
Essentially, Obama's speech, which aired live, focused on encouraging students to evaluate how they might contribute to making America better. "What problems are you going to solve? What discoveries will you make?"
Anyone who heard or read the address will have found little to criticize, except perhaps that it was a tad boring, too long -- and certifiably schmaltzy. Then again, he was talking to kids, some of them as young as 5. Even former first lady Laura Bush and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich approved of the president's talk.
Presidential speeches to students aren't a new development. The St. Petersburg Times' indispensable PolitiFact.com "Truth-O-Meter" notes that both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush gave such addresses. And, yes, Democrats protested. Reagan's speech was, in fact, political, as he went beyond stressing the importance of education to discussing nuclear disarmament, defense funding and even taxes. Talk about a snooze.
Gingrich, who at the time of Bush's address was House Republican whip, defended the president's right to speak directly to students. But Richard Gephardt, then the House Democratic leader, said the Education Department shouldn't be producing "paid political advertising for the president. ... And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.'"
And round and round we go. The hysterics, it would seem, have reached a detente. Or, one hopes, canceled each other out. Compared to previous presidential addresses, Obama's was strictly apolitical. It was also quintessential Obama -- aimed at healing, at soothing the afflicted and making things all better. The speech was so brimming with pathos, it seemed to have been concocted around a campfire where kids recalled their worst day in school.
Addressing all ages of students, from kindergartners to 12th graders, presents clear challenges, but Obama managed to hit every group's vulnerabilities and insecurities -- from being bullied, to not fitting in, to having a divided family. Hey, he's been there!
And now he's president. You can be, too, was the subtext. What's so wrong with that?
One might have wished Obama's remarks cut by half. It also would have been nice if he had thrown in an Ashley or a Jonah amongst the students he featured -- Jazmin, Andoni and Shantell. But overall, the president's message was a conservative hymn, a GOP platform for kiddies: Take personal responsibility, don't blame others for your failures, listen to your parents and your teachers, work hard.
"Here in America, you write your own destiny. You make your own future."
The only thing missing from this orgy of conservative orthodoxy was ... a Republican president. And that is the lesson of the day.
========
Kathleen Parker's e-mail address is kathleenparker(at)washpost.com
Copyright 2009 Washington Post Writers Group
This news arrived on: 09/09/2009
Printer Friendly Version | Send this page to a friend | Post Comment
Rate This Story:
Great - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - Bad
Posted Comments:
09-14-2009 05:42
JCE wrote:
Too many members were saying things about Bush and other politicians that while true, made a lot of members uncomfortable, as that wasn't the honored way of doing business. So they changed the rules in order to call liars liars. Only they didn't make it ok to call presidents liars. That is because Bush would have been called one, which he was, but congress couldn't stomach that. Until this congress, when one called a president one. In typical republican fashion, he called the president a liar when the president was telling the truth. It is significant that will all the democrats in congress, they are not happy with this disgraceful breach of protocol, and ethics, and are not at all happy with the dishonor shown to the man, the president, the office, the congress, the people, and the country. And still Wilson and his supporters remain firm, in that dishonor and disrespect. One can hope that the congress doesn't accept this further decline in our country turning its back on law, order, morality, ethics and honor.
09-13-2009 18:29
JCE wrote:
Until the 109th Congress, it was not in order to make certain references to the Senate or individual senators. However, at the beginning of that Congress, the House removed the prohibition on making references to the Senate, leaving only the requirement that debate be confined to the question under debate and avoid “personality.” The precedents of the House allow a wide latitude in criticism of the President, other executive officials, and the government itself. However, it is not permissible to use language that is personally offensive to the President, such as referring to him as a “hypocrite” or a “liar.” Similarly, it is not in order to refer to the President as “intellectually dishonest” or an action taken by the President as “cowardly.” References to the Vice President, in spite of his role as President of the Senate, are measured against the standard used for the President rather than prior standards used to govern the Senate.
09-11-2009 02:27
JCE wrote:
Except republicans have never been so disrespectful and against a white president irregardless of the party. Just something you don't do to good white folks.
Comment archive | Comment FAQ's
 |
 |
|
View Kathleen Parker ezine stories by date or visit the complete archive |
The ArcaMax Politics channel is one of 70 content categories offered by ArcaMax Publishing on this ... |
VideoSquares.com
