CE Week #2: “Speech too mild to merit furor” Sept. 10th
Just when you thought things couldn’t get any stupider, schools across the nation decided to censor President Barack 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OK, benefit- of-doubt rescinded.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 among 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 is a columnist for the Washington Post Writers Group. Her e-mail address is kathleenparker@ washpost.com.
A. The gist that I caught of this blurb was that people were trying to criticize Obama’s speech to school children. They were, once again, calling his efforts those of a socialist. However, it seemed that the accusers were making accusations out of thin air. The speech was motivational, and didn’t differ much from those that have been given by other presidents in the past.
B. I think it is unfair to criticize Obama for encouraging children. Those people criticizing the nothings they complain about should spend more time trying to rally people for what they really want to see changed. I mean really, telling children to work hard is a Socialist message? I can tell you that I have heard that statement from people all of my life, and no one ever accused them of any such thing. Good teachers, good parents, and good leaders encourage their followers. I simply think Obama is trying to keep things optimistic, and bring the change that he promised to Americans. Maybe his every move hasn’t been right so far, but he has a lot to look at right now. Would any other candidate have done better? Maybe, maybe not.
C. What I would like to know may not be something any of you can answer. I would like to know why we were not shown the message at school.
ANSWER: It was on before our class began and I also did not feel it would be a good use of our time the first day of school with all the meetings and the rush of first day activities. I sent you the copy of the text, so everyone would know the content of the speech and be able to decide its merits on their own. I did not have a problem with the speech and do not think it was an abuse of presidential power politicizing the opening of school. What do you think after seeing or reading it? Kautzman
Part A:
We did not watch Obama’s speech in class, but I read the transcript and thought it was very interesting. What really surprised me when I read this article was the outrage that came with it. He did not say anything offensive or untruthful, so I don’t see why people are making such a fuss about it. I did not know that other presidents, like Reagan and George H.W. Bush had done the same, and I definitely did not know how upset Democrats got when they made speeches to children. But their speeches seemed to be focused on education, along with a couple other topics as well. It was weird to know that technology has affected our society, and in turn the way our nation now functions around facebook and twitter.
Part B:
I thought Obama’s speech was really good. Well written and a message that was simple and relevant for students everywhere in the United States, no matter how old they were. It was interesting hearing what he had to say about not fitting in, meeting new people and having a troubled young life, all things he experienced in his life. Overall I thought it had a great message for students all over the country. What’s wrong with a heartfelt message that children of all ages can relate to?
Part C:
Why would Republicans call Obama a socialist for talking to children when other presidents have done the same thing?
. As I did not watch the President’s speech on Tuesday, I wasn’t fully aware of what was said. It appears that many people thought it was too long and monotonous and it seems many people thought it unsuccessful and pointless to begin with. I’m not surprised that President Obama’s speech has taken a few hits and critical remarks, as not many presidents have chosen to address the children of the nation before.
B. While some may think Obama’s speech was boring and pointless, I think it says a lot about the President that he would want to speak to kids in the first place. It shows that he cares about the future of our country and wants to encourage younger generations to make a difference. If nothing else, I believe his speech gave children the impression that they have a President who believes in them and seems to care about them.
C. What gave Obama the idea to do this in the first place? If there were some schools that watched the speech and some that did not, does that mean there was no controversy in the schools that did watch? There had to have been disagreement among parents of students who watched it, so is it just a matter of how many complaints a district receives?
I heard part of Obama’s speech on the day it was delivered. From this article, I found out that other presidents before Obama have made addresses like his, but those were political. Obama’s speech didn’t say anything about politics. I still cannot believe that Jim Greer said that the speech contained “socialist ideology.” Many schools didn’t show the address.
Encouraging kids to do good in school in order to contribute to their country’s future doesn’t seem in any way negative to me. And that’s the only thing Obama did. After listening to his speech, kids will have a feeling that everything is possible, because the President said that he, too, messed up in school, but was still able to become one of the most powerful people on Earth. Then, kids who aren’t too thrilled about school will have a dream, a reason to go to school. And if someone doesn’t want their kids to contribute to the future of USA, then aren’t those people useless, and should we even pay attention to their opinions on such issues? What bad does doing well in school bring?
I really didn’t understand why Mr. Greer referred to “socialist ideology” in Obama’s speech. I would like to find out.
A.Before I read this article, I knew a little about Obama’s speech. I learned that certain Americans thought it was socialism and indoctrination. I didn’t know that some parents kept their kids home on the day the speech was shown. I think that’s pretty ridiculous.
B.I think that the speech that Obama gave was good, a little too good. I think it was a good thing that Obama is telling kids that they need to work hard in school. A lot of kids are dropping out of school or just trying to do the minimum. I’m not a fan of Obama, and I think that was really stupid that he said that if you want to become a rapper or a professional basketball player, then it probably won’t happen. When you’re young you have dreams of becoming a certain profession and as you get older it changes about a hundred times. I was angry when I read this because Obama is crushing kids hopes and dreams.
C.I would like to know if Obama wrote the speech himself. I would also want to know what the kids who supported Obama said about the speech.
A. I hadn’t yet heard about Obama’s speech to the kids, but after reading more about it I approve of his speech. I think addressing the kids is nice, and it makes kids more interested in the Government and President. Towards to beginning of the article, the author mentioned that we are coming to “rational debate[s] becom[ing] an oxymoron.” I found that really humorous because I see the irony and truthfulness in it.
B. I think this article makes quite a good point on the ridiculousness of the problem, because it seems awfully confusing and silly. “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.” Why is this censored for students? It makes no sense. It seems like a good thing for a President to be concerned and asking these questions. It angers me to a level to say this is socialism. How? His speech seemed lighthearted and uplifting to kids. I want to know why someone is so against it.
C. This may be the silliest question of the day, but why would it matter if a Republican or a Democrat President was saying this speech?
A. Hyper pluralism was what came to mind when the author stated “everyone’s got a megaphone”. (Great Connection – Kautzman) I know what she was actually referring to isn’t really hyper pluralism but when she then mentioned “a babble of thousands” and “rabble rousing” that’s what I thought of. I learned schmaltzy means overly sentimental, and I learned that yes, Obama had originally planned to ask kids to answer how they were inspired by him and what they were going to do to help him. I also learned that Reagan and Bush have given similar addresses; I thought this was a new tactic by Obama.
B. I read Obama’s address and while it was a little cheesy I saw nothing wrong with it. In my opinion people over reacted. The fear of the unknown got to them. Bringing in Kennedy’s quote was a good move on the author’s part. America has gotten to be all about me, me,me. Now that Obama has asked “what can you do for your country” people are crying socialist left and right. Kennedy’s quote brought in the prospective that it is our duty as Americans to strengthen this country. I also thought it was interesting that the speaker can have more influence than the speech itself. There’s no way the reaction would have been this explosive if a Republican had given the speech.
C. What was Obama’s child hood like? When were the addresses of Reagan and Bush given and what was the gist of what they were saying?
I enjoyed this topic, simply because it is yet again another public display of one or more persons giving Obama’s work so far a bad rep. When I got the email to read the script I was enthralled because I was hoping to watch it at school, so much for that…
It bothered me quite some bit for parents to go as far as keeping their children home from school so they wouldn’t be exposed to the showing of the Presidents speech. I mean really, how rude is that? Not only to Obama himself, but to the importance of his message, “making this a better country”. How can we possibly do that if people can’t let go of there bias?
Personally I like the speech. It was meaningful and empowering to the youth. I even purposely DVR’d it to watch when I need some motivation!
My question to you is how did his message affect you? Do you think he ushered some sort of change in the mindset of kids in school?
NO CREDIT – Word Count 172
A: I looked up the speech and listened to it on the internet after a couple of days of school. According to the article written here, the speech talked about what kids should and had the capability to do and how they had to work to gain good things from life which I would agree that this was the main focus of the speech. The author also writes about how much people have been critiquing Obama for giving the speech and I have seen these people on the news saying they didn’t think he should give it.
B: I do not mind that Obama gave the speech he did or when he did. I also didn’t feel it was about anything that should have made people protest or get upset over. What he was saying I thought was good but I do agree with most people that maybe it was a little to long however the topic he spoke about I think was a good one that most kids should learn or know because in life a majority of the time you do have to work for what you have. I think perhaps the speech may have been better and had a more positive result if it was viewed later in the evening where parents could supervise and where it is not disturbing school classes but sometimes that’s just not how life works.
C: I want to know what kind of things that Obama specifically said in his speech that people are getting upset and protesting against.
A. I was intrigued by the statement: “…both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush gave such addresses.” This statement leads me to believe that George W. Bush never gave any such speech to America’s students. I didn’t realize how seriously some people took Obama’s speech, going as far as keeping their kids home from school. I also learned that the speech originally included classroom materials that asked students to express how they were inspired by the president and how they might help him. While I agree that this was not a far cry from JFK’s famous quote, I don’t think that this would necessarily be appropriate, because he is still a relatively new president, and the question was not worded very well.
B. I watched the speech after I had read a few articles about the “controversy” surrounding it, and frankly I was confused, because nothing I heard was the least bit controversial. All that I saw was our president encouraging the students of America to work hard and overcome their obstacles. While I, like the author of this article, found it a bit cheesy in some parts, it was appropriate and inspiring for children and not the least bit political. I think censoring this speech at all is absolutely ridiculous.
I really want to know what kind of a message we are sending when our own President is being censored.
C. What would have happened if Obama did make a politically charged speech? Who then is in control of deciding what airs and what does not? Does the Federal government have the right to say “This must be aired”? Also, when was the last time a president addressed students? What was the speech about?
Comment on Larae Stott’s Post:
Alright, Larae I agree with you that Obama is trying to make a good difference, but he’s doing it in all the wrong places. While this generation does scare me with where its going, I think President Obama has a few other things on his plate. Also, he told children he was trying to get them better books, and computers – which is a STATE RIGHT!!!! Sure he’s a great speaker but he can get you to think anything he says is good because he is such a great speaker. Guess who else was a great speaker. Hitler. Not saying that Obama is trying to turn our country into a Nazi army, but he’s taken numerous vacations, and then as soon as he comes back he talks to the kids. He needs to buckle down on the healthcare plan, and the war on terrorism. There’s so many other things he should be doing.
In response to Jaclyn Brim:
Obama’s earlier years were spent in Hawaii. His Caucasian mother and Kenyan father divorced when Obama was about 3 and he ultimately only saw his father one more time before he died in 1984. His mother later married an Indonesian man so his family moved there when he was 6 but he later moved back to Hawaii to live with his grandparents. Apparently he constantly struggled to “reconcile social perceptions of his multiracial heritage” and was well aware of racism. I guess he even used drugs such as marijuana and cocaine while in high school.
I read the transcript for Reagan’s 1988 speech, and for the most part it inspired students to keep the spirit of the Revolution alive (in other words to protect freedom). He spoke of how American traditions have spread throughout the world from a political, economic, and cultural standpoint. Overall, he told students to continue their education to continue the development of the US and carry on the tradition of freedom.
As for Bush (in 1991), he said to take control of your education. In a nutshell, he told students not to drop out because it threatens a secure and prosperous future. He not only stated the harm of dropping out and drugs and violence, but the benefits of staying in school. He wanted students to take school seriously and take it into their own hands to succeed.
Here is where I got my information:
http://www.biography.com/articles/Barack-Obama-12782369
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/09/07/bush.1991.speech.pdf
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/09/07/reagan.1988.speech.pdf
Response to Kylei Tompkins
The Question: “I would like to know if Obama wrote the speech himself. I would also want to know what the kids who supported Obama said about the speech.”
The Answer: According to a majority of the websites I looked through they said that he does write his own speeches. However a lot of them also mentioned that he works with a team or co-writes with a guy named Jon Favreau, which I would think makes the much more likely story due to his busy schedule. As far as reactions I’m not sure there is just one opinion you could find anyone on anything for a group of people. From what I could tell from news they either supported the speech or were surprised by what he said. Just because they support Obama does not meant they will have a single opinion.
B. Daniel- I really didn’t understand why Mr. Greer referred to “socialist ideology” in Obama’s speech. I would like to find out.
The socialist ideology that was being referred to was that the speech was aimed at indoctrinating kids into supporting President Obama, rather than encouraging education. It turns out that once the teaching aide asking children “how they could help the president” was revised that Mr. Greer then approved of the address. It all comes back to Obama being a democrat. The Democratic Party is known for leaning toward policies exhibiting socialist tendencies at least more so than the Republican party, so the conservatives were just being ultra sensitive. In my opinion they over reacted and the speech didn’t include anything to cause such a disturbance. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8243909.stm
In response to Kylei Tompkins:
“I’m not a fan of Obama, and I think that was really stupid that he said that if you want to become a rapper or a professional basketball player, then it probably won’t happen.”
I would have to disagree it’s “stupid” that Obama told the truth. I agree that kids have dreams of becoming ballerinas and pro-football players, when they are 6 and 7 years old. Those young of kids don’t pay any attention to politics what so ever. President Obama was not trying to “crush kids’ hopes and dreams”, he was handing students, like you and me, the reality of the real world that fame and money isn’t handed to you.
In response to Elise Martin:
I really liked the speech. We have obviously heard that life is tough but the way he explained it gave me a fresh look. He gave us the reality with a hopeful outlook. It was a little like the beginning of the Chris Mathews book, “you have to sell three to do all right, but you’ll never find those three unless you knock on the hundred doors to start with”.
In Response to Katie
Well things are not always nice when it comes to politics. This isn’t an easy subject. Think about it for a minute though. Does everyone go on to make a million dollars? Even just get into college. What Obama said can be looked at as socialism and people will want to censor that from harsh criticism. Socialism is just leveling the economy off and things like that. Not everyone is going to make a lot of money and not everyone will go to college. It would be nice if it worked like that but it doesn’t. Republicans are normally the ones who address education because they are normally the more conservative of the two groups. This conservative attitude leaves it to the individual to challenge themselves. John F. Kennedy was included because he was viewed as a much more conservative democrat. However Democrats aren’t seen as conservative and this is why they censored. Democrats are involved with education but it is a little different and can be seen as socialist at times.