Message Problem

Filed under:Mothering,Politics — posted by Anwyn on September 2, 2009 @ 10:02 pm

So the president will address schoolchildren at noon on Tuesday, Sept. 8.

Let me stipulate up front that my child doesn’t start school till Wednesday, Sept. 9, by the scheduling of the school and not by me keeping him home. Which raises the question of whether or not his kindergarten teacher will record the speech and show it once school starts.

I’ve read a lot of opinions, from (I think) childless AP and Ace to Mama Venom and Daddy Vodka–one “Keep your kids home,” one “Really?” one “Yeah, I can sorta see that,” one “Pick your battles,” and Keep-’em-home Vodka’s follow-up answer to AP.

As Vodkapundit agrees in that last link, the problem is probably not the probably-pap speech itself. The problem is twofold: 1) The arrogance inherent in the president declaring himself the teacher for the time being and 2) The smacking–even if it is just a smacking without substance–of the Little Octobrists. This is not the Presidential Physical Fitness Award, with an impersonal established award for any student meeting the stated criteria. Obama doesn’t establish much, as a matter of fact, that he doesn’t then have to backtrack on, as the administration has already done once on this here speech. But what he does establish, or attempt to establish, is statist all the way. If the president really just wants to send a personal message to students to work hard and stay in school, that’s one thing, but when heavy statism is all you’ve shown yourself willing to sell, why should you be surprised when parents don’t like even the bare possibility of it being sold to their kids behind their backs?

And why does the president believe anybody’s kids need his personal message, even if it is just about staying in school and working hard? I think there’s a lot of merit to Kate’s point that if you make a big deal, the kids will make a bigger deal of it in their minds than you otherwise would. Fortunately I do not have to choose whether the Bean will hear the president in school or not … this year. Like so many things about statism, though, this could be, or try to be, the thin end of a wedge. And, as always, I can’t help but picture the outrage had Bush put an address into schools, something he did not do even right after 9-11. He did not appoint himself our children’s personal grief counselor. The president is not our kids’ teacher or nanny, either.

And: Nice Deb goes fairly nuclear.

And also: What I’m trying to say is that in this case, the message might well be the messenger himself. The essential fact that the president puts an address into the schools sends a message of statism, whatever the speech itself does or doesn’t say–that children should work hard because the president says so. That’s not why they should, and they shouldn’t be taught otherwise.


  1. As my wife and I have no children (that we KNOW of) I don’t really know what to think of this. I haven’t really been following the news or keeping up with current events. Obama is president, right? Yeah, I live in a cave and I don’t perceive that much has changed at the federal level other than the names.

    What I did come here to say is that the spam is back in RSS (at least as of this post). Message problem, indeed. :(

    Comment by Allen — September 3, 2009 @ 1:26 am

  2. We could count on past presidents to stick to the message. With Obama, I believe he is going to use this opportunity to preach to the treachers and administrators watching on healthcare and any other topic he wants to talk about.

    It is all about TRUST!

    They already had to redefine the description of the agenda.

    Comment by Michael Haltman — September 3, 2009 @ 5:05 am

  3. Bush Sr. and Reagan BOTH addressed school children in nationally televised speeches. Why the outrage over this president doing it? I’m going to guess it’s something to do with that big “D” in front of his name.

    Comment by Lola — September 3, 2009 @ 9:59 am

  4. Allen, thanks for the RSS alert, I think it’s fixed now, but of course have no idea how it got back in there. :P

    Comment by Anwyn — September 3, 2009 @ 11:50 am

  5. It’s not the “D” I’m worried about, I’ll take Clinton any day over this. It’s the “S” for socialist.

    Comment by thelmajoy — September 3, 2009 @ 7:17 pm

  6. RSS Displays properly now, for both posts and comments.

    Comment by Xrlq — September 3, 2009 @ 7:31 pm

  7. You said this well. I agree with you that the problem is that he is all about selling statism, and that is the fear I have with the speech. He does not seem to care about any values beyond his own ego and agenda, and I don’t see why all of America’s school children need to tune in to that. Plus, there’s such adoration of him among the teaching class. The Messiah speaks!

    I’m not worried about my child hearing it. One of her teachers has toned down the teachings about the wonders of the healthcare bill because my daughter challenged her on this. Older kids who haven’t drunk the Kool-Aid need to be there and be vocal.

    But there is one thing about this speech that I like. Too, too many of our young men don’t have father figures or role models. That isn’t Obama’s job, but nobody is doing that job and we’re losing these boys at a heart-breaking rate. Maybe, just maybe, a few of them will be inspired to aim higher, to hike up their pants above their butts so they can walk normally and maybe they’ll walk toward a better future just because they see it can be done. (Even by someone who is beggering their futures, but we won’t get into that here.)

    Comment by lifepundit — September 3, 2009 @ 7:45 pm

Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace