Dear Leader
Of President Obama’s back-to-school speech to the kiddies, Jay Nordlinger writes,
it’s also a little . . . creepy. A little un-republican. A little — just a little — Dear Leader-ish. Immodest. George Washington would never have done such a thing, is my guess; doubt Lincoln would have either . . .”
Perhaps. But it strikes me as infinitely less “Dear Leaderish” and certainly less “immodest” than President Bush’s infamous carrier landing/”Mission Accomplished” speech on May Day, 2003. History, or at least Google, does not record Nordlinger’s comments on that day. My theory is that he was too overcome with emotion. I doubt that he was contemplating how “Dear Leaderish” it made the president look, or thinking it “immodest.”
Share
Filed under: Conservatism
I think the two may be similar in type, but not in degree. The Bush photo op saw offensive, but GWB at least had some legitimate claim to be the Commander in Chief™ of the Armed Forces.
Obama’s photo op crosses (more) lines because he has decidedly not been granted legitimate authority to be the head of America’s education system.
Ad hominem tu quoque.
Yes, some consistency would be in yet this latest silly political “dispute” Can you imagine the right being in an uproar if Bush II wish to speak all the kiddies? Could you imagine lefties letting such a speech pass without protest?
The reaction to Obama’s address is a sign of health in the American electorate.
There’s no comparison between Bush’s burlesque and this, either in degree or nature of offense.
Obama’s allowed his speech, after all; Bush’s ceremonial demolition of the divide between executive and military was historic. It’s a sobering thought: everything is preserved in the digital age, and GW’s strutting performance that afternoon will leer back at us in perpetuity.
But what is the point of revisiting Bush’s sins here? And if a hypocrite contradicts himself, it’s often because he’s told the truth at least once.
But there is something fundamentally wrong with the most powerful man on earth broadcasting directly to millions of schoolchildren, this giant, disembodied head (the kids are sitting cross-legged in a semi-circle around a flat-panel; young teachers stand behind them, hands clasped reverently).
I’m heartened by the reaction. Would it be a bad thing to establish this as a customary limit on the President? He cannot de-politicize anything he does, even should he try; addressing kids is akin to advertising that appeals directly to the children, who then appeal to their parents. It starts out unseemly at first examination and grows sinister in the imagination.
Leaving aside the heavy handed assault on the principle of local educational autonomy this is; maybe Bush and Obama do resemble each other here–Bush miming the warrior, Obama mimicking the educator.
Amen, Sean Scallon. I’m turned off by the hypocrisy of both parties, and I’m discouraged that people like Nordlinger aren’t self-aware enough to recognize their hypocrisy, and that too many Americans are too disengaged to notice it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-y2QghS2gU
“Can you imagine the right being in an uproar if Bush II wish to speak all the kiddies? Could you imagine lefties letting such a speech pass without protest?”
Excellent point. The fact is that when member of party (Y) commits action (X), it is (Y) that determines whether most people object or praise, rather than (X).
Dennis — your conjuring of the cross-legged kids circled around the giant glowing “head” is Orwellian and resonates with me. It’s a strong argument, though I am not entirely sold yet that is the case with Obama’s upcoming address to the nation’s children.
My question: if a so-called back-to-school speech is truly a danger, then when do we stop sending children the mixed messages? Teaching kids from an early age that the President is elected “by the people” to serve as the esteemed head of state, head of the Executive Branch of the federal government and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and is expected to faithfully execute the laws of the country (and not to mention serve as benevolent father figure), certainly runs contrary to this pervasive and troubling (though not altogether undeserved) notion that he is merely a powerful tool for one political party or the other. If the latter is the predominant picture, then we need to drop the pretenses, modify the textbooks regarding the symbolism and significance of the Office of President and stop giving kids the “official” line that he is someone they need to respect, aspire to and regard as the leader of the country and true representative of the people. Perhaps there should be an honest scaling back, a “retooling” of the symbolic role, an honest conversation of whether the Office has become a serious anathema to the survival of the republic. But let’s do something — that a president can be an Olympian god and role model one election cycle, faithless cockroach and greasy pitchman the next, can be quite confusing to children, who tend to take the words of their parents and teachers at face value.
Obama’s speech was already canceled at my kids’ Catholic school this week, in part because parents weren’t given enough time to “opt out” their child’s participation. To be sure, if parents are allowed to start ripping them out of the program because, as one “suburban mother” in Colorado says, “I’m an American. They are Americans, and I don’t feel that’s OK. I feel very scared to be in this country with our leadership right now,” the kids will get the point. But what point is it? And don’t we have the responsibility to make it clear?
I can’t think why any reasonable person would be upset by this, unless Obama were actually going to exhort children to vote Democratic, as opposed to the usual palaver about studying hard and staying in school. Like the message that Bush I gave for school kids when he was President. And really, I doubt very much that there would have been much reaction from the left had Bush II given an innocuous semester opening statement either. There is no equivalent on the left, in terms of audience size, to Beck, Limbaugh etc.
The President of the United States is going to make a speech to the nation’s schoolchildren extolling the virtues of education and inspiring them to believe that, with hard work, discipline and self-belief, they can have a positive impact on their country’s future.
But because he’s a Democrat, and for no other reason (that they’re willing to admit to) this is attacked by The Right as an outrageous and creepy example of Stalinist propaganda, with the bought-and-paid-for hacks of the Conservative Media happily pretending that this kind of craziness somehow reflects badly on the President, rather than on the lunatic minority spewing it.
Yeah, this is how low modern American conservativism has sunk. The only things still visible above the Rovian slime are a pair of madly glaring eyeballs.
Epic Fail sums this up quite well.
Typical of the sort of Olympian intellects on the professional-Obamophobe rancid right: over an anodyne 30-minute business-as-usual pep talk by the Current Incumbent, much Fudd-meets-Yosemite foaming over the “outrage”; over the thirteen-year prison-sentence indoctrination inherent in the public “education”, Already Long in Progress, through which they allow “their” children to pass in the first and final instance – Not So Much ™…
My grandparents have a cookie jar in the shape of a portly police officer who, when touched, activates a voicebox barking the command, “STOP: step away from the cookie jar…” I humbly suggest that in the interests of avoiding the intellectual obesity and tooth decay to which the surrender to such tempting indulgence tends to lead, that whenever the urge to respond to the latest thoughts from the parody-disarming GOPot calling itself “Jay Nordlinger” strikes us, we give a thought to our neighborhood Cookie Cop, and Respect His Authoritah. ™
Actually, if Bush II had given a similar speech, he’d have been execrated right here on this site, and rightly so. Just because “movement conservatives” oppose something, doesn’t mean you have to support it out of some instinctive contrariness.
But because he’s a Democrat, and for no other reason (that they’re willing to admit to) this is attacked by The Right as an outrageous and creepy example of Stalinist propaganda…
Given the initial companion work program put out by the Education, it did have a more than creepy element. Moreover, the White House only released the text of the speech (a speech I imagine was much revised) after a great deal of pressure was brought to bear.
“Given the initial companion work program put out by the Education, it did have a more than creepy element. Moreover, the White House only released the text of the speech (a speech I imagine was much revised) after a great deal of pressure was brought to bear.”
Sorry Derek, but none of this has any more grounding in reality than anything else coming out of the American Right.
Or to be clearer. The fact that the inspirational speech actually given by your President to the nation’s schoolchildren was just that, an inspirational speech any American should be proud their President would take the time to give, bears no relation whatsoever to the fictional version the American Right predicted he would give – doesn’t – mean that it was changed at the last minute to edit out all the evil Islamosocialist propaganda it originally contained.
It means that it always – was – an inspirational speech any American should be proud their President would take the time to give, and the fauxrage spewed up by the Right was based on obvious lies designed to appeal to the the only constituency they have left, people who will pretend to believe anything if it justifies their refusal to acknowledge a black Democrat with a foreign sounding name as their President.
Like I said upthread, the Fail is Epic in scale, and just becomes clearer with every rejectionist tantrum.
Alright, Tony. Why don’t you be more specific instead of resorting to the usual ad hominem? There was a guide that did ask creepy questions, like how can you help the president. That was disappeared. Aside from my choice of adjective (whic you can agree or disagree with) this stuff has been established, perfectly grounded in reality.
Here is an abcnews link:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/obamas-back-to-school-message—-scribbled-with-some-controversy.html
In an acknowledgment that the Department of Education provided lesson plans written somewhat inartfully, surrounding the President Obama’s speech to students next Tuesday, the White House today announced that it had rewritten one of the sections in question.
…
As one of the preparatory materials for teachers provided by the Department of Education, students had been asked to, “Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. “
Today, after Republicans accused the White House of trying to indoctrinate school children with liberal propaganda the White House and the Department of Education changed the section to now read, “Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short‐term and long‐term education goals.”
The Obama Administration did release the text after the protests From Politico:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26828.html
The text of the 18-minute talk, scheduled to be delivered at an Arlington High School, was released Monday afternoon to quell some of the uproar from conservatives who said that Obama would use the speech as a platform to indoctrinate children on his leftist agenda — and from parents who did not want their children to watch it.
It’s all there, Tony. If you don’t like my characterization of this stuff, fine. Say so, but don’t accuse me of making things up.
The President of the United States is going to make a speech to the nation’s schoolchildren extolling the virtues of education and inspiring them to believe that, with hard work, discipline and self-belief, they can have a positive impact on their country’s future.
Except that this is all utter BS, under his watch. Higher education bubble? The destruction of meritocracy in favor of affirmative action? The continued outsourcing of American jobs and support for globalization? And so on.
…the American Right predicted he would give – doesn’t – mean that it was changed at the last minute to edit out all the evil Islamosocialist propaganda it originally contained.
Well, now you’ve shown you don’t really understand the argument. Most of the serious conservative commentators acknowledged beforehand that the speech would be mostly unobjectionable. What you’re doing is latching onto a strawman.
The problem I and others have is with the concept of a national leader opening a school year. It smacks of centralization, and given this presidents past work in the educational field with the Annenberg hoo-haw, we’re not comfortable with him giving any direct speech–especially when it was accompanied by suggested study questions cited in the ABC story.
The fact that the inspirational speech actually given by your President to the nation’s schoolchildren was just that, an inspirational speech any American should be proud their President would take the time to give…
Oh, gosh, President O was kind enough to give a speech largely glorfiying himself to our kiddies. How very kind of him. How very out of character of him. Lord knows how Obama hates to talk about himself and his background. Why they had to use waterboarding experts to get him to write his two (count’em, two) autobiographies.
Like I said upthread, the Fail is Epic in scale, and just becomes clearer with every rejectionist tantrum.
Obama’s approval numbers are dropping and his legislative program has ground to a humiliating halt, but it’s the right that’s in epic fail. Got it. Is the sky blue in your world, Tony, like it is here?
What speech are we talking about? Obama talking to the American children? The speech he made that was more-or-less identical to the one given by Bush 41 to the American children?
You remember. The speech that the Lib Press went nuts over? That caused all those Congressional hearings on whether or not it was apporpriate for the president to “use children as props”?
Run out and google:
“richard gephardt” bush school children hearing
It’s feeling very LIB in this room today. You know, all the dishonesty and stuff.
Thanks Barney – I Googled that phrase just like you said – and you know what I found? A bunch of right wing nut job sites all referencing the same article by someone named Byron York. Byron writes a a bunch of stuff about events that occurred almost 20 years ago, but provides no citations, so we all need to take Byron’s word for his claims. He pulls a quote from a WaPo store that he alleges appeared after Bush I’s address – so why not post the whole thing, so we can all see it?
That’s real intellectual integrity for you – write something about a decades old event with no supporting documentation, have a bunch of right wing sites pick it up, and then present it as something that’s ‘all over the web.’
This has nothing to do with the POTUS addressing kids. It has to do with which one. The majority of the people barking about this are the same ones who genuflected before W at his potemkin town hall meetings. You’re dealing with people who view this as a team sport and have made it clear they would rather look foolish or make things up than discuss the facts of the matter If you’re so worked up about this type of thing, why are your kids in public school anyway? It’s a waste of time trying to reason with these people, regardless of their political stripes.
Another reflection of the modern trend (which took off with FDR) of the president as “big man” manipulating imagery for political power. Of course, Obama takes it further with his exhortations to his personal political army that health care is what they organized for and now is their. (I wonder what Washington would have thought of the President having a personal political army to marshal against Congress?)
More political food fight. Of course, it’s amusing to see people talk about the President’s speech as inspirational. Men who far exceed any modern President (Washington through Madison) did not even appear to speak before Congress, much less “millions of schoolchildren.” Not even the liberal’s favorite T. Jefferson.
Hey Metroman – YVW (You’re very welcome)
The first advantage I have, of course, is I voted for Bush 41, and I personally remember the dishonest LIB smear campaign, where most of the media and much of Congress wanted to investigate Bush 41 for spending less than Obama spends on importing a chef to cook he and his friends pizza.
Sorry about your googleskills. We conservatives don’t blindly follow orders, and I had only intended as a courtesy to give you a starting point.
You need left-wing? Here’s someone who would agree with you, complete with more references:
http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/politicsblog/index.php?blogid=15184
http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/politicsblog/index.php?blogid=15191
Barney, I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove. The link you provide above, the one ending in 15191, is yet another right wing poster who has a link pointing back to the same Byron York post. All of these posters are referencing exactly the same unsubstantiated post by Byron York. What is it with right wingers and echo chambers?
Have another try.
Derek –
Let me just remind you of what you said:
“Given the initial companion work program put out by the Education, it did have a more than creepy element. Moreover, the White House only released the text of the speech (a speech I imagine was much revised) after a great deal of pressure was brought to bear”
You provide two examples of this Administration doing what it almost – always – does when faced with MSM-chanelled screeching from the Right. It listened, responded with a compromise that boiled down to “You have a problem with a couple of sentences in the speech? Okay, no big deal, we’ll change the language in those specific sentences. Now you have nothing to complain about, do you?”
There is a vast, continent-wide gulf visible from space between changing a few words to show how willing you are to compromise with the opposition, and your claim that the speech was “much revised” after “a great deal of pressure was brought to bear”.
Because it simply didn’t happen.
Derek –
“Well, now you’ve shown you don’t really understand the argument. Most of the serious conservative commentators acknowledged beforehand that the speech would be mostly unobjectionable. What you’re doing is latching onto a strawman.”
Actually, no. What you call “serious conservative commentators”, I call a small and insignificant fringe of people who have little to no influence on the ideology or direction of today’s American Right. The fact that they’re sane enough to reject the ‘hate-speech’ coming from the vast majority of the Right’s real leaders and the rejectionist base they’re pandering to is a mark in their favour, and I can only hope that one day the GOP realises the cliff it’s enthusiastically steamrollering over and starts listening to them. But that’s not going to happen any day soon, and at present that strawman you’re accusing me of latching onto happens to be what the vast majority of Republicans are arguing about.
“Obama’s approval numbers are dropping and his legislative program has ground to a humiliating halt, but it’s the right that’s in epic fail. Got it. Is the sky blue in your world, Tony, like it is here?”
Ah, no. Right now it’s a sort of bluish-tinged pink, with grey closing in from all sides. But that’s just because of the time of day on this side of the Atlantic.
Seriously though, Obama’s popularity has dropped slightly because Progressives are pissed at him, and the last few months of staying aloof while the Conservative Media has been busy polishing every insane GOP talking-point with the patina of credibility can’t have helped. But one speech to Congress and they’re on the way back up.
And no, the legislative agenda is very much on course. The GOP has screeched itself into a corner of irrelevance over the recess, and now that the various bills are almost all on the table, you can expect him to be signing a solid Health-Reform Act into law sometime around October.
So yes, the Right is in Epic Fail mode.