Watching the brouhaha over Obama’s school speech, I developed a theory for why people (rightfully) assumed the worst – an indoctrination speech. During the campaign, Obama won because he stuck to vague and inspiring speeches. He avoided detailed policy issues as much as possible, and that allowed voters to see him as whatever they imagined. The Communist Party could see him as a stepping stone toward their agenda while moderate Americans could focus on him as an alternative to Bush & the Beltway insiders who seemed to be bickering while the economy collapsed. That’s the nice thing about Hope & Change – you can hope for one kind of change that’s not at all like the change your neighbor hopes for while casting the ballot for the same candidate.
But I don’t believe that most people thought he would govern like he campaigned. They assumed he would actually have ideas that weren’t simply rooted in talking points that sounded flowery. Take health care. He demanded that Congress send “health care reform” before August recess. Yet only now, after things have fallen apart, is he actually going to tell Congress what he wants. You can see how various versions of the bill have spurred a public rebuke like most politicians have never seen before.
Back to education, now you’re talking about people’s kids. A parent can go protest at their local Congressman’s office, but kids aren’t likely to feel comfortable speaking up to oppose political arguments made in the classroom by adults with authority. When you look at how Obama’s supporters have tried to define him, especially to influence children, there’s a huge creepiness factor at work.
As far as his school speech, I believe the education guide set many folks off. I know the release of the teaching guide was the first I heard about the planned speech, and the creepiness factor was definitely present. These are a few of the comments that could be taken out of context:
- 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.
- 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?
- Why is it important that we listen to the President and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?
This was released by federal authorities, and was presumably written by a supporter who thought nothing about asking school kids to support the President’s agenda. If you support his agenda, there’s probably nothing controversial about that thought, especially if you’re paid to advance that agenda as a bureaucrat. I’m sure the idea of asking teachers to join you in that effort seems hugely innovative.
In Utah, a group of PTA leaders convinced a school principal to show an inspiring Obama video to elementary school students at the beginning of the year. The principal did not feel any obligation to review it before the assembly.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqcPA1ysSbw[/youtube]
Even she realized it was blatantly biased, political, and completely inappropriate to show in school, but not before the children saw the entire video of their favorite celebrities promoting the Obama agenda. Who on earth on a PTA board would imagine that the following pledges would be controversial?
- I pledge to make sure that senior citizens have access to health care;
- I pledge to advance stem cell research;
- I pledge to reduce my use of plastic;
- I pledge to be more green;
- I pledge to consume less;
- I pledge to flush only after a deuce, never after a single;
- I pledge to sell my obnoxious car and buy a hybrid;
- I pledge to be of service to Barack Obama.
- I pledge to be the change.
- I pledge to be a servant to our President.
Gee, there’s nothing controversial there. Not at all, especially not for conservative Utah. Again, Obama’s supporters are promoting a creepiness factor. If my candidate had won the race, I would still never consider for one second to pledge to be a servant to him. I would sure as hell never let a child of mine take a pledge to be his servant.
And of course, who can forget the Obama Youth video that popped up during the campaign? They even have nice camo pants and boots, inspiring a friendly paramilitary feel to their promotion of his health care agenda.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqF19Phn0Og[/youtube]
According to media reports, the school leadership knew it was inappropriate and suspended the teacher once the video was leaked. Only after questions were raised about using tax dollars to promote a political agenda in schools did they put a stop to the program. Again, an Obama supporter is responsible for the huge creepiness factor of Obama’s reach into the public schools.
And though it was not a public school effort, a teacher from LA decided to dress her kids up in little pro-Obama shirts and sing praises to the candidate.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtGrp5MbzAI[/youtube]
The problem Obama faces is that as long he tries to stay the vague, suave, hopey-changey President, the more that the other people’s characterizations will stick. If he does not define himself, others will do it for him. Unfortunately for Obama, the people who get the most attention for him seem to promote a creepiness factor.
The thing is, a feel good “work-hard, respect your elders and you too can be President” speech can actually be a good thing, especially coming from a polished speaker such as Barry. Which, to me, is why this is a wasted opportunity to actually lead.
One question is, was it wasted by him because some nefarious plot to subvert the minds of youth was discovered, or by some bureaucratic functionary who, as you said, didn’t see any problem because he/she was already on board?
That’s the thing, no one will really know. Is the speech delivered today really the initial speech? The White House says it is, but we’ve seen the WH change things before. They wanted to drop medical care for vets, then they didn’t want to. They want the public option, then they don’t, and now they say it’s a nice feature. They want a no pork stimulus, then they are fine with pork.
There’s a very good chance that it was bureaucrat who was overly eager and saw nothing wrong with doing what the President asks, if only because it’s the simplest answer and is demonstrated as a serious possibility because of what other supporters have done.
There’s very little incentive for the White House to have made an overtly political speech given that he desperately needs political capital for his health care speech. His numbers are dropping fast, so a call for children to advance his agenda would likely cost him middle America support he needs. It would seem he has just now figured out that letting the freaks put the public face on his agenda is generally a bad thing.
Wow! I had forgotten about Der Obamajugend videos.
I thought that first video was doing fine until the end, when it turned into cult worship. Though they had me puzzled at the 5 million in slavery thing.