Obama, McCain and the kids

Now that is creepy. I think we should encourage political curiosity in our children, insofar as we preface any discussion of politics with the caveat "Remember, they're not kissing babies they're stealing their lollipops..."

Why the dark blue background? So hard to read!

I presume you would disapprove of, say, busing children to pro-life rallies, then?

I suppose this singing group was voluntary, so I can't get too excited about it. I agree there's something a bit icky about indoctrinating children with any kind of propaganda--but I'm afraid that, to me, that includes teaching them to sing "Jesus Loves Me This I Know" or the Catholic Action youth hymn.

(An army of youth flying the standards of truth
We're fighting for Christ, the Lord.
Heads lifted High, Catholic Action our cry,
And the cross our only sword!)

I doubt that politicizing youth is avoidable when parents have a strong conviction, however. My parents certainly didn't leave any room for doubt as to what I was supposed to believe. Does anyone remember this, from the Nixon-Kennedy campaign?

"Whistle while you work
Nixon is a jerk.
Eisenhower has the power
To do all the work."

School children chanted that one at the train station where we went after being given a half-day off to see Nixon's whistle stop. I quite enjoyed re-reading the Time magazine account of this tour. A quote:

Jack Kennedy's strong lead, and his needling criticism of the last eight Republican years, had put Nixon sharply on the defensive.

Despite the fact that the majority of the crowds enjoyed Nixon's blunt attacks, newsmen noted a tenseness in the Vice President, apparently brought on by a combination of fatigue, a cold, and by his awareness of the Kennedy surge. One day he could launch a nearly violent assault on Kennedy; the next day he could be relatively passive. Too bad McCain didn't study the Nixon campaign.

Anti-Nixon kids weren't the only politicized juveniles present:

Vicki Lynne Cole was an 8th grader who went to Nixon's whistle-stop. Evidently, at her school, the call had gone out for volunteers to serve as "Nixonettes." Nixon liked the sign she was holding up and incorporated her into his campaign. Check out Bob Greene at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com for the rest of the story. And excuse the little trip down memory lane.

I agree. When I was a kid, my parents insisted that I learn about some Jewish agitator from long ago who had a bunch of radical ideas about equality, loving other people, and living your religious beliefs. He gave away free health care and--typical liberal!--convinced people that he could feed a multitude with just a few loaves of bread and a handful of fish. My parents would actually take me to a church to sing songs to this guy--heck, they even sent me to a school run by cultish nuts wearing weird special uniforms just so I could be educated in the ideology. This propagandizing stuck with me for a long time, but eventually I grew up and started reading the National Review and The Weekly Standard and saw the error of my--and their--and His--ways. So I sure hope no modern parents are creepy enough to try to pass on their values and beliefs to their defenseless children.

And for the record, it's not even the politicizing of kids that bothers me. Of course parents will pass on their ideas about all sorts of things to their children - including ideas about government and politics. It's the weird "Obama is going to do all of these great things for us" vibe. Like we're all oppressed slaves just waiting for the savior Obama to make us free. That's creepy. If they were singing about policies I wouldn't care. ("he'll work to fund inner city schools" probably isn't real catchy, of course) But Obama as Christ (or Mao or Dear Leader or whatever) is just creepy, creepy, creepy.

Yep. Religion and supporting Obama are exactly the same thing, Daniel, Sig, and Aaron. You've put your fingers quite precisely on why the cult of personality surrounding Obama is so creepy to many of us.

Also, please know there is a strong chance this is an astroturf* placement from his campaign. Which makes things worse, because they really thing this sort of thing is cute. Not creepy.

Find me a single person, anywhere, who thinks this isn't creepy.

* This is an advertising term for something manufactured that's supposed to resemble something 'grassroots'.

Yeah, I have to agree that seeing worship of Obama and worship of the divine as comparable is exactly what's so creepy about this. News flash: Obama is a politician. He may be the best, most righteous politician in forever, but he's still a politician, not a god. Singing heartfelt praises to a politician is creepy totalitarian stuff, not American.

"If these kids were singing praise songs to John McCain or even George W Bush the Department of Human Services would already be at their front door step to take these kids away as we speak."

Oh please. Lighten up, Francis.

And everyone knows that white parents are rarely turned in to social services.

Teaching your children to share your religious values is to immersing them in partisan politics what teaching them to help cook and appreciate wholesome organic foods is to immersing them in the belief that Big Macs and Twinkies are superior nutrition.

Questions about abortion do come up, though; kids see signs and read headlines. Don't know how pro-aborts explain abortion, but when mine asked, I told them the truth: a woman doesn't want to keep and give birth to the unborn baby who is growing inside her, so she pays someone to kill him while he's still in the embryonic or fetal stage; that is, sometime before he's ready to be born.

So then, when questions would come up later about elections and they would ask why I was considering voting for a Republican or third-party candidate but not a Democrat, all I had to say was "Democrats support abortion," and that was enough.

Recently my youngest was asking her older sister about those guys who voted for abortion--who were these people who ran for president but supported the killing of the unborn? My oldest is twelve; her answer surprised me: "Well, I don't remember the name of the first guy. But I remember that he wore a lot of makeup and sighed a lot. And then a few years later there was Kerry somebody, and he was pro-abortion, and his wife had all the money, and Grandma said we'd be in trouble if he got elected..." (Bear in mind both "grandmas" live out of state and visit maybe once a year.)

So, we can't shield our kids from politics, and they're going to remember what we say, along with what their grandparents and other family members and neighbors etc. say. But there's a big difference between sharing our values and our way of making decisions with them, and having them dress up and sing songs of lavish praise in the living room about this year's candidates.

Actually Daniel I used to work for two Human Service agencies at two different times and saw way more white children taken away than black children so you might want to get your facts right before you make "sterotypical" and racist generalizations like that. Oh and by the way I was making a joke anyway, so who needs to lighten up. And my name isn't Francis.

When I was a kid, my parents insisted that I learn about some Jewish agitator from long ago who had a bunch of radical ideas about equality, loving other people, and living your religious beliefs.

Did they get to the part about plucking your eye if you look at a woman the wrong way? Or abandoning your family? Hating your mother and father? You know, the stuff that makes folks sympathize with Caiaphas and Pilate?

Derek,

With all due respect, I disagree. The sorts of people who put these children up to this -- and there are *millions* of them -- believe in nothing whatsoever, but left-liberal politics. The Reverend's ascension to the Presidency is truly "the Rapture" they've been waiting for all their lives ... or at least since they took their first Indoctrination Studies class in freshman year of college. Nothing less than the Reverend's winning smile across Mount Rushmore will do for them -- no skepticism of the Reverend, no dissent, and certainly no *laughter.* The fact that many if not most of the people who run the media, the education system, and the culture industry in this country are the sorts of people I describe means that we will have no one to maintain impartial venues in which the Reverend can be criticized, satirized, or otherwise opposed in any way. Those who question the Reverend be called "racist" or worse for doing so. And all the while the children, will sing, and dance, tossing roses in His path as He leads us -- or those of us who aren't from small towns -- toward the light.

As one who became a political junkie in the fourth grade, I can tell you the parents were only a part of indoctrination. My parents were Republicans, but I guess all of my friends' parents were, as well, because the incessant chant at my school during the 1960 election was: Nixon, Nixon is our man. Kennedy belongs in the garbage can!.

I attended a parochial school, and the priest and nuns tried to suppress this chant; but that didn't stop somebody from writing it on the chalkboard on more than one morning.

I think you're giving parents too much credit/blame here. Sex and celebrity gossip aren't the only things kids speculate/learn about from other kids. Even if they aren't interested in the issues, as I was not in 1960, I think they might be (as my friends and I were) interested in the outcome of a great big contest.

We're taught at a young age about our government and democratic system, and we're told that when we're old enough, we get to vote. I found that rather exciting.

I'll tell you that every summer my family vacationed in Florida (because my mother's family lived there). We'd spend a few days in a hotel on Clearwater Beach, and if it was an election year, we kids all stayed in the room at night watching the Democratic or Republican conventions instead of hanging out at the pool or beach (across the street). I still remember Barbra Streisand strutting down the Atlantic City boardwalk singing "Happy Days Are Here Again" at LBJ's 1964 convention.

I wish politics were as fun now as they were then. Back then our guts weren't wrenching over an impending depression, although in later years they were over the Vietnam War.

I think it's a good thing kids are interested. They should be because someday they'll become part of the process.

Raising a child in a 2,000 year-old religious tradition is one thing; raising a child to support a political candidate or party is another.

Yes, Daniel, I would; I would want them to be a little older than they are now, though, as I have experienced first hand the sort of hatred that can be directed at people peacefully protesting abortion; with soup kitchens I'd probably just have to make sure they're old enough to be permitted to volunteer, as some have age limits for younger children.

I do believe in letting one's children be involved in one's charitable or fundraising work; I stuffed plenty of envelopes and helped man phone banks in my mid to late teens, and as a way of fostering a sense of civic responsibility and also giving one some "practice" job experience, I recommend it. But it should generally be something the children are old enough to do and feel comfortable doing.

1) Erin, I'm a Democrat, and I'm not for abortion. The Democratic candidate for Congress in Nebraska's 2nd District isn't for abortion, either. His parents go to our parish.

2) Rod, ????? Edwin Edwards was elected governor in 1971, beating J. Bennett Johnston (barely) in the second primary and Dave Treen in the general election. Remember it well. I don't recall that Jerry McKernan ever ran for governor . . . especially during that general time period.

I was thinking you might have meant John "Won't you hep me?" McKeithen, but he couldn't run again in '71, having already served two consecutive terms.

Children pick up a lot that goes on around the home. But the schools are also contributing to it as well. Notice that this video was produced by the school (with the parents obvious consent). There was the other video of the Alpha Omega Fraternity telling us all that because of Obama they were going to be successful, that was at a public charter school. And just this week reports of a school in Racine, WI that had a 15 page essay in their eight grade lit. book on Barack Obama.

Parents politicizing their kids is one thing, but the schools are quite another.

Spunky, silly rabbit, don't you know that schools politicizing kids was the basis of the one and only project for which the Reverend *ever* has served in an executive role?

The project in question was the Annenberg Challenge, which the Reverend ran alongside the famously "mainstream," "respectable" and apolitical Bill Ayers, who has never had a partisan design on any child's mind -- or so the Reverend would have you believe.

Favog, you're right -- McKernan couldn't have run in '71. Perhaps he ran for a different office in the '72 election (a special election, maybe)? I can't find it online. I was five years old, after all, but I have a distinct memory of forcing my parents to swear they would vote for Nixon and McKernan, who had good commercials, I thought.

Pol Pot would be proud.

We should never let the politicalization of schools distract from the teaching of creationism in science classes or the banning of books in school libraries by small-town mayors.

Sure, so long as that politicalization is in your ideologies favor right Daniel?

Daniel,

If you had ever worked in education yourself, you would know how absolutely laughable it is to claim that the politicization of our children's education that we ought to fear the most is politicization from the right and not from the left.

Far, far more books have been "banned" or rather *barred* from curricula by virtue of being "subversive" of leftist ideology than have ever been "banned" or rather *barred* by right-wing ideologues, who have next to no voice in education, outside of a tiny number of private schools.

And sub-intellectual dreck far, far worse than even the crudest formulation of creation "science" is pumped without respite day after day, year after year into children's heads, not only by much of the so-called "education" system, but also -- and even more so -- by the so-called "impartial" press and by the culture industry.

But I'm assuming that the 95% of indoctrination from the left is fine by you, given the 5% of indocrtination that comes from the right.

You've always shown yourself to be nothing if not "fair and balanced" after all.

My cute kid story about overexposure to politics (televised hearings division):

Many years ago, my daughter had to take a picture to kindergarten of something that started with the letter B. She picked up a copy up Newsweek and said, "I'll take that: Bork starts with B." When I said, "Well, maybe some people might not know who Bork is," she rolled her eyes and said "He's on CNN all day long."

My kids are really interested in politics (and incidentally, share my support for Obama), but not because I specifically indoctrinated them that way. In fact, I make a point of telling them that it's up to them to choose their own candidate. I also always emphasize respect for everyone's viewpoint and point out that good people can disagree, using their thoughtful, Catholic, conservative-leaning grandparents as an example.

So I guess I draw a distinction between kids who are actually, organically interested in politics and kids who are just mouthing platitudes their parents drill into their brains. It does gross me out when I see babies wearing obnoxiously liberal onesies and the like. I think it's our responsibility as parents to "teach the debate" as it were, and to emphasize respect for divergent viewpoints.

The sorts of people who put these children up to this -- and there are *millions* of them -- believe in nothing whatsoever, but left-liberal politics. The Reverend's ascension to the Presidency is truly "the Rapture" they've been waiting for all their lives ... or at least since they took their first Indoctrination Studies class in freshman year of college. Nothing less than the Reverend's winning smile across Mount Rushmore will do for them -- no skepticism of the Reverend, no dissent, and certainly no *laughter.*

Rufus,

How sustainable is that in a nation where the Simpsons, King of the Hill, Family Guy and South Park are staples? Not very sustainable at all. Yeah, I know, two of these programs lean left, but there's only so long you can do that and get away with it. The people you're describing will get old REAL quick. Humorless types always do.

How is this different from parents who put their favorite team jerseys on their kids? I can see if the kids berate other kids on the playground for having opposing views, but if they just want to share in their excitement for their chosen candidate, how does that hurt? At least they're involved!!

I guess I draw a distinction between encouraging a civic and political interest in children and using them as political props. All parents "indoctrinate" their kids in all sorts of attitudes, morals, ethics, habits, etc just by serving as a model. Assuming parents around and doing their jobs they are modeling these things.

However, having lived near DC most of my life I can tell you that both sides of the political spectrum bring children to various protests and demonstrations and dress them up with some inappropriate t-shirt's or wave signs for the TV cameras and photographers. That's what I find distasteful. Most politically active people only seem to notice this when it is done by the other side, but, like I said, you live around the nation's capital long enough and see enough demonstrations (something like an average of 7-12 a day I read once. Most of them quite small) and you'll notice neither "side" has a monopoly on bad behavior especially when it comes to exploiting kids as props.

And, as you might have already noticed, most of the most egregious examples aren't part of presidential politics, but are more issue oriented.

I didn't find that video disturbing---it was awesome. I mean, who doesn't want their kids to be engaged. My daughter's learning all about presidents and US history in the 4th grade, so the teachers are using this election to make history real. They've been watching all the debates and surveying children and adults on who they prefer.

It's incredible, this energy. I have a feeling these kids are never going to be apathetic about politics. This is an incredible election for that reason.

Huh? I have three boys, and they've known their whole lives that we're enthusiastic, lifelong Democrats. When they asked why, from time to time, we've explained it to them. Have we indoctrinated them? We feel very strongly about politics, and we have communicated that to our children. I think it will make them better citizens once they start deciding for themselves what *they* think.

I don't get the horror. I have a 21-month old and we happily taught her to say "Obama" when she saw him on the TV. She picked up on McCain on her own, so maybe she's destined to be a Republican. It's no different from playing her the music we like or taking her to our favorite restaurants. What we're doing is including her in our lives; we're bonding with her. When I was a kid, my folks dragged me to every GOP event that was going on. Being a little younger than you, I remember going to a Reagan victory party in '84 and being overjoyed at the prospect of four more years of the Gipper. Did it stunt me or mess me up? No. It was fun. If I have anything to blame my parents for it's that in giving me the politics bug, they set me on a path where I spend way too much time on the blogs.

I agree that parents shouldn't indoctrinate their children or use them as political props (or billboards). At the same time, I don't think parents should try to discourage any natural interest their children might take in the political process. I've struggled to find a balance in responding to the interests of my nine-year-old son in this election. For example, I decided to deny his wish to attend an Obama rally because 1) I knew that Obama wasn't going to begin speaking until WAY past his bedtime on a school night and 2) I knew that he really wouldn't be able to handle six hours of waiting in lines and stadium with 15-20,000 people, then sit through 5 or 6 speeches leading up to the main event, all in order to hear a 40-50 minute speech that was going to happen WAY past his bedtime! :-)

On the other hand, I have let him watch speeches and debates online (bedtime objections overcome that way). NO ads, though, from any candidates. Since he can't visit any sites where ads are linked without me present, and since he doesn't watch any TV where political ads are shown, this isn't an issue for him. My son reads the news (in kid news outlets like CBBC & Scholastic), and I'm happy for him to form his own political opinions. I always let him initiate, though - I would also be perfectly happy if all of this "election stuff" were completely peripheral, at least until he's in his teens. Still, children are products of their zeitgeist, which extends beyond the home. The fact that kids are interested in politics (perhaps more so than usual this cycle) does not necessarily mean that it's been pushed on them by their parents; it could just mean that we, as a society, are more interested than usual in politics right now.

It took me a long, long time to decide whether I would get him the Obama T-shirt he wanted, precisely because I don't think people should use their kids to advertise their own political choices. But I finally came to the decision that he has his own reasons for "supporting" Obama, which are less complex than mine, perhaps, but no less real and no less meaningful. So, in the end, I decided that he could wear a T-shirt. It's as close as he's going to get to voting for the next nine years.

I find it deeply creepy. I think anyone who was a child in a totalitarian state (Cold War Europe, Cuba,etc) would find this video reminds them of their school days. Conservatives are deeply skeptical of the of the potential of the state. With Obama the disappointment and dashing of hopes will arrive when he passes the Freedom of Reproductive Choice Act within the first 30 days of his presidency. Lots of kids will then never get the chance to sing for anyone.

Conservative homeschoolers "politicize" their kids all the time - they take them door-to-door campaigning; take them to "homeschool lobby days" at the state capitol (including visits to state representatives); involve them in political mailings, etc. There's nothing wrong with this - kids who grow up being involved in the political process will be active (probably) as adults (although perhaps not in their parents' political party.)

Or is it just Obama supporters who are doing wrong by "politicizing" their kids?