A President in the Classroom

I don't know who was concerned the most: the parents who are concerned about their kids hearing a speech by the President, or the parents who are concerned about schools and parents who are concerned about hearing a speech by the President.

Count me in the latter camp. Read that speech.

If a Republican had given that exact same talk, conservatives would have loved it. Any school that dared not show it would have been in big trouble.

I worry about this country when there are so many people with such blazing hate for the President, to the point of making threats to his life or praying for his death. How is that Christian?

I thought it was a great speech and it was just what I thought it would be: motivating and encouraging for students - students who attend government run schools and who were being addressed by the leader of that government -- I don't understand what was so wrong about that. Not to mention that it was a great speech!

I agree with those above that I think a lot of this hoopla is chalked up to fear. I am not sure what everyone is afraid of but I know that, for me, I hope to teach my children how to live in the midst of all the things that can make us afraid rather than to shelter them from it all. I want them to be people who make good decisions on their own rather than sheltering them from every decision-making opportunity.

If there was truly something to fear about this speech, I don't think that sheltering our kids was the answer. I think that those that WERE sheltered from it missed a great speech!

Let's see: Work hard, struggle bravely, and take responsibility for your own life, mixed with a little patriotism, and a few personal anecdotes. I guess that is terribly threatening to some people, and indicates the end is indeed near.

It makes sense for the president to encourage students. I think the big problem people had was with the follow-up material given to the schools by the White House, particularly the student writing a letter to themselves about how they can help the president (that would be redistributed at a later date to make the students accountable to their goals).

Also, I think that people are getting a glimpse at the president's agenda, his views, and his political associations that either were not clear or ignored during the campaign. Some believe these to be radical and outside of the mainstream. Polling data seems to agree though not by a wide margin.

Finally, I think people are afraid of socialism and the president is under that cloud. Fox News is only one network so i do not think you can blame it on them. When you start putting "spread the wealth around", government run health care, cult like following, and a media that seems bias it can be disconcerting for many people. All these things raise my eyebrows, not the speech made by the president.

being a canadian, we dont get a president. can he be ours too!!

I've heard a lot about what the conservatives thought, I've heard a lot about what the less-conservatives thought, and now I've heard the speech itself. Can anyone tell me what the kids thought?

tim e,

What's this? High treason against her Majesty?

traditions have to start somewhere, why not make this one. I'm a Canadian and removed from the emotion of this discussion but I think giving a yearly speech to student would be a valuable addition to any leaders schedule, regardless of party affiliation

First, google "bushitler" and see how fair the left has been in the past. Look up the posters of Bush having his throat slit, being hung in effigy, and assassinated.

Second, go read really carefully Frank Schaeffer at the Huffington Post who tramples on his father's grave regularly and insists folks on the right are likely to attempt an assassination of Obama and blames it on Fox News. That's rational, right? Read the many politico-religious activist offerings at Sojo.net. Explain to me how it is wrong for the right to "politicize the faith" but not for the left. Explain why it is wrong for the right to think a Christian view of human nature implies limited government but OK to think a Christian view of social justice implies the government should provide healthcare everyone with no coherent explanation of how it will be paid for.

Third, look up George H.W. Bush's speech to school kids in 1991 which was greeted with shrill criticism from the left and actually led to an investigation by the GAO. Explain to me how parents, concerned about Obama's six years with Bill Ayers "educational" initiative (the "Chicago Annenberg Challenge") which funneled millions to activist groups like ACORN and enlisted schools in activism for "social change" are wrong for simply not wanting to have their kids listen to a speech by the most left leaning president in history, but inciting a government investigation of a sitting president over a speech to school kids is OK.

Fourth, look http://www.getschooled.com, which sounds innocent enough, but includes urgings to "change the system" (community organization for a particular cause, anyone?) and a "write your governor" campaign to get students to lobby for more education funding. Leaving aside the rightness or wrongness of the causes, this is encouraging student activism for a political agenda. Conflict of interest perhaps? Paying dues to the Unions maybe? Using the office of the president to recruit activists perhaps? Junior community organizers?

The speech was not the point. Enlisting kids to "serve the president" was. There's a history here, a context. Check out the youtube video of celebrities "pledging allegiance to Obama". The causes are largely innocent sounding, save for the politicking for green causes and thinly veiled support for universal healthcare. But in the context of activism and recruitment of the young, it is a bit troubling. "Serve the president and not the country?"

I guess it's politics as usual, or maybe not. Maybe this is different. Maybe Obama is as far to the left as some of us fear. Maybe.

I've just had about enough of Christians denouncing Christians for holding conservative views (scary ideas like limited government, personal responsibility, and defense against real terrorism) and giving a pass to Christians on the left, some of whom have a view of "social justice" built on envy, class warfare, hatred of capitalism and routine playing of the race card on anyone who disagrees with a policy point. Yep, I'be been called a racist by Christian bloggers on the left based on a single policy disagreement with Mr. Obama. So, yeah, I'm a bit testy at all the talk of turning in the conservative buttons because us folks on the right are supposedly so irrational and mean. You really need to see the other side of the coin.

Bottom line: There is no text without a context. The speech was not the issue. The context of left leaning activism was. The speech is over. The context will continue.

Dan,

I think you missed the point in a couple of places. It's already been stated that the disdain for Bush lied in two things. 1) He didn't win the popular vote. In fact, he lost it. 2) He took us to war at a time when the country was emotionally unstable - and we came to realize that most of the country didn't support it once kids started dying.

Obama is not hated for any of these reasons. He is hated out of fear that he might be "as far left as many of us fear." That's different. I'm not saying the WAY people on the left acted was ok - I'm saying that the reasoning isn't even comparable. I'm not saying I am for or against Bush - I'm simply saying that there was SOMETHING more legitimate and concrete about the disdain for Bush.

Likewise - I'd still like to know what's "agenda-driven" about "green" things? What Green "agenda" is there? I would argue that "green" is common sense and those against it have the "agenda." I'm really tired of Christians being against green initiatives. Period. This isn't a political statement on my part. I could care less if anyone is right or left. I'm in the middle. However - green has nothing to do with agenda and I'm really sick of Christians acting like it does - and that Christians should be against it.

It's pure insanity. I'm sorry. Nothing pisses me off like Christians denouncing "green" projects. Ok, I lie - other things do. But this just makes no sense to me at all.

Scott. Add to "let's be civil" the rule "let's be fair". That's my point. The left, including the Christian left, has a very selective sense of indignation. Whatever the right is accused of, such as getting too worked up about a speech to children, the left has practiced.

For the record, opposing "cap and trade" or "cash for clunkers" as part of the "green agenda" is not about disagreeing with protecting the environment, it is a question of how and at what cost. Opposing Obama's health care plan is not about not wanting to reform health care, it is about potentially turning the healthcare system into an inefficient and bloated government run HMO. And yes, folks on the right can document denial of services and rationing in other countries that have such systems. It is not fear-mongering if there is evidence.

Finally, while I think Bush was mistreated by the left and the press, he was the one who started us down the "bailout" path that the current Administration has turned into a money drain that cannot be sustained. That was the biggest failing of his presidency.

But please, folks. Look at the hypocrisy of criticizing the right for what the left does routinely. Look at the outcry over a term like "moral majority" when there is no outcry over a title like "God's Politics". Look at the hypocrisy of denouncing the right for voluntarily opting out of Obama's speech while ignoring the fact that the left launched and investigation over a similar speech by Bush I.

Dan (#21) -- I hear what you're saying, and I heard it on Hannity driving home yesterday, and I heard it from some friends at church, but honestly... it strikes me as overblown to the point of being ridiculous.

The heart of the criticism is that "the government" is trying to interfere with how parents raise their kids. I mean, really -- it's a short jump from the President telling kids "don't do drugs and stay in school!" from the United Nations helicopters, with the lead chopper piloted by Nigerian-born Barack Hussein Obama himself, descending on all the world capitals, right?

I respect and would suffer persecution for the right of Christians to free association and free speech. But at the same time, I think we need to prophetically call out the deception that is at work in many of our Christian contexts today. Friends, Hannity and Limbaugh and Fox News are manipulating you for profit! And yes -- NPR and CNN manipulate the Christian Left for profit as well!

We need to stop selling our birthright, the hope and joy we should have in participating in the mission of God, to people who just want to drum up controversy for headlines.

peelingdragonskin.wordpress.com

Reading some of the early nasty comments attacking concerned parents, it appears that the people writing them did not know what the controversy was even about. Last week the only thing available was the lesson plan proposed by Obama's Dept of Education. It included suggested questions like "How can I help Obama . . ." and "How did the President inspire me . . . " They were not focused on education but on the President. It sounded like promoting a cult of personality. The Dept of Education realized its error and changed the lesson plans.

Then the news came out that a school in Utah showed the Demi Moore "I plege" political video to the whole school ("I pledge to be a servant to our President"). Grossly inappropriate.

I encourage people to read some of the stories about public school teachers promoting Obama during school hours last year during the election. These stories are rarely covered by the NY Times and NBC, but they are covered by other media and blogs.

The teachers union leans heavily to the left. Parents are rightfully concerned with the worldview promoted in public schools. This is the context folks. Have a little empathy for the parents dealing with it, especially the ones who can't afford to send their kids to a school that shares their worldview.

Pat #26,

Good for you that you did not mind the questions. But do you understand why people wanted questions about education and not the President personally? Even the White House realized the problem and changed the lesson plan. Despite that admission, the people who objected are still getting ridiculed here. Go figure.

PDS, good summary of the primary objections at hand. So sad that it came in comment 25 of the discussion. "Fear" can be well represented by demonizing someone you disagree with and have clearly failed to understand. I think we see that in dozens of posts here.

Pat, I wonder if you "saw nothing wrong" with the materials as they actually went out to the students, or with the materials that PDS is talking about, which were altered without comment by the Secretary of Education's office.

That's the act which cast colors of mistrust over this whole boon doggle.

The speech itself? Good message. Bit long winded. All the kids reactions I've read or heard have been simple, either "boring" or "funny".

ChrisB in #24,
"I never had any doubts the speech would be innocuous -- especially after the outcry. (In fact, I suspect we'll find out, in time, that the speech was rewritten, like the supplemental materials, after the outcry.)"

Errr, no. I don't think we will. Indeed, we've already found quite the opposite: http://factcheck.org/2009/09/obamas-speech-to-schools/

Yes, a few changes were made, but they're not really of great substance. More like "let's fix some poorly chosen words so that we communicate our original intentions more clearly."

A great speech from a president continuing the long tradition of presidents addressing school children. I fail to remember any such outcry when Bush addressed school children? He's the president. He deserves our respect. Our public schools are government-run. He has the right, nay, the responsibility, to deliver a speech of this type directly to kids. Disagree with his politics, but it is wrong to demonize him the way some of these parents are doing.

PDS (#32): Indeed, there are reports that the address was modified after the pre-speech furor began. The "outcry" was just another reminder to BHO of the toxic situation he is in. Any sensible, well-meaning individual in the same predicament could be expected do the same -- "Let's see, I should look at this thing one more time to try to make sure than nothing I say can be mis-construed ..." (Good luck, BHO)

Indeed, as you point out, we will never know what was changed in the speech, and consequently how subversive this could have been.

Unless, unless ... someone could get the audio and play it backwards to get what he really was saying to the students. :)

I was stunned by so the comments of many of my US friends on FaceBook PRIOR to the speech. There was such a negative view of Obama's motives. I just hope that those same people will have the integrity to revise their opinions now that the speech has been aired.

I'm glad to read positive comments (in this thread) from Christians who did support the speech.

#33 Robyn said:

"I fail to remember any such outcry when Bush addressed school children?"

But it happened, at a very OFFICIAL level:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/When-Bush-spoke-to-students-Democrats-investigated-held-hearings-57694347.html

pds,

As one who supports a parent's decision to keep their child home if they wish, I feel that this statement is 100% false, because it misses the whole point of what's going on:

"And I repeat: The Obaman admin. changed its suggested lesson plan in response, and we will never know how much they changed the content of the speech in response. The system worked. But it only worked because concerned parents spoke up in numbers."

The system worked? You mean the system where the people call change from their leaders and the leaders respond and..... so do the people? But that didn't happen here. The people reacted out of fear. Some were reasoned and rational. I respect them and their concerns.

Many were unrational, unreasonable, and fear-driven. They were quite hysterical. The President responded to the people: Thank you people, thank you Mr. President. I am genuinely happy for this, as I view the changes as appropriate and positive.

However, the people didn't respond to the change. They still insist that the President is "up to something" or is acting subtly to lead us all astray as to what his "true intentions" are. As much as I am FOR parents keeping their kids home, there is an adequate response when the leader of the country responds positively to the people. That is a "thank you." That is some level of gratitude and trust-building. I'm not asking for much, I'm asking for people to stop claiming some higher-level discernment where they know that Obama is up to something that he clearly has not obviously been up to.

Another commenter said it well: Obama can't turn this country socialist if the people don't want it. If he does so, and the people don't want it - they can stall his efforts in 2010 and crush them in 2012.

I have no problem with level-headed concern. I have no problem with disagreement with policy (I happen to disagree with the president on quite a few). I have a problem with the way people acted. Plain and simple.

Also, it's not adequate to call out how the left acted towards Bush. If it was wrong, ok. But that's not what's happening RIGHT NOW. So it's not as though those of us getting really upset at the way the right are acting are somehow blind to, ignoring, or endorsing how those on the left acted... It's that we're concerned with what is going on currently. To change the subject to how some on the left acted is to try and change the focus from what's going on right now.

Rick (#6): "I will always wonder how the hatred influenced the election. And I will always wonder why Christians did not recognize the hatred and address its influence on decision making."

I think the same case could have been made about the 2000 election of George Bush, and the hatred of Bill Clinton.