The article points out (click on link in title above) that there is precedent set for presidents addressing school children: FDR brought it to the modern era with Marconi's radio and "fireside chats." President Obama is the first to use all forms of media: cable, radio, Internet and social networks to effectively communicate, and that method will likely be imitated by political operatives of majority and third parties in the near and distant future of this country.
For those that are concerned: the text of the presentation will be released Monday, yet schools in various states (sadly, Texas being one) are either not going to allow the broadcast, or parents in those states are going to keep their children from school.
It reminds me of the lessons our kids are supposed to learn from playing organized sports: "you can't win them all"; "be a good sport." Sadly, the only persons not following that advice are the parents that voted McCain/Palin.
If this were John McCain, I doubt you'd see parents that voted for Obama complaining or holding their children absent from school. That by the way is an unexcused absence that counts against the student and proves/solves nothing. The homework assigned that day will still be due, so to miss a day when the leader of the free world wishes to address "education" is a bit oxymoron.
"We are a country of laws, and not men," is paraphrased from "Thoughts on Government, Applicable to the Present State of the American Colonies," written by John Adams during the spring of 1776, where he fully states: "there is no good government but what is republican. That the only valuable part of the British constitution is so; because the very definition of a republic is 'an empire of laws, and not of men.'"
The presidency is an office we as citizens SHOULD respect, regardless of the occupant in the office. Who, if you're keeping statistics, he represents 1/44 or 2.27% of the total population of presidents, 97.72% of the time; it's been white males from Washington to Bush. It is highly likely to revert back to that established paradigm in 2012 or 2016.
I will admit, the president is an effective politician and persuasive speaker, but I have no evidence of his expertise at hypnotism. To paraphrase Charles Barkley "you ARE your child's role models," and the most important persons in shaping their maturity and character.
2 comments:
I had to write a response:
But, I doubt in the current climate if intelligent responses matter!
I'd appreciate your comments/replies to my short essay.
*****
I wonder if this is just about the president, I don't
think it really is. I think people are (still) reacting to a government
that doesn't seem to hear them. There have been a lot of
terms of office, a lot of politicians, that people have listened to
for a lot of years, that they have eventually gone to the poles
and voted out, because they don't feel represented by them.
I think, by the time Obama ran for office, people sincerely wanted
(a lot of) change, the very real change that they keep trying to cause
with their vote at every election. I don't know, I feel like people
are now trying to reel in this democracy a little, put it a little more
in line with the constitution etc. Anyway, I don't think it's so much
about the president, as it is about the people. It is a nation of
laws, laws agree to by "We The People", I feel like that's where
the problem lies. I'm not very political, but I guess
with this one it could come down to, it's nice to be asked,
(especially when it comes to peoples children). I could be wrong,
wouldn't be the first time, but that's my guess.
I appreciate your comments and your honesty. However, George Herbert Walker Bush went to a classroom during the '88 campaign and "asked students to help him." Ronald Reagan before him sold his "tax cuts" talking to a televised high school class, and since he was previously an actor, no one had any qualms about it. I'm sure President Obama and his advisers were using these as precedent to set an outline for the conversation. They should have not underestimated the groundswell of "Tea Baggers" and town hall AstroTurf opposition. They've since moderated the request of "helping the president" to setting goals for themselves; the text will be released online Monday.
Also: note the recent Time article: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1896588,00.html. ; The GOP is in trouble, with the more reasonable of the party like Joe Scarborough being drowned out by Rush, Hannity; the resurrection of Lee Atwater "Southern Strategy" politics: http://www.boogiemanfilm.com/, which I find an almost exact blueprint of Tea Bag Parties and Town Hall disruptions.
I often wonder, and have pondered writing an essay (I've mentally titled): "A Choice of Totalitarianism." Karl Rove is a protegee of the aforementioned Lee Atwater, and it wasn't long ago he was promoting the idea of a "permanent Republican majority." How was THAT concept democracy?
The left demonstrated at just about every speech President Bush presented inside and outside the US, and in the US, Secret Service gave them "1st Amendment Free Speech Zones," far away from the scrutiny of corporate cameras (though, not a single gun was reported). Many arrests were made for disturbing the peace: protesting the 2000 election, demonstrating against the Iraq War.
What if Present Obama were to give the gun-totters "2nd Amendment Zones?" What fallout would our 4th estate of Yellow Journalism be reporting with no difference in intellectual acuity than tabloid rags like "The National Enquirer" (when THEY can break a story about Senator John Edwards and his affair, we're in trouble!).
I personally do not believe man is evolved enough for democracy and that the notion of bipartisanship is myth.
Ultimately, we're a one-party system: the business community (PHARMA, Insurance, Manufacturing), that will not allow third parties to gain prominence, since they can't influence them with their donations. They are, after all, "persons": http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/.
So, in this representative democratic republic, my thesis is it is a "Choice of Totalitarianism," a winner-take-all strategy that almost guarantees opposition because it's never win-win Covey-speak: depending on what you're view, you'll either win or lose depending on the party in power.
And like little drones in the hive, we're all supposed to vote... then go away!
Post a Comment