Lawrence J.
Haas
Read Larry's bio and previous columns
September 8, 2009
Obama Talks to Kids, Wing Nuts Erupt
The recent flap over
President Obama’s speech to schoolchildren this week is a disheartening
reflection of political discourse in today’s America, replete with the
artificiality, paranoia and coarseness that have become all-too-familiar
staples of our national, televised, on-line, round-the-clock “yeller-ama.”
The September 8 speech,
scheduled to air on the White House web site and C-SPAN and that the
Education Department invited students, teachers and school
administrators to watch, would, the department said, “challenge students
to work hard, set educational goals and take responsibility for their
learning.”
Not so fast, say
right-wing politicians, pundits and their grassroots followers who
detect a sinister effort by Obama to indoctrinate students into his
“socialist” outlook and build support for his agenda. Really.
They pointed to an
earlier Education Department lesson plan to accompany the speech, in
which students would write letters to themselves about how they can help
the president. How this would nurture Obama-loving socialistic
automatons defies logic but, facing conservative ire, the department
revised the plan, suggesting students write letters about how they can
reach their educational goals.
No one doubts that
education is key to our economic future, nor that students need greater
skills than ever to compete, nor that many of them don’t know enough
when they graduate, nor that at least some of them surely could do
better if they focused more effort on securing their own futures.
But not even an
inspiring pitch from an inspiring, dynamic and gifted president – one
who is especially well-placed to deliver it as the first
African-American president of an increasingly multi-racial society – can
escape the politics of controversy at a time of angst and anger in
America.
Consider the elements
of this pseudo-scandal, and note how they have become regular features
of our national anger-fest:
Manufacturing mayhem.
The Education
Department announced Obama’s speech weeks ago, but it was only when
right-wing bloggers, web sites and talk radio targeted it for
exploitation that the issue soared to more recent prominence.
Pushed by grassroots
fever, opportunistic politicians like Minnesota Gov. (and presidential
aspirant) Tim Pawlenty and Florida Republican Chairman Jim Greer weighed
in, stoking the flames that put school districts from Texas and
California to Virginia and Georgia on the defensive.
Then, with parents
bombarding administrators with angry phone calls about the speech, some
districts refused to let students hear it in class while others left the
decision to individual teachers.
It’s not unlike the
manufactured mayhem over health care, stoked by the manufactured fears
about mythical “death panels.” What’s common to both is the right’s
efforts to demonize Obama, casting him outside the American mainstream.
Promoting paranoia.
“American political
life has . . . served again and again as an arena for uncommonly angry
minds,” Richard Hofstadter wrote in his classic essay, “The Paranoid
Style in American Politics” – minds that detect sinister motives behind
even the most benign public actions or explanations.
In the current flap,
columnist Mark Steyn fears that Obama seeks a “cult of personality,”
though, he concedes helpfully, not as big as North Korea’s Kim Jong II
or Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. Greer says he’s “absolutely appalled that
taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama’s socialist
ideology.” Explaining why she doesn’t want her kids to hear Obama’s
speech, Colorado mom Shanneen Barron said, “I feel very scared to be in
this country with our leadership right now.”
Paranoia is not
reserved for the political right, of course. While some right wingers
refuse to believe Clinton friend Vince Foster committed suicide and
suggest the Clintons orchestrated a murder, some left wingers insist
President Bush ordered, or knew beforehand but did not prevent, the
September 11 attacks.
Defining discourse downward.
Was it that long
ago that parents taught their children to admire the president, whoever
he was? Was it just a half-year ago that Americans shared a true
national pride in electing our first black president?
America, of course, has
never been a land of solely respectful discourse. Harsh personal attack
dates back to colonial days and, in the 1930s, millions who opposed
Roosevelt’s New Deal refused to utter his name, calling him “that man.”
Nevertheless, public
discourse has deteriorated of late. When House Democrat Charles Rangel
defended President Bush from attack by Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez,
left-wing bloggers and talk show hosts aimed their fire at Rangel, not
Chavez. And portraying our presidents with Hitler-style moustaches has
become standard fare of political protest.
And we wonder why our
leaders in Washington cannot address our really important national
challenges.
© 2009
North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.
Click here to talk to our writers and
editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.
To e-mail feedback
about this column,
click here. If you enjoy this writer's
work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry
it.
This is Column #
LH045.
Request permission to publish here. |