Schoolgate: Does the Public Trust Obama? (Update)
President Obama’s upcoming school speech has created another political backlash against the White House. Parents are considering keeping their kids at home next Tuesday when Obama addresses children across America, while school districts in six states will refrain from showing the address. One of the main reasons for this most recent backlash is that a large and growing segment of the American public simply does not trust the Obama administration and the Moveon “progressive” movement with which he is affiliated.
On the campaign trail, Obama promised to be a post-partisan, post-racial leader who would work to transcend the corrupt divisiveness of Washington, DC. In the Oval Office, however, Obama has actually governed as a stealth partisan Alinskyite while promoting policies that shift back-and-forth between crony corporatism and 21st century-style progressivism. As a result, millions of former McCain voters have now become hardened in their opposition to Obama, while millions of former centrist/moderate Obama voters are losing faith in him as well.
When parents who do not support Obama heard that he was going to broadcast more of his words just words directly into their children’s classrooms, many of them did not trust that Obama would use the venue for the strict purpose of promoting strong educational values – especially after they found out that the original lesson plans asked students to think of ways that they could personally help the President accomplish his goals.
As usual, Obama-supporters can try to blame Obama’s trust deficit on the “Right Wing noise machine” and/or claim that only a small minority of rabble rousers genuinely distrust the President. They similarly dismissed the concerns of tea-party participants and health care town hall protestors. This morning, Heather Higginbottom, deputy director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, admitted that Obama’s lesson plan was “inartfully worded,” but then she went right back to attacking the messengers by saying, “We need to be rising above this . . . when the president goes out to talk to students about education, this shouldn’t be a tool for the right wing.”
Higgingbottom’s “apology” follows the same standard operting procedure used by the Obama administration whenever it makes a mistake or commits an overreach: in a faux-hurt tone of voice, an administration spokesperson, or the President himself, explains that it was all just an inadvertant, “clumsy” mistake, and then accuses the right-wing of cynically exploiting a few typos or minor issues in an effort to derail the Hope n’ Change Express. Helped along by a compliant mainstream press, this kind of response is probably a good short-term game plan for achieving Alinskyite objectives, but how effective is it at building long-term public trust? Also, I remember countless Democrats and progressives accusing George W. Bush of being incapable of self-criticism. Who needs to look in the mirror now?
Speaking of that mirror, I ask all three or four of my liberal/progressive readers: What has Obama done to restore trust in the federal government and to demonstrate that he represents all American families? We heard a lot of windowdressing – when Obama wasn’t reminding his political opponents that “I won” – but I can’t recall him engaging in any genuine bridge-building efforts. Maybe you can enlighten me. But, again, I suspect that your movement will be better served by introspection now rather than more thrust and parry.
Update
A Los Angeles Times op-ed suggests that parents who choose to keep their children at home the day of Obama’s school speech must be wild-eyed, bizarre, paranoid, unhinged birthers. Where have we heard that before?
If you think Obama’s speech is designed to indoctrinate kids…wait till you read Reagans televised speech to student
On November 14, 1988, President Reagan addressed and took questions from students from four area middle schools in the Old Executive Office Building. The speech was broadcast live and rebroadcast by C-Span, and Instructional Television Network fed the program “to schools nationwide on three different days.”
In his speech to students and the question and answer session following Reagan
1. stressed the importance of low taxes and free trade.
2. stressed the importance of religion in our nation.
3 touted the economic achievements of his administration ,
4.put in a plug for the line item veto,
5. told the students that lowering taxes increases revenue
6. boasted of his administrations aid to Negro colleges
7. and told students that if guns were banned, burglars would be “celebrating forevermore”
Don’t believe me?
Go ahead. You can read the entire Televised speech to the students here at the Ronald Regan Presidential Library archives.
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1988/111488c.htm
Not quite right Norris, your *counter* is in typical wing fashion – hints of truth with the rest filled in (we can read you know).
His Speech (21 years ago) had nothing of the sort.
the Q & A from the students asking those specific questions – he did answer.
Like number 1 – Of course he mentioned other countries following the US’s model – are you going to deny that it happened in 1988?
Like number 2 – If you’ve read the founding fathers notes, the Constitution, the Preamble, or any other item over 200 years ago you would note that he talked History.
Like number 3 – I suppose the current administrations results of more unemployed people is better? But still, I’d concede this item.
Like number 4 – Talked about wanting a Constitutional Amendment for a line item veto (the same Veto Clinton had).
Like number 5 – When directly asked if it’s possible to decrease the debt without raising taxes – he mentioned that it can and does (course JFK did this as well).
Like number 6 – the aid for blacks and other minorities was asked by a black child on what has he done for people like her.
Like number 7, He was not stating his opinion – he told of a letter from a prisoner – sure he likely believed it as well – nuances and all.
He also told of another letter where a man said you can come from anywhere – and live and become an American.
Norris Norris Norris – have you read it?
Norris: perhaps it’s a coincidence, but your response looks strikingly similar to the talking points that Media Matters are spamming around the internet. Anyway, I wonder if you’re copying and pasting your same comments on any sites that address this issue because you don’t seem to be repsonding to my post. Nowhere above did I write that Obama would use the speech to indoctrinate students. Actually, I expect the speech and lesson plans to be relatively innocuous, especially after the uproar that was generated. My point is that millions of parents are simply not comfortable with Obama’s speech being beamed into their children’s classrooms. I was writing more about trust than the speech itself.
In contrast, President Reagan certainly had his political opponents, but he built up a store of trust with the American people that I doubt Obama will ever be able to earn – especially given Obama’s first eight months in office. Sure, times were different then. The political culture was not quite as nasty and divisive, for one thing, but then Alinskyites like Obama are part of the reason for that divisiveness (and, yes, partisans on the Right contributed to that, too).
By the way, I was in high school in 1988 and my school did not show the Reagan speech to which you refer. I asked my wife and a couple of friends if their schools showed it and they all said no. How many students actually saw that ‘88 speech? Just curious.
To point out the obvious, yes, at least the first part of Norris’ spampost was cut&paste lifted verbatim from Media Mutters.
Even more obvious to anyone around and adult since 1988 is that in 1988 CSPAN reached maybe one in a hundred schools, as very few schools had satellite or cable TV then, so Reagan’s speech was hardly being pushed at each and every classroom for a “simultaneous strike” as Obama’s is, much less with accompanying
GoodThinkGuideslesson plans.In fact, almost every school kid who saw Reagan’s speech in the classroom saw it months or years after on that quaint medium of INSTRUCTIONAL VIDEOTAPE. One would also note that Reagan did not make that speech at all until he was an outgoing lame-duck president, after the election of 1988. (GHW Bush’s NASAsession in 1991 reached even fewer kids than Reagan’s, being available only through NASA Select TV, and reached almost none on a “live” basis.)
Yes, one does see a difference between those speeches and Obama’s attempt to shore up his sinking ratings via our kids on the eve of his attempts to save his health care reform image.
Yeah “interested’ I read it.
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/51386d.htm
You obviously missed the points where Reagan pushed his political ideology on students on TV.
Obama is talking about Staying in school
Something everyone can agree with
Reagan made clear his opinion about religion, gun control and lower taxes…. 3 hot button issues that Americans are deeply divided on.
Whose doing the indoctrinating???
Patrick
Let’s be honest
This whole debacle is about trying to embarrass the President
It has nothing to do with not trusting “that Obama would use the venue for the strict purpose of promoting strong educational values ”
As you can see clearly from Reagans own televised speech to students and the responses to my posting conservatives have no problem with him straying off message and peppering his speech with his own political and moral veiws.
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/51386d.ht
When asked about gun control, religion and taxes for example, Reagan was well how controversial those subjects were and he could have said “These are controversial issue and they are a matter for you and your parents to discuss”
Instead , he attempted to push his views on the children
And no one said “peep”
If Obama had planned to say how he felt about those same issues, you can be sure he would have been tarred , feathered and skewered by the same folks that gave Reagan a pass and a pat on the back
If you can’t be consistent in your criticism and have to say “yes…but” your arguments have no moral authority
Tully. Your “yes…but” responses, indicates your double standard.
1. “Yes but…..in 1988 CSPAN reached maybe one in a hundred schools, as very few schools had satellite or cable TV then, so Reagan’s speech was hardly being pushed at each and every classroom”
(translation: indoctrination of our kids is ok when fewer children are indoctrinated. Do you have a specific number of kids in mind before it becomes unacceptable??)
2. “Yes but…almost every school kid who saw Reagan’s speech in the classroom saw it months or years after on that quaint medium of INSTRUCTIONAL VIDEOTAPE.
(translation: indoctrination of our kids is Ok when it’s done on “a quaint medium” and not live)
3.Yes but….Reagan did not make that speech at all until he was an outgoing lame-duck president, after the election of 1988.
(translation: It’s OK to push your political views on children if you are in the last year of your presidency but not ok if you do it in year “one”. If you do something wrong, it’s less wrong if you do it later)
When you have to say “yes…but” your point is already lost as in….
“Yes, officer….but I only stole $100″
Double standard? Heh. I sense a double standard but it’s not on my part, as I never argued that ANY attempted indoctrination of schoolchildren by the White House is unobjectionable. I merely noted the non-content differences between the three speeches (Reagan, Bush, Obama), pointing out that there ARE substantive material differences in mass distribution that render the “But they did it too!” claim a rather pathetically weak rebuttal. As is, well, yours.
For example, your attempted rebuttal explicitly concedes the core of the anti-speech argument, namely that Obama IS attempting to indoctrinate our kids for his own political purposes. Which criticism is on point and applies regardless of the existence or content of prior examples. And the feeble attempts at declaring an absolute moral equivalence between a small event and an attempted universal one.
The title question of “Does the public trust Obama?” has been answered in the negative. The side question remains, “Is that acceptable?” Not, “Did anyone else in the Presidency ever do anything even remotely resembling it?”
Norris wrote, “Let’s be honest. This whole debacle is about trying to embarrass the President. It has nothing to do with not trusting ‘that Obama would use the venue for the strict purpose of promoting strong educational values.’” I’m impressed that you’re able to read the minds of every single person in America who has concerns about Obama’s school speech. Given your logic, thousands of parents across America are feigning concerns about the event, when every single one of them is just using it as an opportunity to embarrass the president.
Again, you’re making my argument for me, which is why I questioned whether you had read my post to begin with. How can you expect these parents to trust Obama (or his spokespersons, political operatives, media allies) when their concerns are automatically rejected as being illegitmate and they are accused of being puppets of the “right wing noise machine” who simply can’t think for themselves, blah, blah – basically insulting their intelligence. One of my main points was that Alinskyite tactics are a bad way to build long-term public trust and you respond with Media Matters talking points that attack the messengers and utilize moral equivelancy arguments. Irony?
Tully is destroying your moral equivalency argument, anyway. But, as I mentioned, that line of attack doesn’t even bother to respond to my main points to begin with and neither does it, I suspect, speak to those parents who are concerned about the Obama school speech.
Also, where was I inconsistent? Please point to an example.
OK Tully
I’m going to have to walk you through your talking points again
This time I’ll use another one of Reagans speeches to the nations students
You point:
1.You say “…note that Reagan did not make that speech at all until he was an outgoing lame-duck president, after the election of 1988.”
OK Tully. Here’s another TV speech to student nationwide where Reagan tells the students that under his administration “conditions in our country are about as bright as this very bright afternoon.” This one is from May 1986…and falls outside of your “lameduck period”. Sorry
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/51386d.htm
1. You say “anyone around and adult since 1988 is that in 1988 CSPAN reached maybe one in a hundred schools, as very few schools had satellite or cable TV then, so Reagan’s speech was hardly being pushed at each and every classroom for a “simultaneous strike” as Obama’s is.
Reagan:”As you know, my remarks are being broadcast live over radio and television to high school students throughout the country. ”
Sorry Tully, this one is nationwide
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/51386d.htm
2. You added “…much less with accompanying GoodThinkGuides lesson plans. ”
Reagan to students:” since you’re the leaders of tomorrow, I wanted to talk to all of you as a friend about the things you’ll have to do to ensure a prosperous nation and a peaceful world.
a. learn and care about scientific and intellectual inquiry. (good)
b. lowering the tax rates (Huh???)
c. being good citizens (good)
d. saying no to drugs (good)
Notice how Reagan slips in a subtle hint that lowering the tax rates is something students will have to support to “ensure a prosperous nation”
When we get Obama’s speech let’s have some fun and see if he pats himself on the back as many times as Reagan did. Or lets see if he promotes his views on gun control , religion and lowering taxes. What do you think?
I’ll let you know if I find more of Reagans messages to the nations students.
Norris Norris Norris,
Once again you are confusing responding to specific questions. If a student asked the Great One what his Administration has done regarding – say Foreign Policy I’d expect he’d reply with what his Administration has done (Question asked, question answered – it’s pretty standard stuff).
Here is the link – I’d suggest you read it.
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1988/111488c.htm
Actually it’s fact but if you would rather he push a non-prosperous nation than okay.
Sorry for veering so far off track Patrick but lol wow, that MediaMatters is hilarious. Too bad they do not disclose donations received – I would love to see how many Liberals got scammed out of their money.
After thinking about this for a while. I think I would just let my kid go to school and watch this. I’d just discuss it with them afterward, what they think it means. Hearing different points of view, even if we disagree with them, is not a bad thing. I am however, disturbed by the lesson plans that were going to be passed out. “How can you help the President?” that is just scary stuff.
And as far as the tactic you mention here Patrick
“this kind of response is probably a good short-term game plan for achieving Alinskyite objectives, but how effective is it at building long-term public trust?”
I agree 100%… “ooopsie!, my bad”
Can only be said so many times before people start to wonder, is this trend on purpose? or are you just that dumb… Neither answer is a good one… if it is the latter, I suspect this president may surpass Bush and his blunders.
Despite Norris’s Cut & Paste philosophy – I generally agree and I would as well. Even from a political standpoint the GOP could make gains (or at least not have losses) if played right. It’s far better for GOP if OB has to ask for forgiveness than permission.
I went to a college football game yesterday.
The chant by the entire student section to the other team was…….
First Down Mother F*******s.
Kiss my A**.
Another one was……I wished all the Ladies….were waves on the ocean….And if I were a boat….I ride them like lotion. I wished all the Ladies….were Bells in a tower and if I were a Keeper…..Id bang them every hour.
Face it Republicans you have lost the culture battle. Its over. America is headed the path of Socialist Ambivalence and moral decadence. But people wont care if they are indoctrinated from Kindergarten….You know like Obama is wanting to do.
Ronnie talked to High School Students…..Obama wants to talk to Kindergarteners who will be in 8th grade when he leaves office.
Hummm….Hummm….The fat lady is singing for America.
Hell Bring it on Obama. Tell all them kindergarteners how they need to be good Socialists and such. Im getting too old to care anymore.
It wasn’t just Reagan and Obama, the three in between also addressed the nation’s schools and in the previous four cases there were some peeps from the political opposition but no concerted effort to demonize it. This practice is nothing new despite the howls coming from some on the right. Without the social networking on the internet from myspace to blogs to cut and paste e-mails I very much doubt this would have been a major news item. Rush and a few other radio screamers would probably have complained but outside of that it would fizzle.
I remember the 80s and I have to disagree. LBJ had the flower add in the 70s. There was Willie Horton in the 80s. Ken Starr in the 90s. Along with a host of other nasty divisive episodes in each decade back to the founding. There were lines the Lincoln Douglas debates that we would call over the line even now. The difference now is in speed of communication and social networking.
It is striking to me that some will defend Reagan giving a very similar address and will defend him including some of his political talking points in that address and will simultaneously decry the abomination of Obama doing the same. To be clear, some is not all and I think that both are innocuous.
Doomed,
The sky is not falling.
The sky is not falling.
depends on persepctive Jeb. If you like the way things are going. You know we get lots of new democrats streaming over the borders and stuff then no I suppose not.
If you like Lower taxes and like to spend you own money then…..
Yes….yes it is.
Call me a bigot…..no I perceive of myself as a protectionist.
Nothing different between me and a union boss. I just see a different enemy.
I agree with this story whole heartedly. Obama simply does not understand the country that he governs. He thinks the entire nation is a giant inner city, with all it’s associated challenges, or an affluent suburb. Most people in this country do not live in either location, and therefore do not think like people who do. This president has shown to me, so-far, that he is truly a minority (and not just in regards to race) governing a majority. It’s not working because he has no idea how the rank and file live, and think. His condensation is the worst part of his problem. Red-Blooded rank and file Americans don’t take kindly to smarmy threats, and thinly veiled stock accusations. This guy will be a one term president. Count on it! 3 years from now we’ll be back to a Republican controlled everything. I just pray for a viable 3rd party to be honest with you. Obama needs to back off, realize that most in this country do not think as he does, and eat some crow, if he wants to be re-elected or have any hope of getting anything passed. Of course, he’s a Harvard Educated “Black” man who is actually a mulatto, that attended private schools his whole life, raised primarily by his maternal grandparents–who were Kansas farmers–and he has lived the life of a “Black” man most of his life. Hahahaha, He doesn’t even know who he is. He’s lived the life of a privileged white kid.
That is not a viable strategy in the modern world.
LBJ left office in 1969, Jeb.
Oops, but the point still stands.
The sixties had LBJ’s flower add and the 70s had Watergate and the rancor surrounding that as well as some quite vitriolic war protests and my point stands.
LMAO. Norris has a problem with people not sharing his delusions and obsessions, and seems to believe if he just says the same thing often enough and loudly enough it will magically become reality. Sorry, Norris, but no sale. Wake me up when you have some original thoughts you haven’t cut & pasted from someone else.
It is striking to me that some will defend Reagan giving a very similar address and will defend him including some of his political talking points in that address and will simultaneously decry the abomination of Obama doing the same. To be clear, some is not all and I think that both are innocuous.
Do please note I haven’t defended anyone. Simply helped get the history straight. In typical wingnut fashion,
XeroxNorris seems to think any deviation from his preferred nutbag narrative is a positive taking of sides. I agree that the Obama speech in final form is pretty innocuous in content (I read it, both the original and corrected versions) even though I think this one in particular was designed for the specific purpose of the Perpetual Campaign in light of Obama’s plummeting approval ratings. But it won’t work. The tedious vaguery and length of it will have the kiddies bored and ignoring it in roughly two minutes or less. Those who don’t have a four-day weekend and are actually in class, and whose districts didn’t pull it from the schedule as a waste of scarce instructional time.For those interested in how the Democrats and the MSM treated GHW Bush’s little-known speech in 1991, Byron York has a history lesson. Norris accuses anyone who fails to share his delusions with exhibiting a double standard. He may be right to this extent — Congressional Democrats and the MSM are certainly treating this speech differently than they treated Bush’s in 1991. But I think the double standard exhibited is not exactly what Norris believes it is.
@Jeb
The speech: I’ve mostly stayed away from the discussions pertaining to the content of Obama’s speech versus that of Reagan’s 1988 speech, etc., because until we saw/read the Obama speech, it was always going to be speculation. I did note that I expected the speech and lesson plans to be relatively innocuous, especially given the backlash. Incidentally, my own personal concerns about the speech have less to do with the text itself than with the idea of it: that it would be broadcast in every classroom in America, become part of every lesson plan (as a high school student in 1998, we were not shown the Reagan speech, and none of my peers from different parts of the country can recall seeing it either). The scope and stagecraft of Obama’s speech is still worrisome to me, even though the text of the speech looks just fine. But, again, the point of my post was about how reaction to the speech might reflect declining public trust in Obama.
You often hear the cliche, “He/she is using up all of his/her political capital.” This same metaphor could be applied to public trust. A president (or other national leader) is either replenishing the “well” of trust or using up its stores. I asked the question: What has Obama done to restore trust in the federal government and to demonstrate that he represents all American families? But I got no answer from liberal/progressive readers.
Since I’ve learned that you’re fair-minded, Jeb – even if we disagree on most things – maybe you can meet me halfway on the main point of my post. You write, “It wasn’t just Reagan and Obama, the three in between also addressed the nation’s schools and in the previous four cases there were some peeps from the political opposition but no concerted effort to demonize it. This practice is nothing new despite the howls coming from some on the right.” You then go on to further elaborate that the current climate is not necessarily any more nasty, partisan, and divisive than previous eras – including the 1980s. So why didn’t these “peeps” against Reagan’s speech back in 1988 not have any legs? Well, you seem to be suggesting it was because they were minor peeps, compared to the all-out demonization of Obama’s speech this time.
On the one hand, I’m tempted to remark that you’re being inconsistent: if things were just as divisive in the 1980s, why no demonization campaigns against Reagan’s speech? But then I think that you’re actually helping to make my argument. The Democrats would not have attempted to demonize Reagan’s speech because he was popular – a healthy majority of American parents trusted him to speak to their children, and the Dems would have looked bad by going on the attack in that case. So, why do you figure that the “demonization” worked so well against the Obama speech?
Rather than merely diagnosing Obama’s weaknesses, however, the Left would be better served if it stopped assuming that the masses are stupid pawns that can easily be swayed by the right-wing noise machine, etc. The problem then, though, is that they would have to acknowledge that public support for the progressive agenda is nowhere near what they tell themselves it is. I’m going to write a post about this when I get a chance.
Nasty partisanship and diviseness: Jeb, I’m usually one of those who makes the argument that you do above – that nasty divisiveness has a long tradition in American politics and that most claims about today being worse than ever before are overblown. Certainly, the nastiness leading up to the Civil War was considerably more intense than what we’re experiencing today. I also agree with your point about modern communication methods amplifying things maybe more than they really are. That said, I do think the anger and divisiveness has ratcheted up quite a bit from the 1980s (these things go in cycles) in part because neither of the dominant ideological “wings” (more like loose coalitions) have been able to get the upper hand of late, thereby (at least slightly) quieting the other side for a few years. The battle has been awfully close in the last 14-15 years, which maybe makes for more all out barrages. Unfortunately, the nanny statists always gain ground during a stalemate due to the natural gravitational forces.