Flunking civics
On Tuesday morning, President Barack Obama plans to give a nationally televised speech directed to school children. He wants to talk about the importance of working hard and staying in school. It’s a kind of presidential pep talk for kids.
Bitter partisans have responded with loud objections, including some in St. Louis. A few parents — what one local school administrator described as “a small but vocal minority” — have objected.
They characterize the president’s anticipated remarks as “propaganda.” They have asked that the speech not be shown in the schools. Missouri’s Republican Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder took time out from planning for the Tour of Missouri bicycle race to pander to them, calling Mr. Obama’s plans “a clear infringement on the rights of our students and those of Missouri parents.”
Mr. Obama is not the first such presidential infringer. President Ronald Reagan invited a group of high school students to the White House in 1986. He talked to them about world and military affairs, his tax program and the importance of education. The proceedings were broadcast live on radio and television to high school students nationally. No one seems to have objected.
President George H. W. Bush gave a noontime address in 1989, televised from the White House Library. He encouraged youngsters, gathered and watching from schools nationally, to stay away from drugs. (When Mr. Bush did a similar telecast in 1991, this time from a classroom, Democrats, including then-U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt of St. Louis, complained about the $26,750 Department of Education expenditure).
This time around, many school districts around the country essentially will punt on the presidential speech, claiming that it is scheduled during lunch hour, that the school year is just getting started and everybody is busy, etc., etc. Teachers have the option to show the speech, but it is doubtful that many will want to deal with complaints from a few protesting parents.
However many students end up watching the live broadcast, Mr. Obama’s talk is a teachable moment, not so much for what he has to say, but as a study in citizenship. An enterprising high school civics teacher could build a lesson around this question: What is the state of our civil society when the innocuous matter of a presidential speech geared toward a goal we all should embrace — getting a good education — would evoke such an empty and embarrassing outcry of nastiness and disrespect from grown-ups? What are we teaching our children?
President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act in the gymasium at Hamilton High School in Ohio. Standing behind the President (from L-R) are Rep. George Miller (D-Ohio), Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Secretary of Education Rodney Paige, Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Rep. John Boehner (R-OH). AFP PHOTO / TIM SLOAN
My essay to that civics lesson:
The state of civility in our society is horribly flawed, but correctable. Turn off the TVs and radios and stop allowing your minds to be haunted by the uncivil ways of the pundits, analysts, shock-jock entertainers and lazy “opinion journalists.”
The media, in turn, must exercise responsibility and stop giving airtime and comment space to the yellers, screamers, name callers and hate mongers that are a plague from all political spectra. Free speech or not, it’s just irresponsible and unflattering.
People will always have skepticism for politicians. We’re supposed to. And we’re supposed to share that skepticism with our fellow citizens as they share their concerns with us.
When we return to authentic conversation — that lost art that requires more listening than talking — we’ll return to being happy to disagree.
Amen.
To Teak,
I totally agree with you. The shock jocks and hyperbolic pundits have lowered the political discourse in this country and fostered the screamers and haters that put an end to town hall meetings as a place to get information and to voice our concerns to our elected officials.
That said however, unless the FCC changes its rules and promotes diversity of opinion by limiting the number of stations a company can own, we will continue to have the airwaves controlled by the poisonous profit builders and single-minded opinions of a very small number of owners.
There is need to be rules about what can be passed off as journalism on our airwaves, and certainly the fact-checking is clearly an unfunny joke. Irresponsible is being overly kind.
The public will not turn off these bread and circuses programs, and in the absence of rules that return us to civility, the only recourse is to make sure the truth is out there, and use it the same way they use lies. If it means demeaning your enemy with devastating sarcasm, ridicule, and logic, then that is the only tactic left to us. Frankly as uncivil as it is, it’s the only way to shut some of these idiots up. Hit ‘em with the truth and as hard as possible. Be aware that many of these clowns have no shame and will continue no matter what, so we have to be better at it than they are and more persistent.
If you have a better way, I’d love to hear it.
Lord forbid if a teacher deviates from their xeroxed lesson plan and forced curriculum that teaches only to the MAP test.
Civility 101:
“ shock jocks and hyperbolic pundits … screamers and haters … unless the FCC changes its rules and promotes diversity of opinion … limiting the number of stations a company can own… the poisonous profit builders … these bread and circuses programs … demeaning your enemy with devastating sarcasm, ridicule, and logic … as uncivil as it is … shut some of these idiots up … many of these clowns ”
Really Mr. Roth? Seems to me that you would be an Olbermann watcher.
Mr. Obama made the mistake of sending out lesson plans calling for students to write him a letter on how they could help him. That is where propaganda would have crept in. Fortunately, the lesson plan has been aborted, but how much money was wasted on that?
I have no problem with Mr. Obama making a speech to the kids. It sounds like it will be a good, wholesome speech. I plan to talk to my kid afterwards to see what he thought of it. I can imagine that many kids will be very excited about it.
So Mr. Brown, you want to censor free speech. If you want to regulate journalism, then you better start with papers like this one.
“embarrassing outcry of nastiness and disrespect from grown-ups? What are we teaching our children?”
Don’t worry guys, I don’t let my kids read your paper!
Rich,
The FCC already has some rules regarding single entities owning multiple television and radio stations. The rules are a bit complex: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/reviewrules.html
While I do not have a problem with the government regulating how many outlets a company can own (it’s the same principal that applies to antitrust laws), the government needs to be careful before it jumps into regulating opinion content or deciding what constitutes journalism. Our First Amendment says that the government cannot do that. Although the Bill of Rights were written before electronic communication, our Supreme Court has applied the First Amendment to electronic entities. There is already some restriction of what can be said on the airwaves. The government regulates the airwaves because they are intangible and belong to the public. But there are limits of power.
The only solution I have is that people need to take responsibility. They need to grow up. That means the listeners, the readers, the broadcasters, writers, owners, publishers, pundits, politicians and hacks. All of us need be be responsible and hold each other accountable. Sometimes, the best way to get bullies to stop is to ignore them. They seek attention.
No, not everyone will do that. Many people will continue the hatred, name calling and finer-pointing. All I can do is my own part. I watch very little TV and am selective about what I listen to or read and I make it a point to engage in healthy conversations about important issues. Not that I am perfect; I’ve done some name calling, too.
You wrote: “it’s the only way to shut some of these idiots up. Hit ‘em with the truth and as hard as possible.” With all due respect, that’s precisely the problem. Am I the idiot or are you? Or are they? And who, exactly, are the clowns? Your definition may not be the same as mine.
I could take one stab at a solution: eliminate the two-party system. For 156 years, we have had only Democrats or Republicans in the Executive Office. In that same time, just a handful of legislators have been anything but members of those parties.
Gone are the Whigs, the Free Soilers, the Unionists, the Federalists, the Americans (the party, not the citizenry) and the Populists. The Green Party, Constitution Party and Libertarians don’t stand a chance in our system, where the government, parties and media make it almost impossible for an independent or member of a tertiary party to succeed.
That in itself would not end the hatred and the yelling. But it would likely reduce the intensity of the us-versus-them approach to politics and would interject some new ideas.