Valley View vs. Greenville
Cars and Parts Springfield Swap Meet
Carroll Commencement
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > September > 09 > Entry
Martin Gottlieb: False alarms about Obama speech should raise an alarm about alarmists
Ronald Reagan could have said it, but Barack Obama did, to America’s schoolchildren on the day after Labor Day:
“What you look like, where you come from, how much money you have, what you’ve got going on at home — that’s no excuse for neglecting your homework or having a bad attitude. … That’s no excuse for not trying. …
“Here in America, you write your own destiny. You make your own future. …
“I know that sometimes you get the sense from TV that you can be rich and successful without any hard work — that your ticket to success is through rapping or basketball or being a reality TV star, when chances are you’re not going to be any of those things. …
“The story of America isn’t about people who quit when things got tough. It’s about people who kept going, who tried harder, who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best.”
How is it possible that the very conservative people who didn’t want their children to see President Obama’s speech to schoolchildren didn’t know that it would be a conservative speech?
How could they not have known that it would celebrate the accessibility of the American dream when pursued diligently? He has always talked this way.
How is it possible they imagined that he would use the occasion to promote his “socialist” agenda?
The calls to schools from anxious parents did not arise from newspaper or television stories saying the president would deliver a back-to-school speech. They arose because alarms went up on talk radio, talk television and conservative Internet sites. Alarms about political content, about indoctrination.
Said one Fox television commentator, “This is what Chairman Mao did.”
Some people say the Obama offense was not just the desire to give the speech, but a suggestion that went out from the Department of Education. DOE proposed that schools have students write about how to “help the president.”
But that suggestion could easily be ignored. Educators write lesson plans. This one had an unfortunate phrase. Big deal.
Yet the superintendent of schools in Springboro said Friday that so many complaints were coming in about the speech that “I’m getting absolutely nothing else done.”
All around the suburbs, superintendents and principals were meeting about what to do. In some places around Ohio, that process continued into this week, when last week’s decisions were modified.
Meanwhile, there was no great fuss in Dayton. So maybe the speech ended up reaching the kids the president had most in mind: those from poor and troubled neighborhoods and families, those facing the hardest struggles, from places where dropout rates are highest.
Still, there’s a problem to be paused over here: political inanity of a special degree.
Some commentators have said that the automatic hostility in some circles to all things Obama is like the same attitude in other quarters to all things Bush in the years before 2009.
Well, yes, there was a certain mania about that, a certain obsessiveness. But when did it result in something as bizarre as this: people calling school offices all over the country to object to the unobjectionable, to politicize the most nonpolitical work of a president?
Liberals complained when the first President Bush gave a similar speech. But there was nothing like this.
Hardly anybody complained that President George W. Bush turned out to be in a public school on 9/11 (he went to many schools to promote his education agenda) or that Dan Quayle was campaigning in a public school when he misspelled potato.
The special force at work today is the right-wing propaganda machine in the media. More skilled than ever, after decades of honing, it relentlessly delivers the message that the Democrats are not simply mistaken, but corrupt, evil, manipulative, extreme, anti-American, hateful and particularly contemptuous of you (the listener) and your values.
That’s the context in which listeners develop preposterous fears about the most innocuous event. They are primed to believe just about anything.
One has to wonder what it will take to make them start to wonder about the sources of their information. How many absurd alarms about death squads and birth certificates — and speeches?
Permalink | Comments (27) | Post your comment | Categories: Columns, Martin Gottlieb, National Politics, Suburban Communities
Comments
By Independent
September 9, 2009 8:07 AM | Link to this
You are not being truthful, Dem Congressmen actually investigated the Bush school speech. The problem with Obama is that he is still campaigning rather than being a stateman President. He has lost the trust of those of us in the center. I had no problem with the idea of the President speaking to school children until I saw his proposed lesson plans last week. I have no desire for my children to consider how to help him expand government. I fundamentally disagree with him and you have not seen anything yet until he forces this health reform through as a totally partisian law. Your editorial paints you as a left wing wacko who does not respect those of us who disagree with you….your editorial does not reflect tolerance for divergent views.By Lea
September 9, 2009 8:10 AM | Link to this
I don’t always agree with Obama’s statements and actions, but come on, he IS the President. What happened to patriotism and standing for your country? Wrong or right. He WILL make mistakes. He is human. We need to get over ourselves.By Jon
September 9, 2009 8:47 AM | Link to this
Inspirational speech by the President to the children of America. The conservatives paranoia on this was beyond absurd.By Rob
September 9, 2009 9:01 AM | Link to this
Thanks for the comments, Martin. So at the end of the day, do you think it’s really simply petty harping of the “payback” variety - or do these guys actually believe this stuff?By Bill in Brookvilleh
September 9, 2009 9:05 AM | Link to this
Again, you can tell the ones that get misinformed news from fox…what fox says today is shown to be a lie tomorrow and still the tiny minded lemming among us follow off the cliff. pity themBy dishonest
September 9, 2009 9:05 AM | Link to this
Why then, did the White House redact portions of the “study guides” they had orginally planned on sending to schools with requests for students to “write letters to pledge to help the president.”?By JT
September 9, 2009 9:10 AM | Link to this
The indoctrination of the supplied teacher’s guide (many teachers in my building would have done it because we still have bulletin boards up in the building celebrating his victory) from the federal department of education was overt and political attempt to “inspire” children to help in his political agenda. We have no idea what the original speech was like because I am sure that when the furor erupted, they quickly wrote a more appropriate speech, because the DOE definitely wrote a more appropriate teacher’s guide. Conservatives did President Obama a favor by complaining about his speech, it saved him from a much bigger controversy if he had done the original speech. Obama and his minions are trying to take over the National Endowment of the Arts to ensure that his propaganda is disseminated, why is it unreasonable to think that he wouldn’t try to influence a most innocent audience: public school children? His speech was good; although most of my students were bored but middle schoolers are generally bored with everything.By JD
September 9, 2009 9:22 AM | Link to this
The political climate created by this President is such that many people do not trust him to simply impress upon students the importance of an education. I did not approve of the classroom activities that went along with the speech (federal government should have no influence on curriculum), but I had no problem with him speaking to the students. Of course, after all the controversy, he was not going to say anything controversial (who knows what was in the original draft?). At any rate, I thought it was a very good speech, with some interesting points. Respect for the office of the Presidency has continually declined over the years, especially beginning with President Clinton’s tenure. That is why most Americans did not have exception to Presidents Reagan and Bush speaking to the students.By TRS
September 9, 2009 9:26 AM | Link to this
Martin - I do believe you were around in ‘91. Could you please refer me to your editorial or any editorial by the DDN which condemns the Democrats for investigating then President Geo H.W. Bush’s speech to school children. Here is a link from that terrible Fox News that might help you. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/08/elder-bushs-speech-students-drew-democratic-probe/ Rob - lets put it this way, I trust President Obama about as much as you trusted President Bush.By JD
September 9, 2009 9:37 AM | Link to this
Lea - I understand we all make mistakes and that’s not the problem. Bill in Brookvilleh -I don’t know what Fox News you watch, but I’ve seen both sides to issues (granted with a right leaning tilt - but still BOTH sides), unlike mainstream media who no longer care to even appear to be objective. I try to follow all sides, but listening to the likes of Gibson, Blitzer, Williams, etc., it’s obvious it’s an “us versus them” report. I watch and read Fox News to get both sides — mainstream won’t even give you a conservative viewpoint, unless they’re villifying the idiots that are only the extreme. Few conservatives are the extreme, yet that’s all they report. They don’t care to report that we have legitimate concerns and questions. The simple fact that we don’t agree labels us all as “irrational fringe” or the offensive word used by his latest czar. Where does he find these people??? That’s another issue.By Jill
September 9, 2009 9:39 AM | Link to this
Thank you for the editorial, you have the same problems with you r blogs where people take off to personally destroy people in your articles through postings. People they know nothing about. Free speech yes, but so much is irresponsible. Freedom should not be irresponsible.By Ben
September 9, 2009 11:02 AM | Link to this
JD, the “political climate” to which you refer was not created by this President. It was perfected under President Bush’s administration, where everything, from the sign behind his head to the staffing of federal attorneys, was politicized. The Republican Party assumes everything Democrats do is politicized because that’s how they view the world. There’s a psychological term for it: projection.By Rob
September 9, 2009 12:24 PM | Link to this
Well, I guess a lot of this answers my question. To put a finer point on it, TRS - you don’t trust President Obama based on what? I think that’s kind of a main point of the editorial.By TRS
September 9, 2009 12:35 PM | Link to this
Ben - your comments are absolutely amazing. During the Bush years, the Democrats did everything in their power to politicize anything from war to social security. No one, and I mean no one, was more vicious. It went beyond policy disputes - it was pure venom.By Jeff
September 9, 2009 1:27 PM | Link to this
“Ronald Reagan could have said it, but Barack Obama did, to America’s schoolchildren on the day after Labor Day:” Martin, you are absolutely correct. However, you may want to add that coming from Reagan, the words would have been sincere. Nothing so far in the President’s agenda indicates that he believes that people can take care of themselves. If that were the case, he would expect people to work hard and pay for their own health insurance and invent their own ways to protect the environment rather than promoting government intrusion and regulation.By Rob
September 9, 2009 1:33 PM | Link to this
Jeff, I know loads of people who work hard - extremely hard, and can’t afford health insurance. That’s kind of the point of the dialogue.By Martin Gottlieb
September 9, 2009 1:39 PM | Link to this
A few notes, in response to some comments. 1) It was inevitable that, upon being discredited, the alarmists would insist that Obama changed his speech. Night does follow day, after all. In fact, however, there is no evidence for that. He gave exactly the speech he always said he was going to give, about the need to stay in school and all that. That’s why the mainstream media didn’t see it at at first as any major story. 2) As for the DOE suggestion for students, that’s not what the bulk of calls were about. They were about the speech. (And I’m not aware of the word “pledge.”) 3) Are these people serious? Clearly, the media warriors stretch their points in pursuit of attention. The right-wingers are competing with other right-wingers for a certain bloc. They become entertainers. But a lot of their listeners take them seriously. 4) Yes, I was around in ‘91. I don’t remember the flap. We generally didn’t comment on the little stuff at the national level. But if we had, it would have been entirely in character for us to tell whatever Democrats were making a big deal about it to lighten up. No problem.By Even-Handed
September 9, 2009 1:54 PM | Link to this
“Little stuff at the national level?” That’s the response for the Democrats’ outrage when President Bush spoke to school children? The Washington Post at the time accused him of using the kids as “props” and the House initiated hearings, at which the Sec’y of Education was called to justify the expenses of the president’s appearance. It is quite convenient to minimize the Democrat’s response nearly 20 years later — as convenient as concluding the DDN would have chided Democrats at the time; that is, had the DDN bothered to comment on the “little stuff at the national level.”By moose
September 9, 2009 2:10 PM | Link to this
MG-right on. Very well said, and simply put. And the point that there has been no comparable response like the right-wing’s toward this presidential speech is outstanding. I have been feeling that, and couldn’t put it into words. I applaud you for it. What a weird time we are living in. ScaryBy Rob
September 9, 2009 2:42 PM | Link to this
Even-handed, all you have to do is look at what was on the mind of Republicans in Congress at that time. The big issues identified by the Republican “Gang of Seven” in October 1991 were a.) House Bank Overdrafting b.) Congressional Post Office abuses, and c.) the Congressional barber shop perk. Nary a word from these guys about how President Bush was being maligned by Congress. I think that’s why an objective observer would have called it “small stuff”. Congressman Ford got it wrong, at least on suggesting impropriety, and the GAO report said the same. There was no “outrage”on any side as you claim. I don’t remember kids being held out of school in ‘91, at any rate.By CC
September 9, 2009 4:12 PM | Link to this
I say, Amen, and thank you for your comments. The things the right-wing talk show nasty-mongers make up about Pres. Obama are so amazing I can only hope the majority of Republicans get tired of it. “Pushing a socialist agenda?” Give me a break. “Secretive?” Try wiretapping, torture of prisoners, and suppressing evidence that doesn’t say what you want it to say. That’s secretive. A little progress, a little move toward more understanding, and the right wing goes nuts. I pray Obama’s success proves them all so wrong no one will listen anymore.By CC
September 9, 2009 4:14 PM | Link to this
I say, Amen, and thank you for your comments. The things the right-wing talk show nasty-mongers make up about Pres. Obama are so amazing I can only hope the majority of Republicans get tired of it. “Pushing a socialist agenda?” Give me a break. “Secretive?” Try wiretapping, torture of prisoners, and suppressing evidence that doesn’t say what you want it to say. That’s secretive. A little progress, a little move toward more understanding, and the right wing goes nuts. I pray Obama’s success proves them all so wrong no one will listen anymore.By davidss2
September 9, 2009 8:27 PM | Link to this
The left tries to define conservatives by pointing at the extreme right such as birthers and death committee folks. But the reality is there is a vast group of people who care about the country who are not liberals, not tax-and-spender democrats, not socialists, not government takeover of the economy, etc. The same person saying they didn’t criticize Bush for being a classroom on 9-11 ( were critical that he didn’t stand up and yell “What?” and run out, which would have scared the kids. They would have criticized Bush either way. They hated him. they hated Reagan. They will criticize anything the republicans did. Here we have a democrat with extremely radical ties to friends, with socialist and racist views such as Ayers and Van Jones.—-People in the middle who elected what’s-his-name and the democrats are losing trust. He hasn’t gotten rid of lobbyists, indeed he has Pharma doing ads for his spend and cover medical plan takeover. He has spent more time in front of a TV screen in prime time than believable. He talks in campaign slogans rather than exact specifics. No cost proposals. He has run on fixing Bush’s fault since he got there. Do we want 6 more years? And I especially don’t trust him and the unions, NEA and UAW which he wasted money on an incomplete bankruptcy to protect their overpaid jobs, to talk to my kids. If he wants to visit individual classrooms, as Bush was doing, that’s fine. But with his record about lying in his campaign promises, drug problems, friends problems, I have to laugh at the media who criticized Bush for a drinking and driving arrest that they tried to bring out just before the election hoping to derail his win. The same media loves their boy, so far. Wait until he starts quelching their rights to speak.By Wil Schroeder
September 10, 2009 10:59 AM | Link to this
Certainly, Obama’s speech was benign enough and clearly acceptable for all to hear. However, given that it was announced in the middle of this debate about healthcare and the fact that he made a campaign style partisan speech (rather than a Presidential style speech) in Cincinnati over the weekend, it is no wonder people were skeptical. He is trying to do too much, too soon without reasonable debate —- so it is only natural that reasonable people will question his motives. Look at the people he surrounds himself with —- Van Jones and others of his kind are clearly not mainstream or even left-leaning. He is a quack of gigantic proportions —- so we (all reasonable people) should all be questioning Obama’s deep-rooted thought process and policy biases.By Jim
September 15, 2009 8:18 PM | Link to this
Well said Martin. Sad, but true.By wotthehey
September 18, 2009 8:09 AM | Link to this
Ah, Republicans. You gotta love ‘em. hee hee hee.By Jan
September 20, 2009 7:35 AM | Link to this
In response to Martin G- You say there is no evidence that he changed his speech. Where is the evidence he didn’t? It is questionable after they changed the activity sheet to accompany the speech, which clearly had an agenda beyond do better at school. He also was very political in his meeting with the 40 students he met with and sold his healthcare program to. The facts that are available at least support questioning whether he changed the speech.