Recently there was a large controversy over whether President Barack Obama should be allowed to address the nation's school-children. This represents a vast a scary swing in political thought. Historically many presidents have issued speeches to schools including conservatives Reagan and HW Bush. Why then was the uproar so great when Obama took to the podium? The answer is that unfortunately politicians on both sides of the isle have started using many more scare tactics and extreme statements to further their agendas.
It used to be the case that the president would have a much greater role in interacting with the schools, and educators would trust the president to impart morally commendable and just messages to the students. This was seen through initiatives such as the presidential fitness test under Reagan and the presidential scholars program under LBJ. Both of these programs were much more invasive and comprehensive than a single speech, so why were they given the mandate? Again, the swing in political strategies has caused the opposition president to be regarded with less and less respect.
Nowadays instead of a highly qualified and successful individual, the president from the opposition party is represented as a foolish or even evil person. This was true for George W. Bush. Many people labeled him as a bumbling idiot incapable of even basic tasks. Now Obama is being portrayed as an extremist who wants to introduce evil socialist policies. The truth of the matter is that both men attended prestigious schools, ran successful careers, demonstrated capacity far beyond the average individual, and without a doubt hold a deep and true respect for American values.
In conclusion, this represents a false dichotomy of American politics. You're either the right candidate or you're evil or incompetent. Instead of treating the opposition with such disrespect both parties should engage in mutually respectful debates. This is after all the point of a two party system, so that both can balance and improve the other.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/04/obama.schools/index.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree very much with you that this is a serious problem in America today. It is true that schools should not be biased and teach children to support one political side or the other (though schools could encourage students to read newspapers and watch debates and therefore be informed about why people have different views), and bringing Obama to talk at a school is in a sense endorsing what Obama thinks and therefore could be seen as politically endorsing him. Yet at the same time, I believe there needs to be a certain level of respect for the president as the man who represents America, which goes beyond our political differences.
I can see how conservatives might be upset given the amount of liberal anger during the Bush years. All sorts of anti-Bush buttons and posters, or even countdowns until the end of Bush's presidency, could be seen everywhere. Now, what I said earlier does indicate that this kind of attitude from liberals is wrong. Yet I actually think this raises difficult question: From the point of view of liberals (and I actually personally hold these views), Bush took actions which were extremely detrimental to America for a number of reasons. Some believe that Bush's actions were largely motivated by self-interest. Either way, if this is what you believe, then would it even be honest to say that you support or even respect Bush? I certainly believe that it is fine to have such beliefs, and so if you say that that would not be honest, then it follows we should not support people with whom we have great political disagreements. However, if you believe that we should not in principle support leaders with whom we disagree, it could be argued that we should still support all our leaders for the practical purpose of keeping cohesiveness in the society (i.e., it's very harmful to American solidarity if there's such a great divide).
Maybe we should have kings. There were good kings, and there were bad kings. But democracy hasn't been perfect either. There have been good presidents, and there have been bad presidents. Maybe it would be better to have a figure whom we support in principle as the leader of our nation whether or not we agree with their particular actions.
Post a Comment