« The Real Slim Shady | Main | August Unemployment Data »

September 04, 2009

Comments

Being a Democrat means always having to say you're sorry.

While I am not outraged, this is just silly. There is simply no precedent for the President inserting himself into the curriculum of our schools. He isn't addressing our school children, they handed out lesson plans to go with his talk.

If nothing else it is really bad for any changes he wants to make from an education system standpoint. I can hear the backlash now as we discuss federally mandated and designed core curriculum. Can't you?

And it may be obvious to you what helping the President means, but 40+% of the people in the country didn't vote for him and probably would prefer that lesson to be taught at home.

I think you are looking too closely at the trees and not seeing the forest. This is called "picking your battles" and "keeping your powder dry" for what really matters. Voters do not care about and will not remember any of this.

Marty's last comment reminds me of what was being said after Goldwater lost, that 27 million people can't be wrong. Kind of ignores what the whole concept of democracy is about.

And of course there is plenty of precedent, all done by Republican Presidents. And how is giving a speech about the need to study and be responsible "inserting himself into the curriculum"?

And yes, it is silly to be outraged or even upset with this whole thing.

Checking more into why the one sentence was changed, it is more understandable. Although in context, the original sentence made all the sense in the world, we know that many people don't use quotes in context (and yes that applies to both sides of the aisle, though more frequently from the right) so why allow a big furor over nothing to obscure what is basically a positive thing? At least that was probably the reasoning.

The following is a recently effective (July 1) Mississippi law:

SECTION 1. The State Board of Education shall require every textbook that includes the teaching of evolution in its contents to include the following language on the inside front cover of the textbook:

"The word 'theory' has many meanings, including: systematically organized knowledge; abstract reasoning; a speculative idea or plan; or a systematic statement of principles. Scientific theories are based on both observations of the natural world and assumptions about the natural world. They are always subject to change in view of new and confirmed observations.

This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory.

Evolution refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced living things. There are many topics with unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbook, including: the sudden appearance of the major groups of animals in the fossil record (known as the Cambrian Explosion); the lack of new major groups of other living things appearing in the fossil record; the lack of transitional forms of major groups of plants and animals in the fossil record; and the complete and complex set of instructions for building a living body possessed by all living things.

Study hard and keep an open mind."

Honestly, I thought with Obama's election, the dark ages were dissipating and a more enlightened era was on the horizon. Now I'm thinking it's going to be a long, long fight. It's going to be discouraging and exhausting fighting against utter nonsense as if it had substance, but we have to keep on at it.

Yes, john miller, I'm sure it's hard for the Obama administration to decide between pretending they're dealing with sanity and making reasonable concessions (to, say, clarify language, etc.), or just ignoring these people hoping that by not acknowledging them, they quit getting attention.

Just wait for the impact of the Texan history textbooks now in preparation.

Shorter Publius:

"Go after McCain harder or you will lose. Go more negative. Pick a fight. Make your own celebrity Britney Spears commercial."

Please see November 4th 2008.

Before some RWT comes along and polarizes everything, I suppose somebody should lay the groundwork for a more civil discussion. So here it goes:

There is a parallel between conservative fears of showing "weakness" in foreign affairs or withdrawing from a military occupation, and progressives' concerns about showing "weakness" on some utterly meaningless political symbol.

(will be back to elaborate)

"This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things."
The theory of evolution is not about the origin of life, but what happen after it originated.

Progressives already have the momentum and the upper hand in the dissemination of information in the public school systems. The NEA will continue to be a force to overcome in conservatives' effort to improve parents' opportunities to have greater choices for educating children. The progressive cause would have been better served if the initial language had been totally non-controversial so that Obama could have his opening discussion with the children, gain their confidence and support, so that later the political issues could be delivered to a comfortable and supportive audience. I'm personally happy it did not happen that way, regardless of whether the White House makes change in response to public reactions.

OK, I'm back --

All I want to add to my last point, is that both concerns of "weakness" follow a similar mold -- both use fear of "emboldening" an opposition (terrorists and rogue states for right, and the right for the left) as a reason to use valuable resources (capital, whether monetary or political, media time, lives...) on what is more often than not otherwise completely insignificant (President Clinton visiting NK, flag lapels, etc), and sometimes counterproductive to say the least (Iraq).

Anyway, like I said, better me than a RWT.

The progressive cause would have been better served if the initial language had been totally non-controversial so that Obama could have his opening discussion with the children, gain their confidence and support, so that later the political issues could be delivered to a comfortable and supportive audience.

What "political issues"?

Hi, friends, RWT here. I just want to say that I agree completely with Publius' post. Especially this.

You not only validate those complaints, you come off looking weak and defensive -- as if you did something wrong.

And not only that, but he makes his own defenders look foolish; by implicitly agreeing that the charges against him had merit, he cut you guys off at the knees. It's like an innocent man pleading guilty to avoid a trial - even if it's the rational decision to make, it looks bad...

Progressives already have the momentum and the upper hand in the dissemination of information in the public school systems.

No, they don't. If any group at all can be said to have "the upper hand in the dissemination of information in the public school systems," it's the textbook buyers for the state boards of education in Texas and California, the two largest textbook purchasing markets in the US. If you do not produce a textbook acceptable to both of those groups, nobody will buy your texts.

I would ask you to provide some kind of evidence for your assertion, but you never do, so whatever.

The progressive cause would have been better served if the initial language had been totally non-controversial...

It was. It was not, however, immunized against misrepresentation by serial fabricators.

...so that Obama could have his opening discussion with the children, gain their confidence and support, so that later the political issues could be delivered to a comfortable and supportive audience.

Maybe he could also lay a trail of candy they could follow into his oven, where he could bake them into a pie. In your paranoid fantasies, that is.

So Marty, you had similar objections in 1991 when the lesson plan issued by GHW Bush's Dept of Ed said the same exact thing about helping the president by staying in school?

In fact, I suspect that someone at ED probably just lifted the curriculum from that speech.

These vociferous objections make me feel our country is doomed. It's imploding.

"The progressive cause would have been better served if the initial language had been totally non-controversial so that Obama could have his opening discussion with the children, gain their confidence and support, so that later the political issues could be delivered to a comfortable and supportive audience."

Well, the creepy people on the Right, including the Texas Board of Education and the Texas, Georgia, and Florida legislators trying to pass healthcare reform nullification in their States would probably accuse President Obama of being a defrocked Catholic priest.

" you had similar objections in 1991 when the lesson plan issued by GHW Bush's Dept of Ed said the same exact thing about helping the president by staying in school?"

Lou are you speculating or do you have a cite?

Yes, john miller, I'm sure it's hard for the Obama administration to decide between pretending they're dealing with sanity and making reasonable concessions (to, say, clarify language, etc.), or just ignoring these people hoping that by not acknowledging them, they quit getting attention.

I have small kids, and this is the problem you get all the time when they act up, for the same reasons. Except, of course, that my kids are good at heart and really don't want to hurt anybody.

If you're the person who has to get shit done, you are to some extent or other at the mercy of the most unreasonable people in the room. However, it's apparent that these particular toddlers are not going to be bought off by ice cream, so it's time to lock them in their bedrooms and let the grownups figure things out.

eric, the problem is that these particular children are, to a degree, armed and dangerous and being incited by not only some media figures, but also to a degree by actual people in positions of perceived authority and perceived power.

Seretse's got it. Publius, how you could watch the events of October 2007 through November 2008 unfold and then call Obama someone with no fight in him-- just boggles the mind. Even adopting your frame to the maximum, the fact remains that this is an incredibly small deal. It's a sentence in a photo-op type event. There's no reasonable interpretation by which this can made to have really any importance, in and of itself. And I think you're very short-sighted to slam Obama to this extent over something this small.

I would agree with Seretse and Martin that publius is making mountains out of molehills, if Obama had stuck to his guns on any issue, any issue at all, that he campaigned on.

But he hasn't. Not a single one.

He's caved to the Right on Gitmo, on DADT, on domestic surveillance, and it looks like he's gonna cave on HCR.

So he's not "picking his fights." He's not "keeping his powder dry."

He's just plain caving - presumably, because the only fights he'll really fight are the ones that directly benefit him; i.e., getting the nomination, and getting elected (like the Clintons, as it turns out).

He's caved to the Right on Gitmo, on DADT, on domestic surveillance, and it looks like he's gonna cave on HCR.

On Gitmo, he seems to be moving forward as best he can (with the Senate voting 96-4 against providing funding for the prisoner transfers, he apparently has more groundwork to lay before he can close it down).
On DADT, afaict the WH is moving forward. Not quickly, but is this the priority of the day?
On domestic surveilance, I agree.
On health care, the jury is still very much out, both on what we can get and on what we will get.

He's got a long-term view and a consensus-building temperament. He was never Paul Wellstone or Dennis Kucinich, and while the vision of him tearing into the WH with a fistful of progressive Executive Orders may be a pleasant one, it was never realistic.

If he hasn't overturned DADT and solved Gitmo (to the extent Congress will allow him) in the next year or so, then I may find myself agreeing more with this sentiment. But he's been pretty busy (in terms of focus, not manpower) and that's going to slow other things down somewhat. So I think it's early in the day to start branding him an opportunist and a liar.

Carleton,

OK. I'll give him another 7 1/2 years or so. After that, all bets are off.

I'm afraid I have to agree with Publius here. Of *course* it's a ridiculous controversy, which is precisely the reason not to cave on it. Rather than let it die, this (or one of the other fake GOP controversies they and the media have decided the country should waste its time on) should be an opportunity to *attack*. Yes, I'm a wild eyed, shrill liberal who wants to attack Republicans (rhetorically, of course).

I'm sorry my brother/sister liberals, but some of you really don't understand American politics very well. Politics. Not political science, not policy and governance - politics. If you don't think symbolism really matters - even (or perhaps especially) about trivial issues, then you are blind to a fundamental thing about politics. These kinds of bogus 'issues' are cumulative and mutually reinforcing, quite a bit greater than the sum of their parts. They're never really about the issue at hand, but rather about making the other party flinch - testing, testing testing. In our wretched capital, you either ride the tiger or it rides you. Power is, of course, a zero sum game. You have to destroy that (in this case, the GOP) which is trying to destroy you. It really is that simple. Now, how you do it is not so simple (ie I'm not advocating simple minded Rahm-ism). But Obama's post-partisan conceit has always been complete crap; I was hoping it was more campaign-sloganeering than sincere. While it may have been useful in the campaign, it's laughably inappropriate to today's DC - and, IMO, bad in the campaign, too: castles in the air.

Josh Marshall is
citing
a poll which indicates Obama and the dems are losing Independents. He surmises that Obama's strategy of letting congress lead makes him look weak. Gee, really?

These days (by which I mean the last 15 years of Republican Jackass Theatre), controversies are never really about the 'issue' at hand- they are about making Democrats cower. Independents, and plenty of people who have voted Republican in the past, for that matter, don't hate Democrats because of their policies; they hate them for being chickenshit.

I haven't given up on Obama. But he has had a pretty bad 9 months, and has no one to blame but himself; I am shakily confident that he will start to smell the coffee one of these days. You govern in the context of the politics you have, not the politics you wish you had. Yes, his plate is very very full. But I get the feeling that the strategy of punting on issue after issue to save political capital for bigger fights is turning out to be self-defeating, because it can actually just dribble away a big part of your capital, and for nothing - you don't *generate* any capital, any momentum.

It's comforting for some to pretend that US nat'l politics is about civilized debate, with nice, rational-sounding 17th century music playing in the background, and everybody wearing nice suits - the Brian Lamb/Charlie Rose reverie. But it's neither civilized, nor rational, nor lofty, because this is not a particularly civilized, rational, or well-educated country at the moment. If you think otherwise - if you are surprised at the ever more stark moral nullity of the Republicans; if you are surprised at the residual racism and the 'birtherism' - you really need to get out more.

A large plurality of Americans are profoundly apolitical - maybe even a majority. That may be too bad, but it's simply true. They don't follow policy 'debates' closely or at all. But people DO notice if you won't fight - or won't seem to fight - for what you say you want. They will despise you for that, regardless of what it is you say you want - they despise you on principle And they certainly won't trust you to look out for them. Clinton said it well: 'strong and wrong beats weak and right every time'.

Hear, hear, jonnybutter.

Weakness, or the appearance of weakness, is the only unforgivable sin -- perhaps the only sin at all -- in politics.

Indeed, elm. You don't need to do anything illegal or semi-legal - no IRS funny business, for example. There are plenty of legal things which can be done to make recalcitrant Senator or Representative Pothole look 'ineffective' at home. Propose to close or move a military base or other federal installation or two, for instance. Find ways to apply pressure and be ruthless about it. Strike fear (and smile while you do it). Call some bluffs. So many of the people in congress, especially the loud blustering ones, are really toads - easy to intimidate. If the opposition calls you Hitler and a dictator and a Chicago thug when you're being professorial and diffident, why not actually *use* some power?

It's not pretty, but it beats entropy.

If we take the point of this piece, it underlines why so many are drawing a line in the sand on the public option.

It's nice that you "support" it ... Obama apparently "supports" a lot of things he has tossed aside (like not "supporting" the FISA amendment last year until he did, for political reasons) ... but at some point politically that is not enough.

If he did more to respect the group who are drawing the line on the public option, they might give him the benefit of the doubt. But, things like this (even if this specific example is disputed) underlines the problem. And, there seems to be a bait/switch here. Many compromised for something that was put out there as key part of reform. People are p-od, and they have every reason to be.

It suggests why DADT matters or why "as best he can" on GITMO is not enough if this is the best he can (on such matters, Congress looks to the President ... if he doesn't press the point, a point on closing GITMO that allegedly even McCain was on board with ... that's trouble).

I realize that it looks more than faintly ridiculous for a commenter on a blog (I actually was in my pajamas, but wasn't eating cheetos) to rant angrily about what Obama and the dems 'should do'. But I don't think it was mere hand-wringing. This really is a political crisis, IMO. A great country doesn't get unlimited chances to slow its decline - there is nothing 'exceptional' about the US in the regard. Stoking nincompoopery, religious superstition, and racism to win a few elections is one thing; doing it for 25 years is another.

This is the political equivalent of a civil war, and it's been going on for years; the GOP is not a loyal opposition; their MO is one big, continuous 'nuclear option'. They don't support - at least rhetorically - the government unless they control it. Exactly what you should do about that is a more difficult question, but I don't think there's any doubt that it's serious.

I admire Lincoln too, Mr Obama, but when Ft. Sumner was attacked, Lincoln didn't just plead for brotherhood. He fought. The GOP is trying to de-legitimize you and the government because they no longer control it, just as they did with Clinton - you're not 'their president'. Call some bluffs.

To get to Casey's last point, IWJA that:

1) Obama only ever said he'd get rid of DADT when he was asked about it, and I can't remember a specific case where he talked about domestic surveillance (and I followed his campaign pretty closely). So he can't be said to have broken any major campaign promises, especially seeing how his first year isn't even up.

2) He is actually in the process -- knee deep in fact -- of closing GITMO and pushing HCR.

3) Before the recess, the House, with the support of the WH, passed historic Cap and Trade legislation. Along with HCR, this was Obama's biggest campaign promise (at least on domestic policy), and it now it's showing all signs of passing the Senate by the end of the year.

And now, claiming these "betrayals" as precedent, you start hearing people say how Obama is "weak" in the face of the right. Makes you wonder if at least some of them just won't be satisfied until Glenn Beck's worst delusions to come to pass.

Independents, and plenty of people who have voted Republican in the past, for that matter, don't hate Democrats because of their policies; they hate them for being chickensh1t.

I think that when Dems do try stronger approaches, the VWRC screams bloody murder and the MSM plays along. eg Republican use of reconciliation was business as usual, Democratic use of the reconciliation is some sort of hyper-partisan nuclear option. If Obama were to govern as Bush did (50+1 and screw the opposition), the MSM screeching would be non-stop.

If Obama were to govern as Bush did (50+1 and screw the opposition), the MSM screeching would be non-stop.

The screeching is non-stop anyway.

The comments to this entry are closed.