President Obama is planning on giving a “welcome back to school” speech directed to students on Tuesday. The text of his speech will be confined to the importance of education, and encouraging students to stay in school and study hard.
That is such a universal message, no one could be opposed to it being reinforced by the number one representative of our nation, right?
Hee hee hee. Okay, I was just kidding.
Of course politicians and pundits are furiously attacking the idea, claiming it is downright anti-American to allow the President of the
Boycotts are being called for – let’s keep our kids out of school, lest they hear that school can be a good thing!
Now, before you start going off on one side or the other, I should point out that it isn’t just one side that feels that way – both political parties agree with each other on this issue.
Just not at the same time.
Back when the first President Bush directly addressed students in favor of studying hard, the Dems attacked it as unfair abuse of the office; while prominent Repubs made the claim that only self-absorbed idiots would oppose such an obvious good.
(They were right, by the way.)
So the Right states boldly that the President should and never should be allowed to address students on the topic of education; and the Left avers that the President should and should not be allowed to address students on the topic of education.
Some of y’all might find this contradictory – that someone would claim opposite sides of the same principle without at least an ironic wink to the camera as they do it.
But that is because you have forgotten the first rule of American politics: When a pundit or a politician speaks, chances are
THEY DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT THEY
Oh, sure, sometimes through coincidence, a Fox News pundit might say something he also happens to believe, or an MSNBC mouthpiece might take a position on an issue that in his or her non-actor persona they happen to agree with.
But the mistake is to think that the reason they said the thing to begin with is because they find it to be true.
For example, not one of the politicians or pundits mouthing off about this presidential back to school speech actually believe it is a bad idea for the President to encourage education.
What they do oppose is allowing this particular president be associated with a positive thing, because their primary job function is to prevent the other side from gaining any political points.
Just as their counterparts did not want that particular president in 1991 to be associated with a positive thing.
Of course they can’t say that, so instead they shout out whatever they think is most going to help their number one mission. No interest in truth; no interest in whether they believe it or not.
And they are cool with it, because they all know that the other guy doesn’t believe what they are saying either, so they don’t take it personally.
Are you among those that had trouble understanding how President Obama could be willing to partner with his sworn enemy, Senator Clinton, after she devoted so much time trying to convince the world that it would be dangerous to elect that man?
That’s because you forgot that Obama knew that
So it would be silly to hold her to the things she said during the race when they were on opposing sides.
The problem is that while the pundits and politicians know that they don’t believe a thing they say, the people who hear them don’t always realize that.
They think they are hearing truth; and often believe it themselves, get riled up, and act out on the assumption that they are following voices of truth.
Which is why, starting next week, I am going to offer a public service with a series of blog entries entitled:
“How to Know When a Pundit/Politician Doesn’t Believe What They Are Saying.”
See you then.
Just my thoughts,