Statistics
Sep
11
Obama’s Original School Speech-Zero Tolerance for Dissent-The Audacity of Expectations
September 11, 2009 | Tagged Culture of informers, Zero Tolerance | 2 Comments
The Left is nothing if not clever in the way they frame the ideological debate between Conservatism and their “Progressive” ideology. The “Zero Tolerance” policy regarding weapons on school grounds is a classic example. The Educational Establishment, made up of Left-wing administrators and teachers’ union members, forbids discussion of, artistic portrayal of, or display of even replica weapons. “Progressives” are able to use the tyranny of adult assumptions and expectations to create an almost mystical, superstitious dread of firearms and the people who own them in the children under their control.
Hypothetical “discussion” between a student and a teacher in a public school:
“No, Johnny, you can’t tell people about going hunting or target shooting.”
“Why not?”
“Because those things involve, well, you know, things that go boom or things that are sharp.”
“You mean like firecrackers and sharp-pointed scissors?”
“No! You know what I mean. Things that stupid rednecks use to make themselves feel big and powerful.”
“Oh. You mean sports cars!”
“No! I don’t mean sports cars. Don’t you cop an attitude with me, young man!” In a whisper, “I mean guns and knives; things that nice people don’t talk about, or don’t even think about, unless they are used by police or government agents in the movies or on TV. Now, don’t ever bring this up again, or you’ll be in detention until you’re twenty-five.”
(See my post, “Zero Tolerance=Zero Intelligence,” 02-12-09, tagged “Culture of informers” and “Zero Tolerance.”)
Another prime example of the cleverness of the Left in shaping young minds was the original lesson plan for the President’s speech this week to schoolchildren. (See Mike Rosen’s article, “Big Brother in Schools, Obama’s speech was early indoctrination,” The Denver Post, 09-10-09, Page 11B. You can’t miss the Lefty cartoon right above the article and under the headline.) (See my posts under the Category “Media Bias.”)
The lesson plan I am talking about is the one that was formulated before the country found out what Obama’s minions had in mind. Suffering from the angry reaction to political indoctrination in the original outline, the Administration’s education gurus removed the offending items.
What was so insidious about the original lesson plan? There were two subtle psychological ploys at work. The plan called for the students to write a paper describing how Obama’s speech had “inspired” them. The psychological kicker here is the implied assumption that the individual student had been “inspired” by Obama’s speech. What do you suppose would have happened had a student written that he or she had not been “inspired” by the President’s speech? I suspect there would have been a serious “discussion” between Teacher and student.
The expectation of the Educational Establishment, of powerful adults in charge of discipline, grading, promotion, and even continued attendance in school, would have obviously been that students would have been “inspired.” Kids aren’t stupid. They know what is expected of them and they have some idea of what is going to happen, if they don’t meet expectations.
The vast majority of students, even those who didn’t agree with, or who didn’t know anything about the President’s policies or agendas, would have felt pressured to write something positive about Obama’s “inspirational” speech. Teachers would have no doubt prompted the younger students with “suggestions” about how the speech “might” have inspired them, if the students couldn’t come up with an “appropriate” response.
The second ploy is a subliminal psychological technique bordering on hypnosis. “Write yourself a letter telling yourself how you can “help the President.” This bit of mental manipulation reminds me of a slick insurance salesman I encountered a few years ago, shortly after I completed a comprehensive course in unconscious communication techniques.
The salesman ran about eleven subliminal sales techniques on me that night in my apartment. These strategies were designed to influence me outside the awareness of my conscious mind. The verbal pattern that I still remember from his presentation is essentially a post hypnotic suggestion.
“Mark, when you need insurance, I want you to say to yourself, “Call John.” (The names have been changed to protect the guilty.) “John” had some rapport with me. I considered him to be an authority. There would have been a pretty good chance that when I needed insurance, I would say to myself, “Call John;” especially if I didn’t know the game he was playing. (No. I didn’t buy insurance, but then, I understood the game.)
If I am a child in a school run by adults who have a great deal of power over me, there is a high probability that I am going to internalize their message, presented as part of an “official” lesson plan, “How can I help the President?” Help the President do what? Get reelected? Meet his partisan political goals? Socialize medicine? Support gun control?
Enter our old friends “Cognitive Consonance” and “Cognitive Dissonance.” These are psychological terms. They have to do with the way a person organizes his or her mental world. They basically mean that ideas that agree with my view of reality are easy for me to accept and that ideas that don’t correspond to my worldview make me nervous. I will tend to embrace compatible ideas and reject or dismiss contrary information. (See my posts under the Category, “Psychology.”)
There is also what I call an “investment component” in the “Consonance” and “Dissonance” paradigm. The more of my time and effort that I put into the support of an idea, the harder it is for me to change my mind about it.
A personal example: I have put over a thousand hours in passing out Second Amendment literature at gun shows and other functions. If I were to change my mind and embrace the concept that the American People should be disarmed for their own good, I would be faced with a situation in which I had “wasted” a significant portion of my life on the “wrong” side of the issue. That would be a gut-wrenching psychological experience that would have a profound effect on my psychological landscape.
David Horowitz, author of Left Illusions and The Shadow Party, co-authored with Richard Poe, went through such a transformation following the murder of his friend Betty Van Patter by a Black Panther group in California. (Horowitz was an important leader in the New Left and an outspoken and effective critic of the U.S. war effort in Vietnam.) Horowitz went to other members of the American Left and Anti-war Movements to urge a cessation of support for the Panthers. He was told, in effect, by his “friends” that the injustices of the evil Capitalist System sometimes forced “oppressed people” to commits acts like murder. It took Horowitz years to explore his belief system and reorient his thinking to his current position that the Socialist and “Progressive” Movements are nihilistic and morally bankrupt. (See pages 85-90 in Left Illusions, Spence Publishing Company, Dallas, Texas, 2003, for his initial reaction to the killing of his friend.)
Forcing vulnerable school children to write how the President “inspires” them and forcing them to write letters to themselves as to how they can “help” the President create experiences that become building blocks of cognitive consonance. “I wrote the paper that ‘said’ that I was inspired. How can I now not be inspired by Obama?” “I wrote myself a letter about how I can ‘help’ the President. How can I not do everything I can to help him?”
It would take a measure of psychological sophistication that I believe is far beyond the grasp of most school children to say to themselves something like the following. “OK. I don’t agree with, or I don’t know about what the President is up to, but the teacher said I’ve got to do the writing assignments. I’ll do them, but I’ll make up my own mind regarding what I think about the President’s plans.”
You’ll notice that I slipped in a psychological jab in the phrase “…what the President is up to,…” By using that language, instead of saying something like “what the President wants,…” I am implying that there is a covert motive behind Obama’s actions. The ability to use unconscious communication cuts both ways, but I’m not afraid of an honest debate in the marketplace of ideas. Beware of people who don’t show you the man behind the curtain of Mainstream Media adulation and obfuscation. (There I go again!)
By the way, the same dynamic is operational in the Pledge of Allegiance, The National Anthem, God Bless America, America the Beautiful, and the oath of office taken by every American government official and military person. It was in the loyalty oaths to America rejected by Left-wing teachers in the 1950’s during the so-called “Red Scare.” The more that you say you will do something, the more likely you are to do it. Failure to follow through conjures up personal internal images of untruthfulness, weakness, and indecision.
I don’t want to see myself as a liar, a weakling, or indecisive. I am likely to continue to think and act in consonance with my previous oral and written statements and behaviors.
The difference between the oath of office and a pledge to the President, is that the oath of office is a vow to “…protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.” The pledge to the President, is, well, a pledge to Obama. I do not believe that forcing such a commitment to the support of one individual is an appropriate exercise of power for the educational system of a democratic republic.
The sin committed by those who would have school children, in effect, pledge allegiance to one man, is not that they were successful, but that they tried to succeed.
Def Mech
Comments
2 Comments so far
I feel that this story is a classic example of the narrow minded thinking that is ruining this country. I am a liberal. But I am against gun control. I am not the only one like this.
The generalist reasoning and the categorization of liberals as gun haters just because a lot of liberals also are in favor of gun control demonstrates the second class thinking that has taken over this country and sent us down the path of despotism.
You don’t have to be against guns in order to support gay rights, equal opportunity, unions, abortion rights, and the separation of church and state.
Quite the contrary, supporting increased despotism and abandoning reason and rule of law, to enable increased surveillance on citizens exercising their constitutional right to keep and bear arms, supports tyranny, stat-ism, and will inevitably work at cross purposes to the goal of fair and equal protection for all.
[...] Another prime example of the cleverness of the Left in shaping young minds was the original lesson plan for the President’s speech this week to schoolchildren. (See Mike Rosen’s article, “Big Brother in Schools, Obama’s speech was early … The more of my time and effort that I put into the support of an idea, the harder it is for me to change my mind about it. A personal example: I have put over a thousand hours in passing out Second Amendment literature at gun shows and …Next Page [...]