The consequences of a presidential address to eighth-graders

Recently, Pres. Obama announced he would be addressing students returning to school from their summer break. Spokespeople said that the president wanted to address students in a general manner in order to encourage their education. For reasons which are unclear, some people reacted by inventing a sinister motivation, then objecting to the speech under their false pretense.

The idea that Pres. Obama was attempting to indoctrinate America's youth with his rhetoric should be labeled exactly what it is: a terrible false accusation. I agree, however, that any time someone constructs a speech, they indicate and must refer to their philosophy. This is what made reviewing Pres. George H. W. Bush's address to the eighth grade class at Alice Deal Jr. High School, back in 1991 terribly enlightening.

Though overall it was clear Bush's message was meant to be inspirational, his worldview (and the worldview of the majority of the voting public) set clear boundaries and definitions for success that were out of touch with the way our country was growing.

The roughly 15 minute speech (available at http://www.cspan.org/Watch/Media/2009/09/04/HP/A/22807/US+Presidents+Address+Students.aspx ) paints a picture of the president's expectation. His stated goal in his direction of efforts was a 90% graduation rate by 2000. He attempted to make the students responsible for reaching his expectation by defining success. According to Pres. Bush, if you go to school, get good grades, and graduate college, you'll have fulfilled your dreams and be successful. Your life will be better than those goof-offs who “chicken out” and let the “bad people” take over schools... all of whom end up with “dead-end jobs” and/or on drugs, and “running the streets.”

President Bush said, “if someone goofs off today, are they cool? Are they still cool years from now when they're stuck in some dead-end job?” The idea behind this question indicates the conservative philosophy that constructs unrealistic ideas of success. Bush estimates that success is the balance between only two dynamics. In other words, the president divided the children into “winners” and “losers,” which begs the question of his own attempt at indoctrination: Is it correct to assume a “winners” and “losers” posture about the lives of a generation? I have neither won, nor lost, and I do not live my life as though I must live up to some one's expectation of a “winner.” We all have our experiences, and living through tough times is not an example of us being “losers.”

Bush's decree that being a dropout is equal to failing at life leaves no room for the reality of life in the 21st century. I suggest that it is not we who failed President Bush in his attempt to see a 90% graduation rate, but rather his philosophy did not lend itself to the realities of life outside what he was willing to experience or understand. Meaning, his ideological standard wasn't in touch with the direction the world was going to go.

It is in this time that we must make more earnest efforts to view things the way that they actually are. We must make progress in a fashion that makes sense for the future. We should set realistic goals for the future, and strive to achieve them over time, rather than dictate to everyone the wishes of a few of us.

In-depth experience and the ability to translate this experience in a manner which sufficiently demonstrates the aspects of it, will serve to aid the consciousness of humanity. All aspects may be made available to the individual, who may judge the value of a potential experience absent of prohibitive opinion, which may lack credibility or merit due to ignorance of experiential data. Attempting to limit the curiosity of a potential experience by demonstrating percieved character flaws within the individuals who partake in an activity, rather than addressing the merits of the experience itself, is ineffective and misguided. This means that it is inappropriate for someone to tell someone else that some action is "wrong" if they have neither experience in the matter, nor logical understanding of it.

Bush spoke about dead-end jobs and drug users as loathsome parcels of an intolerable existence. Now that these terms are regular aspects of the American lexicon, it appears the former president was either less than motivational, or insufficient in his direction.

We are forced to deal with people of all walks of life. Molding the nation into one ideologial box is not realistic. A strategy for the peaceful existence of all people must consider the characteristics and sensibilities of all people. Some find solace in the ways of the past, while others look to newer or more diverse ways of life. Neither philosophy is wrong, so it would behoove us to stop trying to vanquish either one.