Mr. Finiti’s recent thoughts on the use of children as political props got me thinking…and remembering.
Over the years as a union activist I often found myself working with a group planning an informational picket line, protest, or demonstration. Often these involved education employees, but not always.
Whatever the group or issue, someone was sure to suggest that we ask parents to bring along their children. They would also suggest that we invite the students from our classes to attend. The idea was that prominently displayed children would humanize our position, and by implication demonize our opponents as anti-child. Most of all, it would attract the newspaper photographers and TV cameramen looking for an interesting shots. (The media people were almost always friendly to our causes, and worked with us to get the most sympathetic images possible.)
That would always (if I were in the room, anyway) trigger a mini-debate on the legitimacy or cynicism of such tactics. Many would defend the children-front-and-center approach, arguing that it the children would certainly agree with us if they could understand the issues. Others would claim it as a parental right. But most would argue that the children were the whole point, since we as an education employee organization were naturally motivated by the interests of the children.
Others would counter that our role as trustees of other people’s children should forbid us to enlist them into what were in fact adult conflicts. Others would cite the dust-covered “Code of Teacher Ethics”.
Where I could veto the idea, I would. But where majority voted, I was sometimes overruled. Elsewhere it might never have been questioned.
And so the photo-op demonstrations flourished. Cute 2-year olds in strollers would hold up signs reading “Don’t Cut My Mommy’s Pay”, while 5-year olds waved posters reading “Don’t Close My School” or “Vote NO on Proposition X.” The kids usually smiled because it was an exciting spectacle, and people would smile at them. But it is an ugly thing to do, if you think about it.
When I see a demonstration with children, especially if they are holding signs or expressing opinions they cannot understand, I know I am watching the work of cynical, self-serving adults who treat children as pawns on their private chessboards.
I realize that enlistment of child protesters is not as bad as drafting child soldiers, as happens in some benighted corners of the globe. But it is a lot worse than adults being willing to stand up on their own and hold their own signs and fight their own fights.
I know it wouldn’t pass, but I’d like to see some legislature somewhere consider an act criminalizing the use of children as political props.
Or maybe some Fair Labor Standards Board could declare it to be child labor and require that they ought to be paid minimum wage.
Iran Wants To Negotiate…Again
Published January 5, 2013 Iran 1 CommentTags: Commentary, Hagel, isolationism, Israel, Jonathan Tobin, Mearsheimer, Obama, Pat Buchanan, Rope-a-dope, Walt
I see that Iran is putting out peace-talk feelers again. Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator has stated the regime’s willingness to reopen discussions with the US and Europe over Iran’s fast-track Manhattan project. For Iran, this can only mean three things. First, sanctions are hurting. Second, their bomb development needs more time. And third, they think Obama will stupidly fall for this “Rope-a-Dope” routine again.
They may be wrong about Obama. He may not be the sucker they think he is. He may be something much worse: a co-conspirator.
In the words of Jonathan Tobin in a well-titled Commentary article “Down the Garden Path with Iran Again” ,
This is a terrible thing to consider. The successor to Harry Truman and John Kennedy selling out our closest and most faithful ally, the only freedom-loving, democratic state in a region seething with fanatical haters of America? An American president siding with an apocalyptic regime as anti-Semitic as Hitler’s, against a nation willing to live in peace with its neighbors?
It is hard to believe. But how else to explain the President even considering putting Chuck Hagel in charge of the free world’s defense? Hagel, an anti-Israel, Iran-appeasing politician of the pure Pat Buchanan, Walt-Mearsheimer breed, as Secretary of Defense?
The president is clearly an isolationist, who believes that the main reason we have enemies is because we have bad friends. Left isolationists believe that we are imperialists, who cause damage whenever we use force. Hagel is of the right isolationists, believing that our “friends” are just using us for suckers. The difference is one of rhetoric, not of result.
(Hypothetical question: Is it possible to be an isolationist today without blaming our problems on Israel and abandoning them to deal with their sea of enemies alone?)
As for Iran, Israel, and Obama, we must wait (not long) to see what happens. If Obama accepts a new round of Iranian talks, or if he nominates Hagel for Defense Secretary, then Israel will know beyond a doubt that it will have to deal with Iran alone. Once again, the Zionist truth will be proven: no one but a Jewish state will defend Jews.