Kate Pitrone at Postmodern Conservative criticizes the Obama for America campaign’s creepy “Future Children Project” ad in a post provocatively titled “Child Abuse.” Jonah Goldberg makes a similar judgment, writing that the ad constitutes “soft abuse of children.”
Pitrone and Goldberg would seem to believe that having one’s children appear in a political ad for a particular candidate constitutes, or at least resembles, child abuse. Now, this shows a lack of consideration of what child abuse actually looks like (harm, potential harm, or the threat of harm to children, per the CDC), but it also raises some deeper questions: Is it child abuse to allow or encourage one’s child to pray the Our Father? Say the creed? Pledge allegiance? Do any or all of the above on national TV or in a web ad?
Some European jurists already view raising children with Christian moral views as potentially abusive, while elsewhere the ancient religious practice of circumcision is being relabeled “molestation.” We need not agree that Christ is Lord, that God keeps his covenant with the Jewish people—or, for that matter, that Obama should be reelected—to recognize that raising one’s children according to these views, even encouraging them to proclaim them publicly, is nothing resembling abuse.
October 29th, 2012 | 11:48 am
Some European jurists already view raising children with Christian moral views as potentially abusive . . . .
The issue of how parents raise their own children and what moral views they impart to them is different from the issue of which individuals or couples are selected by the state to be foster parents.
October 29th, 2012 | 12:17 pm
Did Pitrone or Goldberg call for laws to prohibit the use of children in this manner? That would indeed be worth a critical blog post.
I think they were simply expressing their belief that the use of children in this ad is more than a little creepy.
October 29th, 2012 | 1:10 pm
And while we’re at it to characterize the message of this video as simply stating that: “Obama should be reelected” (The President’s name is nowhere referenced, nor any of his policies) is, well, something of a misleading stretch in itself. I urge folks to read the lyrics and decide for yourself if that’s all that is depicted here.
Finally, comparing this commercial (with it’s absurdly propagandist and patently false rhetoric) to the positively held religious and moral commitments of parents is an exercise both mildly insulting and a failure to make the (legitimate) distinction between instruction and indoctrination.
October 29th, 2012 | 1:14 pm
My title was sarcasm, Mr. Schmitz, pure political sarcasm. I appreciate your earnestness and your defense of parental liberty.
October 29th, 2012 | 2:28 pm
If abuse means “the wrongful use of,” then using bone’s children in this manner (as opposed to merely imparting a set of views and values) is arguably abusive: children ought not to be used as props.
But if anyone used the word and meant it seriously, it was a poor choice, because it invites this kind of comparison with molestation and beating.
October 29th, 2012 | 3:07 pm
I am waiting for a song that refers to the 16+ trillion dollar national debt that these kids will have to pay off . . . We add $4 billion each day to this debt. But let’s keep singing about polar bears….
October 29th, 2012 | 5:29 pm
I see these kids running rampant in Whole Food stores whenever I stop in for a fix of fancy food. Adorable and yet a little spooky. Like Children of the Corn with a political edge.
Anyone who is not sure if this is supposed to be in support of Romney or Obama needs to get out more.
October 29th, 2012 | 11:36 pm
anthony esolen would remind us that children these days know next to nothing about whales, except that they “should be saved.” creepy indeed.
“children of the corn with a political edge” — brilliantly true, ms. rogers.
October 30th, 2012 | 6:27 am
I suppose I could have used the title Children Used, but these children are being used to pronounce a set of political messages that they cannot understand. Raising up a child in the way he should go is laudable. That’s not what is happening here. These children are mouthing political ideas they don’t understand yet because their clear, high sweet voices pierce our hearts. Yet most of what they are saying is nonsense and they are being used to add a pathetic and poignant note to the campaign.
Using a child as object is at the root of true child abuse, as well. These children are being used, as well, but I grant it is not the same. We could have an argument of the beard about this; at what point does using a child constitute abuse? Children are used as object in advertising and entertainment of all sorts. Sometimes we are amused, but sometimes … you don’t find Honey Boo Boo appalling? This relates, but so does Shirley Temple and she survived her use.
The abuse here is of the idea or meme of “the child as moral preceptor” and that term soft abuse works for me. You can put anything in the mouths of babes and the anything is not always good and true. When it is good and true, well, good. If you cannot tell the difference…God help you.
Here, more (though older) children begging for adult consideration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuCaWYvpVZg
October 30th, 2012 | 1:19 pm
My first thought when I saw this — after “You’ve got to be KIDDING me!” was, “Who would let his kid be in this commercial?” The awful poetry is a crime by itself.
October 30th, 2012 | 6:36 pm
Creepy and Stalinist, yes. Child abuse? Not so much. I think it’s more of an abuse to the audience.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact