Of old, First Ladies often undertook “tasks” that were, uhm, somewhat less than major policy events. For instance, President Lyndon Johnson’s wife (Lady Bird) took on the beautification of America by pushing for the removal of billboards from the side of interstates and many other roads. For those of you old enough, you may remember with Father Orthoduck a time when it was possible for a car to be on an Interstate, lose control, and crash into a billboard at the side of the road. Or you may remember when it was possible to drive down past certain scenic areas of the country and not be able to easily see them for the interfering billboards. Lady Bird Johnson helped to change that.
In the same way, President George W. Bush’s wife (Laura) took on literacy. Laura Bush, as a librarian, championed the reading of books and good quality education for children. It was actually in support of his wife that President Bush was with a group of children when the horror of 9/11 happened.
Generally, people smile politely whenever the subject of a President’s wife’s pet project comes up. This is because they are generally considered to be somewhat harmless and safe projects. It is true that these projects often become the basis of some late night humor, but even the humor tends to be toned down, and not overly “attack-oriented.” That is, First Lady projects are not normally considered to be the stuff of violent political disagreement.
Well, that is, until this Presidency. First Lady Michelle Obama has taken on what one would think would be the rather non-controversial subject of getting children to eat more balanced meals and exercise more. Statistics consistently show that both children and adults are increasingly overweight in this country. But, for the radical right, anything that is said by anyone in the Obama administration is proof that socialism is taking over. And so, the cartoon above. While satiric, it does catch this particular dynamic.
Father Orthoduck would remind those old enough to remember that breast-feeding your child, and even having your child at home rather than in a hospital WERE POSITIONS STRONGLY SUPPORTED BY MANY THEOLOGICALLY CONSERVATIVE GROUPS in the 1980’s. Father Orthoduck can remember conservative couples in those days trying to find hospitals with birthing chairs, rather than beds, or with child-bearing suites separate from the regular hospital, or even trying to find mid-wives who would deliver your child at home. This was also a time when many theologically conservative mothers insisted on breastfeeding for months, and joined with some very politically liberal moms to change societal attitudes to allow breastfeeding in public. It was also during those times, and linked with that, that a strong home-schooling movement began. All of this went together.
Well, all of this went together until First Lady Michelle Obama came out in favor of breastfeeding. Now one would think that Karl Marx had invented breastfeeding, rather than it being part of God’s Creation. Michelle Obama grew up during the period of the change to a positive attitude towards breastfeeding. It is now recommended medical practice. But, no, somehow the “grizzly moms” have managed to twist that in their minds to the government trying to take over their breasts and forcing you to become a milk machine. It rather strains the imagination, but then so much of what the radical right does will do that to you.
Lest you think Father Orthoduck is exaggerating, below is part of but one of the reports, this one from the Washington Post:
It began with a modest remark during a roundtable discussion with reporters: First lady Michelle Obama said she supports making it easier for mothers to breast-feed their babies, because “kids who are breast-fed longer have a lower tendency to be obese.”
Within days, the sentence – and a new Internal Revenue Service policy offering tax deductions for breast pumps – had touched off a political firestorm. Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) blasted the Obama administration for trying to impose a “nanny state” on mothers. Another potential 2012 presidential candidate, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin (R), mockingly said the first lady was trying to compensate for high milk prices. …
The discussion has both riveted and dismayed those involved in the breast-feeding issue. “We all expect this – we all know the Republicans and Democrats have their differences,” sighed Marsha Walker, a registered nurse who is executive director of the National Alliance for Breastfeeding Advocacy.
Referring to Bachmann, Walker said: “It’s not that she’s against breast-feeding. It’s that she’s using it as a vehicle of attack. And it’s unfortunate, because breast-feeding isn’t a political entity. It’s a public-health entity that doesn’t deserve to be used as political leverage.”
Of course, it went on from there to criticizing even the idea of encouraging the eating of more vegetables and less processed food. This is not exactly radical. It is what the medical establishment has been recommending for decades. But, no, the grizzly moms somehow saw socialism in that as well. It took some significant twisting to find a government plot to take over in this, but the grizzly moms managed it.
Father Orthoduck has gotten to the point that he wishes in a most un-Christian fashion that the third possibility mentioned in the cartoon above would come to pass.
The term “radical right” refers in part to “anti communist organizations. Such as your “radical” mother who fought and freed us from having to live in a communist state and country. I for one am proud to be part of the “radical right”. Other than that lets not forget that this is America and we all have the right to disagree with arrogant political administrations and those that attempt to take away our freedoms. Actually, your blogs standing up for every little thing that the Obamaminator and the Mrs. do is starting to seriously disappoint me. I always look forward to reading your christian or funny blogs. Then you ruin it by doing one like this.
Interesting that you should mention this, Senora Obregon.
In Germany after the Second World War, a coalition of center-RIGHT, largely Roman Catholic Christian Democrats (not the Social Dems), British Labour Party folks, and American New Dealers, including radical leftists such as General Dwight Eisenhower, created a rather unique economic system, one that is certainly free, but one that is also economically JUST and which, being also sustainable, has largely avoided the economic implosion the rest of the world has experienced over the past few years.
This economic system was created for several reasons, one big one being that the Soviet Communists and their comrades in Germany could have easily exploited the postwar chaos and social injustice to come to power and create a Leninist state in western Germany, even as was done in the eastern part, under direct Soviet occupation. You can read more about the German economic system at the link below, in a review I wrote of a book called “Were You Born on the Wrong Continent?”. After you read my review, I would strongly urge you, and everyone else, to obtain and read the book itself.
http://vagantepriest.blogspot.com/2010/09/labor-day-2010-op-ed-piece-and-book.html
But all of that is preface to the following: had the Batista regime in Cuba not been what it was, Fidel and company would never have been able to come to power in the first place. Leninism is often described as “a cure that is worse than the disease” and so it is. However, this saying admits that there is, in fact, a disease present to begin with.
Mr. Obama and his administration have disappointed me, but not because they are too far left. If things continue as they are, the United States is going to look more and more like the Cuba of the 1950’s and that will only make it more likely, not less, that a homegrown Fidel (or conversely, an American Allende) will come to power. I for one do not want that, and I’m sure that you don’t either.
Father Orthoduck, you are not alone in your wishful thinking. Perhaps the nutjobs in the Radical Right should take to heart the words of another Republican, Abraham Lincoln:
“It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”
Here’s a quote to explain also:
“It’s not a conspiracy. It’s not that we’re doing this for a political reason to go after the president,” added first term Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett. “We have fundamental disagreements. We have different perspectives.”
America…land of the free…and we want to keep it that way.
I know you miss me! lol Muah!
The problem that I have is that the radical right has decided that President Obama is either a Socialist or a Marxist. And, the radical right has decided that there is a national attempt to take away their rights. Anyone who disagrees is at best misguided, or at worst a fellow-traveler.
Any other opinion means that a person is in unqualified support of President Obama and is in favor of tyranny, a word which the radical right keeps using for any law with which they disagree. More than that, any criticism of the radical right means that the person is trying to suppress freedom of speech by the right. But, having consistently falsely called President Obama a socialist, having held up signs that show him as Hitler, the radical right is incredibly thin-skinned when it comes to any criticism about their policies.
More than that, please note that if anyone dares to say that any law passed by the radical right is wrong and violates constitutional rights, such as some of the Arizona laws, the radical right is quick to claim that they are not engaging in their own tyranny, but are somehow defending the rule of law (even though the rule of law by people who are not of the radical right is tyranny).
This is the world of Alice in Wonderland in which the radical right lives. They deny the rule of law when legally elected representatives pass laws with which they disagree. They deny tyranny when they pass laws with which others disagree. Only others engage in tyranny; only they engage in democracy. It is no wonder that workable compromises have not been possible thus far (think Wisconsin).
“It’s not a conspiracy. It’s not that we’re doing this for a political reason to go after the president,” added first term Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett. “We have fundamental disagreements. We have different perspectives.” disagreeing with the president? You didnt see me blogging or writing on facebook everytime people disagreed with the presidents I voted for. Me thinks you need to look in the mirror.
I find your comments amusing since you are the one that is constantly ranting about every little thing if anyone days anything when it comes to the president or Mrs. It happens with all presidents, not just this one. And he is the most liberal president in office that Ive known in my lifetime. And no, hes not perfect. I do remember yours and others rants about Bush. Vehement at that.I guess its okay for lefties. Me thinks you need to look in the mirror.
“MOST LIBERAL PRESIDENT” that you’ve known in your lifetime? You were born -when?
In some ways, Richard Nixon was more “liberal” than Mr. Obama has shown himself to be. Nixon, for example, created the Environmental Protection Agency and OSHA. He also started the Food Stamp program. And LBJ? The Civil Rights Act? The War on Poverty? If hadn’t been for the war in Vietnam…
Heck, even Ike accepted the New Deal as a done deal…
On the “conservative-liberal” scale, Obama ranks very close to Bill Clinton, both near the center. The only real difference? Skin color.
Well, some of Bill Clinton’s supporters DID call him “The First Black President”…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1028888/Vatican-plea-uncover-Virgin-Mary-breast-feeding-baby-Jesus.html
We’ll just have to agree to disagree. It would appear that you and my brother are a little “radical” when it comes to him. 🙂