Grads Hear from Preachy President

Grads Hear from Preachy President
Marybeth Hicks
Wednesday, May 05, 2010

Last Saturday, President Obama delivered one of four commencement addresses he will give this spring, but rather than inspire the new graduates of the University of Michigan to envision and embark on their own versions of the American dream, Mr. Obama offered a puzzling and preachy message on his version of civics.

Speaking at the "Big House," U of M's famed football stadium, the president instructed the 8,500 graduates and roughly 70,000 spectators in "Democracy 101." The edited version: Government is good.

Even Michigan grads didn't necessarily appreciate his remarks, and that's saying something. The school's student newspaper, the Michigan Daily, ran this headline: "Graduates offer mixed reviews of Obama's speech."

Full disclosure: I went to the school up the road. The one with Sparty. And Tom Izzo. And the National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory.

Where I live, one gets used to a certain intellectual superiority emanating from Ann Arbor. I imagine it's a feeling similar to the smugness some schools have about always going to the NCAA men's basketball tournament rather than crossing fingers to reach the NIT — it's just a given. But I digress.

So forgive me if I'm unimpressed that the University of Michigan (I cannot bring myself to capitalize the word "the") was able to convince yet another sitting president to speak at its commencement ceremony. Mr. Obama is the fourth to do so in the past 50 years.

Beyond mere graduation speeches, presidents have come to the campus of U of M to unveil major initiatives (the Peace Corps, the Great Society) as well as to offer in-depth explanations of policy.

But not this president. In fact, one graduate noted that his speech seemed to be a recycled version of the talk he gave a year ago at Notre Dame University. Another was quoted as saying, "It didn't seem to have anything to do with us," meaning the graduating class of 2010.

Indeed. U of M's graduates, as well as thousands more who attended Michigan's 50 other public and private colleges and universities, face a 14.1 percent unemployment rate in the state. "Brain drain" has reached epic proportions. The state's 15 public universities serve 300,000 students, nearly half of whom will leave the state after earning their degrees.

Some of the people with the best chance of rescuing this state were sitting in the seats in front of their president on Saturday afternoon. Talk about an opportunity.

He could have encouraged them to pursue their personal goals for success and achievement right here in a state that desperately needs their talents. He could have inspired them to become a new generation of businessmen and women who could re-create the state's dismal economy and save its dying cities. He should have invited them to make Michigan a laboratory for new thinking and new solutions that would let them reach their individual goals. He ought to have said, "Go for your dreams and take this state with you on your ride to success."

Instead he said this: "So, class of 2010, what we should be asking is not whether we need 'big government' or a 'small government,' but how we can create a smarter and better government."

There's your answer, graduates. Go work for the government.

Mostly, Mr. Obama lectured his audience under the guise of the question: "How will you keep our democracy going?" This is a question he posed just after telling the story of Benjamin Franklin being asked, "Well, Doctor, what have we got — a republic or a monarchy?' And Franklin gave an answer that's been quoted for ages: He said, 'A republic, if you can keep it.' If you can keep it."

Even at Michigan, they know that the words "democracy" and "republic" are not interchangeable.

Other gems for the grads: Don't use words like "socialist" to describe the government's growing usurpation of personal freedom. It's uncivil to say things like that.

And participate. You don't necessarily have to run for office, but get involved. (Read: Be ready to pay hefty taxes. That's a great way to participate.)

It's no wonder the next generation seems cynical. On the day on which they might be the most able to imagine that they could reach their loftiest personal dreams and most ambitious goals, they were asked to "contribute part of your life to the life of this country."

Time for the real world, I guess.
__________________________________________

The President's Michigan Speech
Cal Thomas
Thursday, May 06, 2010

President Obama has returned to a theme he used effectively during the 2008 campaign: politics is too divisive; name-calling isn't helpful; labeling people doesn't solve problems.

In his commencement address to University of Michigan graduates last Saturday, the president said, "We've got politicians calling each other all sorts of unflattering names. Pundits and talking heads shout at each other. The media tends to play up every hint of conflict, because it makes for a sexier story -- which means anyone interested in getting coverage feels compelled to make the most outrageous comments."

All true. In our 2008 book, "Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That Is Destroying America," Democrat Bob Beckel and I say the same thing. The difference is that we -- in our personal appearances and in our biweekly USA Today column -- actually try to find solutions to problems. We often compromise, though not on our principles.

Part of the reason for the intense dislike of this president by some on the right is their belief that he used a longing among the public for civil discourse to get elected, but then quickly abandoned that laudable goal in pursuit of what is arguably the most radical left agenda in the history of our nation.

Here, the words of the late John Mitchell, Richard Nixon's disgraced attorney general, seem appropriate. In the midst of the growing Watergate scandal, Mitchell advised the press, "Watch what we do, not what we say."

The same standard should be applied to the Obama administration. The president talks a great game about civility, the corrosive language of politics and the self-absorbed media that promotes conflict, not solutions. But President Obama's policies and behavior and the people who populate his administration suggest he isn't serious. Many in his administration are radical leftists.

Don't take my word for it. Perform a simple Google search by typing "Obama's radical czars." Read their backgrounds. Van Jones, Obama's former "green czar," was an admitted communist. Mark Lloyd, the president's "diversity czar" at the Federal Communications Commission, admires Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.

One of the president's earliest political mentors was the late Frank Marshall Davis. Is it uncivil to point that out and to ask what influence Davis' activism still has on the president's policies? The backgrounds of other Obama associates, including Bill Ayers and Rev. Jeremiah Wright, are better known.

Harold Koh is a high-ranking legal adviser in the State Department and an advocate of "transnational jurisprudence," which supersedes nationalist laws and, according to the National Review, "assumes America's political and economic interdependence with other nations operating within the international legal system." In other words, America isn't special and should be on the level of every other nation. Koh was also reported by the Web site Jihad Watch to have advocated the use of Sharia law in appropriate cases inside the United States.

Does it coarsen political dialogue to mention that people hired by the Obama administration hold radical views that might not be in the best interests of the United States?

If this president were really committed to easing the tension and poisoned rhetoric in our politics, he could start by fulfilling a promise to reduce the number of abortions in America. He has said he wants to do so, but has done nothing yet to make it happen. To many conservatives -- especially social conservatives -- abortion remains the most important issue. Without passing a law, or a Supreme Court decision, the president could reduce abortions by advocating that more information, especially sonogram pictures, be placed in the hands of pregnant women so their "choice" will be fully informed.

On this one issue, the president would have the full support of the pro-life community. Politically, he would do himself much good, while simultaneously diffusing one of the most contentious issues since the Vietnam War.

Doing so would mean he is serious in what he says. Perhaps it's better to listen less, and instead take John Mitchell's advice and watch what he does.