I have two older school-age children, and I'm a teacher of long experience as well. I know a little about presidential happenings popping up in non-social studies classes (I vividly remember trying to discuss poetry with my first-hour 7th graders the day after Bill Clinton's infamous "I did NOT..." speech). I know a lot about parents’ rights regarding their children--from both viewpoints--as well.

Both as a parent and as an educator, I like practically anyone encouraging kids to stay in school and work hard to reach their dreams. A convicted felon urging kids to avoid his fate is a good example of what NOT to do and how to avoid it. A store clerk, wishing aloud she'd stayed in school and telling how her choices changed her life can be powerful. A president is a fine example as well, whatever political stripe, though it must be said: most presidents are grown in rarified environments quite unlike any child I ever taught, including Obama, with his unusual travels and ivy-league education.

A president encouraging school kids to stay in school can be positive.   In this case, some people seem all too eager to take on faith that Obama’s "just" telling kids to work hard and stay in school.  Others seem eager to assume the worst. Both are despicable in my opinion, for their refusal to proceed with due caution. Each type of person is choosing to pre-judge based on what they hope or what they fear, respectively. For myself and my children, I’m looking for the bigger picture.

My reason is simple: history. The original lesson plans were unsettling, especially when coupled with the "I Pledge" video circulating and in which various celebrities pledge to be a "servant of Barack Obama." (Whether this is an “officially sanctioned” video or just some hyper pro-Obama effort by celebrities I have not yet ferreted out. Search for it on youtube and watch it yourself.)

The phrase "cult of personality" immediately sprang to mind and a  warning klaxon sounded in my mind.  If you haven't been in school for a while, you might think only of the song by Living Colour from the late '80s. It's actually a pretty good musical analysis of the concept  (viewable here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ5SVDYBNrY), especially the bit about "only YOU can set me free."  (Warning: It's LOUD.)

For those in offices where grinding rock music and soaring guitar riffs might attract unwelcome attention, here's a quieter explanation (lifted from a thoroughly readable wikipedia entry of that title, if you'd like to know more): "A cult of personality arises when a country's leader uses mass media  to create an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise."

Public opinion holds sway in this White House like never before, so the good news is that current plans for grades k-6 and 7-12  (available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/My-Education-My-Future/) are better, more general, less fawning over Obama himself. As of this writing, they’re now more focused on what should be the point, which is kids setting and reaching goals, no matter who’s the current, short-term president of the United States of America, or who's going to hold the office next, again for a short time. (The continued use of the word "inspire" in the current high school versiondoes rankle a bit still, but a quick substitution of "encourage" would eliminate the flavor of inciting hero worship.)

If you're still not sure why a cult of personality would raise my hackles, I'll explain. It’s this second line of that wikipedia definition that is basis of my unquiet. It says, "Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships and Stalitist governments."  There have been ultimately harmless cults of personality, such as Jack Kennedy's, which was frozen at his death into some kind of memorial ice scupture called Camelot. But others were not so innocuous, of course. Think Imperial China, Japan's emperors until WW2, Kim Il-Sung, Pol-Pot, Stalin, Mussolini, and yes, Hilter.  Lots of them, all over the world, all through history...too many times to pretend it ain't so and it doesn' t happen and it couldn't happen here. (If you don't know the stories of each of these regimes, please look them up, and pay special attention to the early days.)

For clarity, I'll say this: I'm not saying this is what Obama IS doing. I am merely refusing to rule it out as impossible.

If you've never wondered about how somebody as inherently and obviously evil as Hitler or Pol-Pot got total control of a country and its children, please do so now. Surely you don't honestly think the Cambodians or the Germans were just all stupid? Or that past iterations of the phenomenon began with parents happily turning their children over to the tyrant in question to be indoctrinated? Or with the leader urging schoolchildren to turn their parents into the secret police right off the bat?

Of course not;  none of these was widely the case. The campaigns began subtly. "Wholesome" activities. Sports clubs. Scholarly competitions. After-school clubs with cute little matching uniforms. Friendly speeches. Inspirational portraits and quotes hung in school rooms and eventually on street corners. I can just see the parents scratching their heads, sensing that something was not quite right but convincing themselves on each occasion with the query, "Well, after all, what could be the harm in that?"

Sadly, most parents were probably initially delighted and even impressed on some level that the leader in question was taking note of mere children, echoing the parents' own encouragements to do well, and providing kids with a role model to follow, keeping them busy. By the time the parents of the children in these governments had got the denial wiped out of the corners of their eyes and realized what was actually happening, their children were stolen out from under them, indoctrinated, alienated from their families, wholly loyal to the object of mass worship,  living weapons of the State. (It is worth noting that there was tremendous public pressure to acquiesce, to go along to get along, in each of these cases. Do any of you who are trying to quash any and all dissent see yourself?!)

So I'm just cautious...and not without justification. I'm convinced that it's okay  and ever preferable to be wary of any  president, but most especially one who's proudly surrounded himself by "former" extremists and radicals and who is, in fact, a radical himself. It's also okay to be wary of a president for whom "cowboy" seems to be an apt sobriquet.  Or one who goes down in history as a liar or even one who's remembered as a saint. (Allow here me to assure those who have precious little other recourse than to scream "hater" or "racist"  that my caution is not based on any hatred of  blacks or ivy-league educated people or democrats or northerners or westerners or of tall people or people with big ears or people with better basketball skills than mine or whatever other hot-button you can push. Move along.)

The considerable literature and history I've both read and taught warn me that it's important to look for the bigger picture and not accept any elected official's motives or actions merely at face value. The constitution doesn't require me (or you) to worship Obama or any other president, past for future. It doesn't prohibit me (or you) questioning his actions or doubting his motives, nor am I forbidden the right to voice my doubts aloud in public. Neither am I suddenly  disallowed the right to take peaceful, legal action based on my point of view.

Newsflash: we do not have kings, nor do we want them. We allow a fellow citizen lead us for a short time. He or she does not have the assumption of infallibility or purity of motive conferred upon them during the swearing-in ceremony.  Omniscience or omnipotence do not figure into the job description, even implicitly.

The constitution--surely THE standard for patriotism--doesn't call me "un-American" for evaluating Mr. Obama on his every word and action and associate, so why should my fellow citizens?  Thanks to that constitution (long may it stand), I gave up no rights and no freedoms when Barack Obama became president. I can still think for myself and apply both the history I've read and the history I've lived. I can still ask questions and demand (or hope for) transparent answers.

And sometime before next Tuesday, I can talk about all of this with my two young teens and ask them what they think and what they want to do about it. My children are still MY children, not wards nor implements of the State. If, as the Living Colour song says, only we the people can set free the cult of personality, I must for my part politely decline to do so, and ask it to stay confined within the pages of history, thanks anyway. I hope you will choose to decline as well.

I'll leave you with I hope will be food for thought, in the form another quote from the wikipedia article I reference. It's one that, if you're honest with yourself, should give you pause to stop and think whether your genuine admiration for a man might be keeping you from giving fair consideration to an historical precedent, matting your eyes from discerning any bigger pictures on the horizon:

"Generally, personality cults are most common in regimes with totalitarianism systems of government, that seek to radically alter or transform society according to (supposedly) revolutionary  new ideas. Often, a single leader becomes associated with this revolutionary transformation, and comes to be treated as a benevolent 'guide' for the nation, without whom the transformation to a better future cannot occur. This has been generally the justification for personality cults that arose in totalitarian societies of the 20th century, such as those of Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler."