On November 14, 1988 as a matter of fact, in a speech that was broadcast live via C-Span to classrooms all over the country:
In the early afternoon hours of November 14, 1988, President Reagan, seated in the White House State Dining Room, proclaimed that he was “particularly pleased to be talking to American students” and then added ”a special hello to those of you who are watching on C-Span.”
You can read the entire text of the event here.
What’s more interesting is that the speech, and the question-and-answer period that followed, which touched on subject areas that weren’t exactly innocuous:
Q. My name is Cameron Fitzhugh, and I’m from St. Agnes School in Alexandria, Virginia. I was wondering if you think that it’s possible to decrease the national debt without raising the taxes of the public?
The President. I do. That’s a big argument that’s going on in government. And I definitely believe it is because one of the principal reasons that we were able to get the economy back on track and create those new jobs and all was we cut the taxes. We reduced them because, you see, the taxes can be such a penalty on people that there’s no incentive for them to prosper and earn more and so forth because they have to give so much to the Government. And what we have found is that at the lower rates the Government gets more revenue. There are more people paying taxes because there are more people with jobs. And there are more people willing to earn more money because they get to keep a bigger share of it.
So, today, we’re getting more revenue at the lower rates than we were at the higher. And you know something, I studied economics in college when I was young, and I learned there about a man named ibn-Khaldun, who lived 1,200 years ago in Egypt. And 1,200 years ago, he said, “In the beginning of the empire, the rates were low. The tax rates were low, but the revenue was great.” He said, “In the end of the empire, when the empire was collapsing, the rates were great, and the revenue was low.” So — all right.
(…)
Q. My name is Crystal Adair, and I’m an eighth grader attending Jefferson Junior High School. And my question is: Mr. President, for past years, the educational opportunities for blacks and other minorities has not been — there hasn’t been a great deal of them. And I want to know, during your term in office, what have you done to increase those educational opportunities for us?
The President. Well, we have vastly increased the amount of Federal money that is going into education, although remember that education has always been in the province of the State and the local communities. So, the share of cost of education is not as great for the Federal Government, but we have increased it. We’ve increased the money that is available for scholarships and for workfare programs for students that have to work their way through, as I did, and also for loan funds for students.
I can assure you that, with regard to any hint of discrimination, we have done more than any other generation — or administration, I should say, to punish those who attempt to discriminate and to make sure that the opportunities are equal for all. And one of the great things that our administration did when we came in here was immediately turn on to helping something that I think is historically wonderful in our country, and that is the Negro private colleges and universities. And in fact, we helped one of them out that was facing bankruptcy, and bailed it out so that now they are proceeding in a better situation than they’ve had in the past. But those opportunities are there.
(…)
Q. My name is Chris Allen. I’m from Poolesville Junior-Senior High School. I was just wondering what you and Mrs. Reagan feel about the new gun ban law.
The President. What we feel about the new — –
Q. Gun ban law.
The President. The gun — –
Q. Ban.
The President. Gun ban? Well, I think there has to be some control. But I thought that in California we had a system that probably was the best. I have never felt that we should, for the law-abiding citizens, take the gun away from them and make it impossible to have one. I think the wrong people will always find a way to get one. But what we had was — even if today when I go back to California, if I want a gun and go in a store to buy a gun, I have to give them the money, but I have to wait a week, no matter who I am. I have to wait a week and come back then to get the gun, because in that week, my name is presented to investigative element there in the State that checks to make sure that I have no criminal record, that I have no record of mental problems or anything of the kind. Then, and only then, can you pick up the gun and take it with you.
One thing’s for sure, if Obama goes into policy the way the way The Gipper did, the right will go absolutely insane.
[...] as Doug Mataconis points out, this is hardly new. Why, Ronald Reagan himself gave such as speech. So did both [...]
Really? How do you know? Do you have an advance copy of the speech?
I just want to get this right: you savage Conservatives for criticizing this move even though they don’t know exactly what he’ll say, but expect him to act to form, and you also insult Reagan by calling him “Obama-like”?!?!?
Amazing.
Wow, James Young, you’re an moron. Are you proud of yourself for being a big giant hypocrite?
To answer the question: YES, conservatives that have a problem with the President giving a speech to school children deserve to be “savaged,” as you put it, and ridiculed for unadulterated idiocy. Liberals that did the same over Reagan’s speech, of GHW Bush’s speech deserve the same.
If you have a problem with it, it is you that is the insulting jerk, not those that realize what all normal, even reasonably intellegent people understand: if the President wants to talk to the school children, there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it’s a good thing.
Get over yourself.
[...] of note, on November 14, 1988, president Reagan gave a live speech to America’s classrooms that included a Q&A session during which he offered up his [...]
I find it amazing that people are missing the real problem: the sense of segregation that our children will see demonstrated in a time when we need to be more unified.
As polarized as our society has become since the beginning of the Iraq War (OIF), the last thing we need to teach our school children is further polarization. Consider these issues:
1. Most people’s political opinions are deeply rooted.
2. Many people distrust politicians, from either party.
3. Parents who distrust any person, place or thing will instinctively prevent their children from having contact with those situations wherein the child will have contact with that which they distrust.
3. No matter what the President says, those who distrust him will fear their children having any direct contact with the President.
4. Those parents who distrust the President will prevent their children from viewing his message.
5. All children will notice the division/segregation/polarization or whatever you want to call it.
Thus I propose that people’s innate tendencies as parents to protect their children, founded or unfounded, will inevitably create segregation as a result of these trying political times. To me this seems like a step backwards from the civil rights victories of the sixties.
Perhaps the address to schoolchildren could be aired after school hours so that parents won’t feel threatened and schoolchildren will not be exposed to this inevitable polarization.
I pity those previously naive children who, after this speech, question the difference between them and their close friend who might be in a different place during the speech because of their parent’s concerns and who now become cognizant of the differences rather than the similarities between them and their peers.
Preserving the innocence of our children vs demonstrating the biases of our parents I think is the real issue and not easily resolved. Unfortunately, everyone is focusing on the wrong problem (parent’s fears) that can’t be solved overnight. Moving the address to after school hours where families can choose to view or not to view would be more effective in disguising parent’s biases, and a much easier solution or concession in order to advance unity rather than produce segregation.
It’s no one’s fault, it’s human nature(a parent’s instinct to protect their children from “perceived” danger).
I think asking the kids to write a letter to President Obama is genius because it is a very powerful technique to better understand what is going on in the mind of children and to assess their needs (psychology 101). These dissenting parents are not …interested in the needs of their children, they are only interested in their own selfish politically charged needs which projected onto their children. And any education is good education.
As a Hispanic, I believe that President Obama serves as an important symbol of hard work and perseverance for many young children of color (if not all children). The fact that the speech also might include a section where our President urges children to assist him succeed is a perfectly legitimate request. President Kennedy asked a generation of Americans to become engaged in their government and under his leadership we reached the moon.
I want our children to be inspired to reach for the stars. It is parents who would insert negativity (aka politics) in the manner in which their children would receive this call to action.
This is a very sad state of affairs for our country.
VIDEO of President REAGAN INDOCTRINATING Students in Conservative Values, Supply-Side Economics and Christianity
Icannot find info on the release of Reagans or Bushs speech
to be preveiwed by the country before they were given