The Mommy Party?

Full disclosure: I was an oddly political child. I canvassed my fellow kindergartners to vote for Gerald Ford in our 1976 presidential mock election because I was convinced that my dad, who worked for Ford Motor Company, was employed by the incumbent. In 1980, I managed the mock re-election campaign of my fellow Southern Baptist Jimmy Carter at my elementary school. He lost. Badly. I cried. I got over it.

But, again, I was the exception. Apparently, not anymore.

Now there's a new genre of children's literature designed to catechize youngsters in "party values." Political activist Jeremy Zilber has written a new book for children, Why Mommy Is a Democrat. The book features cute pictures of a cuddly maternal squirrel teaching her little ones why "Democratic values" are best. "Democrats make sure we all share our toys, just like Mommy does," the book notes. "Democrats make sure we are all safe, just like Mommy does."

The book promo assures us that it uses "warm and non-judgmental language" but with "numerous subtle (and not-so-subtle) swipes at the Bush Administration and the Republican Party."

I'm all for educating our kids, including in our political philosophies. My two sons, adopted from a Russian orphanage when they were infants, know that Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan brought down the Evil Empire. They can sing along with the School House Rock version of the "Shot Heard 'Round the World" and the preamble to the Constitution. They know Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert E. Lee, and they know why Daddy admires each of them.

Still, I find this kind of humorless political propaganda for the kindergarten set a bit scary. It's not "Uncle Joe" Stalin surrounded by smiling children, mind you, but, even so, it's a bit strange. And I would say the same thing about a GOP version: "Republicans protect us from terrorists and evildoers, just like Daddy does." In fact, the conservative versions already exits: think Fox News spin-caster Bill O'Reilly's children's book. Can Ann Coulter for Preschoolers be far behind?

At first I couldn't put a finger on my discomfort with this until I realized: it's Sunday school material. In Red and Blue America, we've so privatized our religious convictions ("We're going to let Johnny choose whether or not he goes to church, and which one") that all we have left is our political identities. And so much separates us now that it really matters why Mommy is a Democrat or why Daddy is a Republican, or vice-versa.

I suppose such children's books and radio programs and television shows will only continue. Intentionally catechized Christian little ones may seem stranger and stranger as hyper-partisan America raises up its children in the nurture and admonition of Caesar. 

Comments

[Drew C.]

There already is an equally over-the-top conservative series:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0976726904/

No, these won't be in our daughter's Christmas stocking any time soon. Trying to raise a child to be a faithful Christian is hard enough; I feel no compulsion to turn out a mini-Pelosi or a mini-Coulter as well. (Although I have to admit DeBrecht's titles did elicit a chuckle.)

[Daniel C]

OK, you don't like children's books that promote a particular political or ideological theme. What should parents do when they want to find alternatives to the infamous Heather has "Two Mommies", "Why Mommy's a Democrat", "Daddy's Roommate", "It's Just a Plant" or "One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads" after these books have been given to their children at school?

I'm guessing that you think they should find good Christian children's books. I would agree with that. But your post and Drew C's response strikes me as nothing more than "a pox on both your houses" attitude, which I have never appreciated.

I don't like the fact that politics has supplanted religion as many people's raison d'etre. But I also think that the conservative worldview is more in line with Christian principles than is a liberal one. So what's wrong with "Help, Mom, There are Liberals Under My Bed"? Isn't it a good thing that there are alternatives parents can ask for at Barnes & Noble or Borders when those store's shelves are filled with books like "King & King"?

Instead of berating pathetic attempts by Zilder et al at politicizing our children we should go out and create alternatives. DeBrecht is an allie in what Moore is condemning, not an adversary.

O'Reilly on the other hand ... ;)

[Judy Warner]

There already are alternatives. All good children's literature stands as a reproach to books like Why Mommy Is a Democrat, etc. Good children's literature helps to form a child's world view, imagination, and character. A reading of Grimms' Fairy Tales will go a long way to cleansing a child's mind of Heather Has Two Mommies. Laura Ingalls Wilder learned not that her daddy was of any political persuasion, but that he was her protector and provider even in the most difficult circumstances. There are so many wonderful books for children that even if these political books weren't poisonous they would be guilty of wasting a child's time with drivel when he could be occupied with good quality stuff.

[Tony Esolen]

When you think you've seen it all ...

I'm with Judy; give your children real literature -- and let their imaginations grow. Real literature has that funny servant's access towards the truth, even if it is sometimes mixed up with things that are mixed up. The Wind in the Willows, Stuart Little, Treasure Island, The Hobbit, Watership Down ... and if you really want literature of a more moral/didactic mode, without getting vulgarly partisan about it, there are cartloads of books written for boys, or for girls, from 100 years ago.

[GL]

The sample pages are simply laughable: I wonder why the publisher didn't show the pages that read:

"Democrats defend the right of mothers to kill their babies, just like mommy does."

or

"Democrats favor high taxes so that mothers need to work two jobs to make ends meet and are never home to read to their children, just like mommy does."

I guess I'll have to buy the book or visit the library to see those pages. ;-)

[Daniel C.]

I know when I'm licked. Judy and Prof. Esolen are spot on referring to the classics for good children's books. How could I have forgotten that I grew up with The Wind in the Willows and The Hobbit? And, of course, Grimm's Fairy Tales are much more than source material for hack Hollywood screenwriters.

[Daniel C.]

Many of those classic children's stories have been collected by William F. Buckley Jr. in a two volume set titled "National Review's Treasury of Classic Children's Literature". Somehow I don't expect to see the same thing coming from The Nation or The Progressive.

[John Hetman]

Most children are pretty shrewd at picking up on blatant propaganda--first of all, it is utterly boring and tedious. The children's classics always appeal to them in part because of the innate genius within them. I read to my kids nightly when they were young, and I chose the books with an ear toward both language and imagination.

This kind of tripe would have caused them to regurgitate. It is Stalininism-lite--and has the same appeal as the pc diets--rather tofuesque.

[Juli]

Oh, dear - the National Review collection, eh? Sounds like pretty standard fare, but of course it's easy to make money by assembling "collections" of material already readily available and in the public domain. Of course, this also includes (drum roll...) William F. Buckley's "own and only children's story" ...

I'm a *huge* proponent and advocate for the best of children's literature, but I prefer to encounter them on their own terms, not packaged into politically correct collections. As to "Why Mommy is a Democrat," this also belongs in the category of banal didactic "children's" books really designed to appeal to adults.

[Judy Warner]

There's nothing political about the National Review collection. It's got pieces by Jack London, Lewis Carroll, Rudyard Kipling, Mark Twain, Thorton W. Burgess, Palmer Cox, and others, according to a review on Amazon. I'm not going to buy it for the grandchildren, though, because I'm not crazy about excerpts, and it seems to contain a number of these; I prefer to read the whole book. (Though for people not familiar with some of the authors, it seems a good sampler.) I did buy The National Review Treasury of Classic Bedtime Stories, which is a collection of Thornton W. Burgess's tales of talking animals. The children love it. If you've never read Burgess, his animals are great characters and the stories are good reads as well as imparting some moral lessons. My grandchildren are 5, 6, and 8, and they all like the stories.

[Joe Long]

More dangerous, I think, than the outright propaganda, is the subtle flavoring of much current kiddie lit...seems like two or three subversive revisions of fairy tales for every traditional one, and continuous reinforcement of key components of a poisonous worldview. The thrust seems to be the need to question paradigms the kids aren't even familiar with yet, and the result - raw confusion.

And check the juvenile biography section of your local library...I went looking for Captain John Smith and found several bios of Will Smith (and nada on the Jamestown colony leader). Has Will Smith even been in ANY movies gradeschoolers are even supposed to be able to see...? Juvenile bios celebrate mediocrity to an alarming extent - and ought to be culled more frequently: I found one on that outstanding role model, O.J. Simpson, complete with a photo with his (first) wife and a quote describing how, without the positive influence of football, he might well have continued down a path of deliquency. Good thing that was averted, anyway.

[Tony Esolen]

The reason why conservatives can compile half-decent anthologies of literature (though there usually is no need for such compilations), is that, if they're true to what they say are their convictions, they understand that the most important things in life simply cannot be reduced to politics. Or better: how ugly and repulsive it would be even to try to do that. The whole question makes me want to take a shower.

Many years ago, a favorite aunt of mine gave my small daughter a politically correct revision of Cinderella. It was awful -- not just in itself, but in its dogged debunking of the whole dimension of the spirit. It was as if you could invade the Fairy Land that Tolkien talks about everywhere (I'm thinking of Smith of Wootton Major) and reduce everything to plebiscites and demonstrations. Hmm -- rather like what a lot of college English professors do, as I see from the latest crop of candidates to come to my campus looking for a job.

[Juli]

Many years ago, a favorite aunt of mine gave my small daughter a politically correct revision of Cinderella. It was awful -- not just in itself, but in its dogged debunking of the whole dimension of the spirit.

Sounds sort of like the wooden-headed way some people approach Bible stories - or likeThe Christian Mother Goose

Every religious and political affilation seems to attract some who are utterly lacking in (and even distrustful of) humor or imagination. As parents, they tend to be the ones who worry that catholic reading habits will corrupt their children.

[Joe Long]

On "The Christian Mother Goose": Ack! Ugh! (Pure aesthetic judgement there...I can't see beyond my anti-saccharine, pro-good-writing prejudices to gauge the worth of the content.)

You know, if I REALLY wanted to brainwash my kids to share my exact perceptions, I'd GET them the tritest Politically Correct stuff - with which familiarity would surely breed contempt. I would rather they see the representations of the opposition most worth engaging and arguing with, though.