My eight-year-old son recently voted in an election at his elementary school that mirrored the vote American adults will make one week from today. And my David couldn't be more excited about it. I am less-than-excited about the results of this national Weekly Reader youth vote — Dubya Bush garnered 65 percent of the vote. The comfort is that older kids — meaning, more knowledgeable youngsters — voted against Bush. Younger kids, it seems, tend to vote for the incumbent as a reflex — his is the only name they recognize.
Not my son, who is often praised by his teachers for his strong commitment to and passion for social justice.
"Guess who I voted for, Mommy," he said, while tugging on my sleeve.
"Who, sweetie?" I asked.
"John Kerry and Sen. Barbara Mikulski!"
Neither would be my choice, but I put a smile on my face as I replied. "Oh, really? How come?"
"They're against Bush."
"Well, you need a better reason that that," I said.
David's face and tone grew serious as he gave his explanation: "They are Democrats. Democrats help poor people. Bush only helps the rich."
"If that is what you believe, it is a good reason for supporting them," I said. "Good for you. Are you a Democrat?"
"You bet! I would never, never, never be a Republican!"
"Me neither. But I'm not a Democrat either. I am an Independent."
"But you're liberal, right? I know you care about people," he said.
"Yes, that's true. I'm what they call a progressive Independent. That means I am against war and that I am for helping the poor and helping people in trouble."
"That's good, then," he said. "Mommy? I know you're not a Democrat, but is it OK if we put a Kerry bumper sticker on our car?"
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Mac Diva
Way to go, David Davis! Kerry is not my ideal candidate either, but I believe he is our best chance of getting Shrub planted elsewhere.
Natalie, the unelected incumbent is having a spot 'o' trouble with family members. Bushes have rejected Bush.
2 - Natalie Davis
Actually, David and I have different surnames.
3 - Eric Olsen
great post Nat, Lily has decided Bush "only cares about himself" as well, and is going with Kerry.
4 - Natalie Davis
Lily rocks, as do her parents.
5 - RedTard
I think the story speaks more to your own bias and slant than to the political curiosity of your child. In one paragraph you say that basically only an ignorant child would vote for Bush and in the next you feign surprise when David votes for Kerry instead.
I doubt seriously that the "Democrats help poor people. Bush only helps the rich." line of reasoning came from David's careful analysis of public policy. The more likely culprit is indoctrination at home.
6 - andy marsh
actually...I think it says more to why you have to be at least 18 to vote!
7 - RJ
LOL!
So your child has been essentially brainwashed into believing "cute" things like:
"They are Democrats. Democrats help poor people. Bush only helps the rich."
and
"I would never, never, never be a Republican!"
and
"But you're liberal, right? I know you care about people,"
Jesus...
8 - Trebz
The kid hit the nail on the head!
9 - bhw
Remember the "Thugs for Kerry" thread. The father in that story was applauded by the right for bringing his 4-year-old to a political rally and handing her a sign for the opponent. That tactic was touted as teaching his children about politics, etc., etc., etc.
So the Republican child is being handed down a valuable life lesson by her father, while Natalie's son is somehow being "brainwashed" by his mother, apparently because he's voicing liberal ideals.
So typical.
10 - Joe C
Here's whats "typical": When a republican does something stupid, crude, etc., other Republicans denounce it - just like the jerk who gave the kid a sign.
But when liberals do something stupid or mean, other liberals rally around them. Just like you are doing now.
That kid will be a republican one day!
11 - Natalie Davis
Stupid or mean? The "stupid" and "mean" comments -- particularly your intentionally hurtful one, Joe C -- come from right-wingers. No surprise there. All of you are in my prayers.
Of course David's parents' political bias comes into play here. We provide the child with most of his experiences and resources. BUT. The kid chooses to spend his time watching news and reading about issues, same as I did when I was his age. He loves that sort of thing. Some people are news junkies and naturally gravitate to that sort of thing. It happens.
Additonally, much of his time is spent volunteering in the social-justice/peace/Catholic Worker/Quaker field -- he has more than his folks as examples and mentors. Yeah, they are almost to a human (though not all) leftists, but do I want my kid around most right-wingers at such an impressionable age? Not if I can avoid it; as this thread indicates, many do not treat our kind with any semblance of decency. He will have to deal with that brand of unpleasantness as he gets older, but he is only eight now; it is my duty to protect him.
(That said, David does get the chance to hear opposing views: He listens to Rush and Hannity from time to time, in the interest of opposition research -- one must know and be able to counter what the other side says. For the record, he finds Rush hilarious and Hannity scary.)
And yeah, his being a Dem does surprise me -- being a liberal does not necessarily mean one is a Democrat. I'd hoped he would go Green or be an Independent like Mom. His labeling himself a Democrat doesn't please me; I am happy that he thinks. And yeah, I am elated that he can recognize the horror that is George W. Bush.
If one day David chooses to become a GOPster, I won't like it, but I will respect his decision. Two decades ago, I broke my own parents' hearts by making that very decision. Luckily, I wised up and fled that awful party after a couple of hellish, self-loathing years, though I will admit that what I learned -- the GOP is anything but grand -- was invaluable.
Knowing David, I am sure whatever adult choice he makes will be a seriously considered one and one that is his own. My son and I already differ on the issue of pacifism (he, like his other parent, is a pragmatic pacifist who believes in self-defense) and (unlike both his parents, though we do not attempt to dissuade him from this in any way) he is passionately in love with the USA, says the pledge to the cloth with pride, and waves his Stars and Stripes high and wide. (And he likes Usher and Yu-Gi-Oh, which I can not fathom.) But he can verbalize the reasons behind what he believes, and good for him. You have a problem with that? You want to call it "brainwashing"? Hey, you have the first amendment right to say whatever you want.
And by the way, if a child opts for the Shrub, it does not mean necessarily that the kid didn't think through her choice. Your accusation against me is bogus: I said that very young kids TEND to go for the incumbent because that is the most recognizable name. Makes sense in a world where too many people (and not just kids, sad to say) are woefully unaware of what is going on in the country or in the world and rarely pick up newspapers. It's an obvious truth, whether the incumbent is a Republican or Democrat. Certainly it is possible for a new-millennium Alex P. Keaton-type or right-wing prepubescent FOX news junkie to think through supporting Dubya. I'm just grateful my son's thought process didn't lead him to draw that -- IMO -- horrible, dangerous, inhumane, ungodly, un-American conclusion. 'Cause that kid would be so grounded. ;-)
12 - andy marsh
I'd say that the very young tend to go with the guy they hear their parents spewing the most good about...it has nothing to do with incumbents...it has everything to do with what he or she hears their parents or teachers or preachers talking about. I almost have to wonder how the kid even knew the incumbents name with his mother calling him the shrub. I can only imagine what you might have said to him if he had decided to support bush.
Maybe you could pull a jimmy carter and ask him about nuclear proliferation for me!
13 - bhw
I'd hoped he would go Green or be an Independent like Mom. His labeling himself a Democrat doesn't please me; I am happy that he thinks.
Natalie, he's only 8! Give him time, give him time! He's already light years ahead of the other kids his age in terms of his thirst for knowledge about politics.
14 - bhw
Here's whats "typical": When a republican does something stupid, crude, etc., other Republicans denounce it - just like the jerk who gave the kid a sign.
Well, that's a story. Sorry that it's really a fairy tale.
You'll notice that people on the left denounced both the father AND the idiots who took his daughter's sign. On the right, not so much. Their disapproval was just for the sign-takers.
But when liberals do something stupid or mean, other liberals rally around them. Just like you are doing now.
You bet I'm rallying around Natalie, even though she has done nothing stupid nor mean. The sheer IRONY of some comments just fucking kills me.
15 - Mac Diva
'Stupid and mean' for admiring a young child's development of insight and discernment? Watching them grow and learn is probably the best part of rearing kids.
And another member of the rudderless Right put down the photo album of a Kerry/Edwards rally I posted last week because it had children in it.
Why do I still associate with people like that?
16 - Eric Olsen
I don't think Nat has to defend this post or the political leanings of her 8 year-old - we all are a reflection of our parents, environment, peers, etc. Would you expect the 8 year-old of someone as politically and socially active (and idealistic) as Natalie to have opinions dramatically different from hers? Not everything is about politics.
17 - Big Time Patriot
"Democrats help poor people. Bush only helps the rich."
List me a few things that Bush has done for poor people while President. Continuing existing programs doesn't count. Bush has actively reduced taxes for Rich people, what has he actively done for poor people?
It's not just a "saying", it's a fact.
18 - Mac Diva
Caught that ball, BTP! George W. Bush helped the poor by creating more of them. Companionship, you know. (Wink.)
19 - RJ
"and (unlike both his parents, though we do not attempt to dissuade him from this in any way) he is passionately in love with the USA"
That says all I need to know...
20 - Roscoe
What has Bush done for the poor? Well
let's see. Oh yes, he lowered taxes on
the "rich".
If you can't divine the logic of that
you must have slept through Ec 101.
Poor Nat (the poor again?), she strayed
off the reservation. Must have been her
sophomore year at Yale. But she found her
way back after her Abu Graib experience.
Living with such a pair of self-congrat-ulatory sort of semi-libertarians sans
clue is bound to turn the poor (*) kid
into an insufferable prig. There is hope
tho, he will eventually escape and time
and a wide world will bring maturity.
21 - Hal Pawluk
The "cut taxes to improve the economy" theory only works if the tax cut money is spent immediately.
If Bush really wanted that to happen, he would have given the tax cut to the those at the bottom end of the income scale. They would have spent every penny.
Instead, he gave most of the money to the rich. They had no incentive to spend, and instead invested in China, India and other places where they could maximize their returns.
Economists have estimated that his tax cuts may have boosted the economy by 0.1%.
See Bush Seems to Have Broken the Jobs Machine for what that has done for the US.
22 - Natalie Davis
Thanks to Mr. Elliott and Mr. Roscoe for providing stellar examples showing the real necessity of protecting children from the right wing.
23 - Roscoe
The rich spend their money far more wisely than goverment can. They fund start up companies that provide employment. Even when the rich blow their
money it is better spent than the government can manage.
David will do just fine. He will survive
his upbringing. He will probably marry
some nice republican girl. When she doesn't turn into a werewolf at the rise
of a full moon he may begin to doubt all
that he has learned at his mothers knee.
24 - JR
The rich spend their money far more wisely than goverment can.
Tell it to M.C. Hammer.
25 - Sfc Ski
A lot of overreaction to Natalie, folks.
While her narrative was probably edited for brevity, in discussing politics with a 3rd grader, I really doubt David's reasoning was based on much more than the simplistic information he had heard. C'mon, the kid's 8 or 9 years old, by no means stupid, but in the process of gathering information and making decisions, still far from the full adult thinking processes that struggle to balance facts, assertions, biases, logic, fallacies, etc.
Some kids pin towels around their necks and think their Superman, some wear the at of their favorite sports team or athlete, years later they see pix of themselves and are reminded of being goofy kids, but they grow and change.
It is sad that the hyper politically charged atmosphere here, and so many other places turn an amusing kid's tale into another Blue-Red battleground.