This week, right-wing pundit and leader of the 'beat your children' movement, Dr. James Dobson, accused Sen. Barack Obama of committing violence against Biblical teachings.
Despite Dobson being a best-selling self-help guru famous for advising parents to whip their children with sticks, every mainstream media outlet somehow managed to overlook this fact. Instead, media coverage of Dobson's remarks stripped him of any and all potential controversy with respect to his views on parenting and child beating, describing him instead with the vague and anodyne term 'Evangelical.'
True -- Dobson is a leading voice of sorts amongst some Evangelical Christians. Still, the question the media should be posing to the public is not about his religion, but about his violent views of parenting: Should a man who pushes parents to use pain to train their children have a prominent place in the 2008 presidental election or American politics at all?
Uh, no. It is high time that Americans of all political and religious persuasions looked Dr. James Dobson in the eye and said, "Leave us alone."
Americans do not believe that the the judicious application of pain is the key to good parenting.
In fact, Dobson's passionate belief that parents should beat their children as a way of showing their love for them is so disturbing to Americans that one wonders why a violence obsessed media would choose not to report it -- if only for cynical reasons.
Consider this quote from Dobson's best-selling parenting self-help book Dare to Discipline in which Dobson recounts the fanciful "story" he used to tel his children to explain why beating them was a sign of love and what would happen to them if they did not submit to his authority:
"I knew of a little bird who was in his next with his mommy. The mommy bird went off to find some worms to eat, and she told the little bird not to get out of the nest while she was gone. But the little bird didn't mind her. He jumped out of the nest and fell to the ground where a big cat got him. When I tell you to mind me, it is because I know what is best for you, just as the mommy bird did with her baby bird. When I tell you to stay in the front yard, it's because I don't want you to run in the street and get hit by a car. I love you, and I don't want anything to happen to you. If you don't mind me, I'll have to spank you to help you remember how important it is. Do you understand?" (p. 23, The New Dare To Discipline)
The deception in Dobson's parable of the little bird eaten by a cat, of course, is that it seems to be saying that only bad kids get spanked. Not true. The more we read of Dare to Discipline, the more it becomes clear that all children must be beaten in Dobson's universe. One cannot raise a healthy child, according to Dobson, without at some point breaking the so-called natural rebelliousness of the child by beating them -- preferably with an object that causes sharp and memorable pain. The converse is also true: in Dobson's violent vision of America, there is no such thing as a healthy, well-adjusted child who does not have fond memories of their first welt from mommy's wooden spoon or daddy's belt. Dobson recalls his own first moment of truly understanding how important discipline was in a story about disrespect, his mother, and a wire girdle loaded with metal clips and straps:
The day I learned the importance of staying out of reach shines like a neon light in my mind. I made the costly mistake of sassing her when I was about four feet away. I knew I had crossed the line and wondered what she would do about it. It didn't take long to find out. Mom wheeled around to grab something with which to express her displeasure, and her hand landed on a girdle.
Those were the days when a girdle was lined with rivets and mysterious panels. She drew back and swung the abominable garment in my direction, and I can still hear it whistling through the air. The intended blow caught me across the chest, followed by a multitude of straps and buckles, wrapping themselves around my midsection. She gave me an entire thrashing with one blow! But from that day forward, I measured my words carefully when addressing my mother. I never spoke disrespectfully to her again, even when she was seventy-five years old. (p. 23-24, The New Dare To Discipline)
Now...when I read about Dobson scaring his kids into thinking they will be eaten by a cat if they do not heed his authority -- or read him wax romantically about his mom wounding his midsection with a mid-century girdle -- the absolute last question that pops into my head is, "What can I do to make this man an influential figure in U.S. politics?"
Egads, no. Show this guy the door.
Unfortunately, the media seems hell-bent on ignoring Dobson's beat-your-children dogma -- what is truly shocking about him as a public figure -- to focus instead on manufacturing yet another boring story about Christians who, supposedly, reject the candidacy of the Democratic nominee for President.
Beyond the fact that this is just lazy reporting, it is also inaccurate.
According to a February study of voting patterns amongst religious voters conducted by The Barna Group, Evangelical support for Republican over Democratic Presidential candidates might have been the story in past elections, but not this time. In the election of 2008, the big story is that voters who self-identify as 'Born Again' -- who make up a significant voting block in the Presidential race -- have swung decisively for Obama:
In 1992, born again voters sided with Republican incumbent George H.W. Bush over Democratic challenger Bill Clinton by a 39% to 35% margin. In the 1996 election, born again voters again sided with the Republican candidate (Bob Dole) rather than the incumbent Democratic President Bill Clinton by a 49% to 43% margin. In the 2000 election, the born again constituency gave Republican nominee George W. Bush a resounding 57% to 42% margin over Democratic challenger Al Gore. In 2004, the born again segment again sided with George W. Bush, giving him a lopsided 62% to 38% preference over Democratic hopeful John Kerry.In the past couple of elections, the born again vote represented about half of the total number of votes cast in the U.S. Given the razor thin margin of victory achieved by President Bush in 2000, and the close tally in 2004, the born again vote was vital in both of the Bush victories.
Compared to recent presidential elections, the current leanings of the born again constituency have reversed. The new Barna study shows that if the election were to be held today, 40% of all born again adults who are likely to vote in November would choose the Democratic candidate and just 29% would choose the Republican candidate. The remaining 28% are currently not sure whom they would choose, preferring to make their selection on the basis of the candidate than strictly on the basis of his or her party affiliation. ("Born Again Voters No Longer Favor Republican Candidates," Feb 4, 2008)
If this is the case -- if the big story this year is that born again votes support the Democratic candidate over the Republican candidate, and that this swing could be the decisive change from 2000, 2004, and 2006, one wonders why America's major news outlets are all trying to twist the Dobson story into some overblown clash of cultures between Christians and Obama.
Is the media ignorant of who James Dobson really is? Are they lazy? Are they bored?
I have no idea, but I can promise you this: if the media does stop this distortion of the Dobson story and start giving the public the information they really need to make good decisions in this election -- I suspect they will all be eaten by a big cat.
Follow Jeffrey Feldman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffreyFeldman
Obama "08
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/06/24/573/54203
*
it's as though certain folks want to keep the republican trolls busy defending the indefensible crap that the hypocritical "strong on family values," "strong on morals," republicans profess
it really bites when the rest of America wants to focus on reall issues such as McCain's flip-flopping
trying to get the main stream media to focus on McCains addlepated blatherings on topics such as sending America's nuclear waste to be disposed of in third world countries and all of the other idiotic blatherings that McCain spews
"Once, as Dobson writes in The New Strong-Willed Child, Jimbo (Dobson) provoked a fight between a pug bulldog and a “sweet, passive Scottie named Baby” by throwing a tennis ball toward Baby: “The bulldog went straight for Baby’s throat and hung on. It was an awful scene. Neighbors came running from everywhere as the Scottie screamed in terror. It took ten minutes and a garden hose for the adults to pry loose the bulldog’s grip. By then Baby was almost dead. He spent two weeks in the animal hospital, and I spent two weeks in the doghouse. I was hated by the entire town.”
"One evening, after Dobson’s mother forbid him from going to a dance, the recalcitrant teenager told her that he was going anyway; she picked up the telephone and called her husband. 'I need you,' she said.
"' What happened in the next few days shocked me down to my toes,' writes Dobson. His father canceled the next four years’ worth of speaking engagements, put the Oklahoma house up for sale, and took a pastor’s job in San Benito, Texas, a small town near the Mexican border."
Is it just me or are these people insane?
"Meanwhile, the boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger."
People who rail against homosexual behavior do so because thoughts of that behavior excite them and they are terrified that one day they will lose control and act out that excitement. It is a classic case of projection, i.e.; that which you hate is that which you secretly desire.
The same thing occurs with the "beat your kid" behavior. Dobson secretly gets off on torture (just like GWB does) so he seeks out dominate-aggressive behavior that is "socially acceptable" and then rationalizes the rest.
He has all the classic signs of a psychopath, torture of animals at a young age, an obsessive need to dominate others, delusional thinking. The fact that he is a self-hating gay man is just something the exacerbates his already twisted Psyche.
Most of the folks who have issues with the GLBT folks have a problem with some of them trying to seduce young adults into checking out the lifestyle (we call that "seduction" which has a particular temptation to inquisitive teenagers).
The "issues"part becomes especially acute when it is readily apparent that the GLBT folks are attempting to have this "lifestyle exploration" become a part of the public education system while at the same time driving out any of the ideologies that oppose seducing people to the GLBT lifestyle.
Both of them have helped me to understand (as well as my own mother who came up in a world where a switch was the appropriate answer to all offenses but spared me the abuse) that hitting is not the answer. A lot of love, understanding and communication goes a heck of a long way. Even though the Bible says spare the rod and spoil the child, like others quotes I do not believe it should be taken literally. Open your eyes, mind and give attention to what's important to them is a much better approach in the 21st century.
James Dobson: "When I returned I held up the belt and again told my angry dog to get into his bed. He stood his ground, so I gave him a firm swat across the rear end and he tried to bite the belt. The tiny dog and I had the most vicious fight ever staged between man and beast… I eventually got him to bed, but only because I outweighed him 200 to 12".
When I first heard the story of the Dobson attack on Obama last night James Dobson was described by the newsreader as an expert in parenting.
Here is a snipit from a website that puffs up his credentials:
"When asked "How long do you think a child should be allowed to cry after being punished? Is there a limit?" Dobson responded
:"Yes, I believe there should be a limit. As long as the tears represent a genuine release of emotion, they should be permitted to fall. But crying quickly changes from inner sobbing to an expression of protest... Real crying usually lasts two minutes or less but may continue for five. After that point, the child is merely complaining, and the change can be recognized in the tone and intensity of his voice. I would require him to stop the protest crying, usually by offering him a little more of whatever caused the original tears. In younger children, crying can easily be stopped by getting them interested in something else."
http://www.troubledwith.com/stellent/groups/public/%5C@fotf_troubledwith/documents/articles/twi_012701.cfm?channel=Parenting%20Children&topic=Discipline&sssct=Questions%20and%20Answers
I think he is a FREAK - his "Focus on the Money ---uh, I mean Family" is really Hocus Pocus.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
Third highlighted box from the top...
Second paragraph
First sentence
And I Quote:
"In the past couple of elections, the born again vote represented about half of the total number of votes cast in the U.S."
???!!!
Everyone who believes that it has EVER been true that anything like HALF OF THE TOTAL VOTES CAST IN THE US have been cast by people who self-identify as born again please raise their hands!
Let's start with Mr. Feldman.....is this something you believe to be accurate?
Sure, it's a blog....but are there to be absolutely NO standards for accuracy? Can just ANYTHING be printed as true and go unchallenged and uncorrected?
Outrageous! I'm curious to see if this comment will be posted....................................................tm
"..."That tiny dog and I had the most vicious fight ever staged between man and beast. I fought him up one wall and down the other, with both of us scratching and clawing and growling and swinging the belt."
"When I told Sigmund to leave his warm seat and go to bed, he flattened his ears and slowly turned his head toward me. He deliberately braced himself by placing one paw on the edge of the furry lid, then hunched his shoulders, raised his lips to reveal the molars on both sides, and uttered his most threatening growl. That was Siggie's way of saying. "Get lost!"
"I had seen this defiant mood before, and knew there was only one way to deal with it. The ONLY way to make Siggie obey is to threaten him with destruction. Nothing else works. I turned and went to my closet and got a small belt to help me 'reason' with Mr. Freud
DIDN’T MICHAEL VICK GET SENT TO JAIL FOR ANIMAL ABUSE
Someone call the cops and animal control!!
DOBSON IS A REPULSIVE, REPUGNANT, HYPOCRIT
I can only hope he/she does not think I DISAGREE on Dobson's repulsiveness, repugnance, or hypocrisy.
Thanx for your response....................er.................I think...............................tm
A classic specimen.
Am I right, profilers?