Using Children as Political Props, Harmful or helpful to children's health?

[pasayten]

Friends of the Pool - Twisp

There are many misunderstandings and misconceptions in our community right now regarding the pool and proposition 1. We understand that, and hope this video,and others, can help clarify things for you. Thank you for watching.
One common misconception is that voting yes for proposition 1 is a vote for a $20 million dollar, fancy facility.
This is FALSE.
Voting for proposition 1 does two things. It creates leadership and funding for public swimming in the Methow Valley.
Vote YES on prop 1.

What? Proposition 1 is a vote for a Metropolitan Park District that could build a $5, 10, 20, 50 million dollar facility if it wanted. Even throw in a gym and climbing wall...

Their ad "Vote for a pool, Vote yes on Proposition 1" is the false statement. There are many other funding methods to build a pool without a permanent Metropolitan Park District. You can vote no and we can still build a pool. One with voter input.

A healthy Methow Valley with the MAC
Friends of the Pool - Twisp

Did you know that swimming is one of the best exercises for your body and mind? By supporting Proposition 1 and the MAC, we're not only creating a new year-around pool for our community, but we're also supporting a healthier and happier Methow Valley! Let's make a splash and vote YES on Proposition 1 this fall!

Hmmm... Year round? Sounds like a $20 million dollar facility to me...

[Fun CH]

Seems FOTP has "cleaned up" there website... all posts and comments deleted that were political in nature... even the ones with kids.

Sept 8th now most recent post. No mention of Proposition 1.

But not their facebook. I'm guessing that they had no idea that using children in their political ads was st the very least an ethical violation.

I've been talking about this "its for the children" political advertising for awhile now, but thats because my degree and intetest is in social psychology where I studied many aspects of human behavior including ethics and morality. I publically write about it in part to keep my own behavoir in check.

When you do public land advocacy like I've done for many years, it can become a moral dilemma between any harm that I may do to individuals versus the harm they are doing to the environment and/or the safety of others.

Here I blanked out the children being used for FOP political advertising. But that ad was still up moments ago. And I have a capture of the original.

children under the age of 14 are not to be involved in political communications under any circumstances."

[pasayten]

Seems FOTP has "cleaned up" there website... all posts and comments deleted that were political in nature... even the ones with kids.

Sept 8th now most recent post. No mention of Proposition 1.

[Fun CH]

"children under the age of 14 are not to be involved in political communications under any circumstances."


https://childhub.org/en/child-protectio ... r-campaign

"THE MINIMUM RULES FOR CHILDREN’S RIGHTS IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS:

A child cannot be a tool to achieve political goals.
A child’s participation cannot be decided by adults.
Active involvement of a child supposes that they are of a certain age and of adequate maturity; children under the age of 14 are not to be involved in political communications under any circumstances.
Do not use children as decorations: children are considered a decoration if they are not present because of their knowledge or opinion, but merely because they are children, and this fact in the given situation is making the event or the actions of the politician appear in a positive light.
Children are not the target audience of political campaigns.
The manipulation of children is forbidden. The direct—by the school or parents—and indirect influence of children in order to reach political goals, such as winning votes, is strictly forbidden.
Kindergartens and schools are no place for party politics.
Politicians should not visit educational establishments during campaign periods; at other times they should only accept invitations if it is for the support of public education, and if they do not use this to propagate their political actions.
Politicians should not send any gifts to children, their parents, or those working in public education, or offer any other advantages, except if it is anonymous and cannot be connected to them.
Politicians should not accept gifts or greetings from children, educational or public care organisations, parents or public educational institutions.
Politicians should not take photos with children, and should not support the public use of these images. Every occasion when a politician meets a child and is publicly photographed is considered a campaign action and entails the imposition of a fine.

[Fun CH]

A friend told me that the FOP is now using children in advertising to support the formation of a Metropolitan Park District. I haven't heard the ads but I assume they are voicing support for a new pool playground. What child won't want a new playground? I would. And don't worry kids, a new pool or rehabing the Wagner pool has wide Community Support, but not the way the FOP is trying to do it.

This opens up a new field of research for me to study. Is using children as a prop to garner votes for a political issue harmful to a child's mental health?

We know that targeting children with ads focused on body image certainly does do harm. But what about the FOP using children to support their own political cause? And lets face it, the FOP went from a community support group to a political organization.

If children truey understood the negative impacts that regressive taxes have on low income and fixed people, including senior citizens and families with children trying to establish a foothold in this Valley, would they still support a 21 million playground? I would hope not.However, that's not a level of political understanding that I would burden them with at this stage of their lives.

I would also hope that any parent would not use their child in this way to support their own political self gain as they willfully ignor the effects that regressive taxes impose on others with less monetary resources.

Here are some quotes from one opinion;

https://thedailycougar.com/2017/02/08/p ... cal-props/

"Politicians should not use children as political props
By Jorden Smith February 8, 2017

The “think of the children” tactic has gone way too far at this point. Any politician who does this should be disregarded | Tamor Khan/The Cougar

Politicians love to make you feel with them.

They want you to be blasted with the same emotions that they are purportedly feeling. And to do this, politicians parade children in front of audiences to evoke the “think of the children” thoughts that so permeate today’s political rhetoric."

It is the lowest form of persuasion. And it needs to stop, now."

"They’re not arguing the facts; they’re arguing emotion."

"The “think of the children” tactic has gone way too far at this point. It’s used at every turn to make people feel, not to actually think."

"When a politician uses this argument, it is ultimately because they have nothing else to say; all their other arguments have been defeated by logic or it’s just easier to use emotion."


Further reading

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... DzKbOnwNWc

https://www.educationnext.org/kids-political-props/

https://www.american.edu/media/news/202 ... issues.cfm