In the ’80s, the movie “Ghostbusters” popularized the circle-with-a-slash insignia, and it soon became the poster symbol for everything from “No Nukes” to “No Boom Boxes.” Our fondness for icons quickly infiltrated the fiercest debate of the decade: abortion. The “No” symbol was promptly slapped over pictures of coat hangers and gynecologists alike.
Nothing in this exchange of imagery, however, was quite as effective as pictures of children, portrayed in their innocence, siding with one camp or the other. Whenever a child’s likeness was framed in a newspaper photograph or evening news clip, that side successfully scored some capital in the epic battle.
It was common for parents to bring their children along to abortion demonstrations, which were typically hosted by church and political action groups. From there, the children naturally joined in the protests.
I never felt coerced to participate as a child. In fact, after listening to the debriefings at the staging sites, I always felt I fully understood what I was demonstrating about (which, of course, I did not).
My first time in front of a television camera was as a young boy, marching up Lincoln Street in one such demonstration. Just by being there, I emblematized everything about my side’s beliefs.
You can imagine my disappointment while watching TV that evening to see kids demonstrating over abortion – for the opposing side, at a separate march. Zounds!
To a child, the answer seemed simple: Next time, show up with more kids. It didn’t matter that I wouldn’t be eligible for a voting card for another nine years. This fight wasn’t over yet and, darn it, we were gonna go down swingin’. So it went, year after year.
As I matured, struggling to come to terms with my own opinions on abortion, what bothered me most were memories of kids on opposing sides meting out the agendas of adults who had drawn up the battle plans.
How many of those kids were now rethinking their beliefs, too? How many had already switched sides? By then, I was too old to be anyone’s protest-poster child, but I had not forgotten I had once been in front of the cameras, too.
I became so disgusted at the sight of more protest-poster kids, during my senior year in high school I even drafted a bill for our mock Congress that would have outlawed the presence of children in political demonstrations. Finally realizing my bill would never pass the free-speech test, I never presented it on the Senate floor.
Now I turn on the TV and see a resurrection of protest-poster children, this time trying to get me to agree with their parents’ views on marriage rights. As in the abortion debate, the unstated rules stipulate the children be prominently featured, enjoying the happy lives their parents have chosen for them. Above all, the kids must be photogenic.
I wonder if we’ll ever learn anything about not hiding behind images of children when publicizing our own viewpoints. Children are non-consensual products of adult choices, for better or for worse. Merely by being, they are neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the adult agendas in question.
You won’t see a broken family pictured in any of this propaganda. The object is to present a patently idealized portrait of what each side wants you to believe will come as a result of your endorsement of its viewpoints.
In the picture-perfect poster-world, despair, abuse, infidelity, deceit, rage, estrangement, divorce and abandonment are dutifully swept under the rug.
I realize that asking, “Can we leave the kids out of this?” is hopelessly rhetorical. Neither do I believe my soap-boxing for a cultural attitude change will amount to a hill of beans. It just seems that the more dialogue that occurs, the further the exploitation spreads.
But maybe some people will give a second thought to seeing children put on public display. Perhaps new social decorum will at least spur the thought of placing the “No” sign over the words “Adult-Agenda-Driven-Child-Protesters.”
That would say plenty.
Joel Hughes (hughes.joel@gmail.com) is a financial analyst in Littleton.
