Susan's Musings

Real Controversy

Forget Gingrich vs. Romney; forget the Keystone pipeline and recess appointments without a recess – a truly controversial issue recently reared its head again. I speak, of course, about sixteen year old Laura Dekker’s successful solo circumnavigation, granting her the title as the youngest sailor to do so.

Well, actually the completion of her trip generated no controversy. Why not? The reason this wasn’t headline news was that her trip included no Maydays or other crises.  After winning a court battle with Dutch authorities who attempted to stop her because of her age, Laura headed out and finished her voyage in just about one year. While her exploit may not be standard fare for sixteen year olds, neither is she utterly unique. In June and July of 2010 I wrote two Musings (Outrage; Split Opinion) about sailor Abby Sunderland’s less successful attempt. Her trip did indeed become the main focus of outrage for a few days that summer when the media enjoyed ratcheting up suspense about her survival. Very few of my Musings have generated such a stormy response.

Few things arouse a good society’s passions more than children being hurt. In its essence, that is the motivating factor behind the pro-life movement. Those who favor abortion also want to protect children; they disagree on the definition of ‘child’; not that it is wrong to kill one. That is one of the reasons why as sonograms and science make it harder to dismiss a fetus as simply a clump of cells, fewer young people are staunch pro-choice advocates.

However, we can focus overly much on protecting our children’s bodies without gauging how much we are crippling their spirits. We live in a society where threats of law suits turn playgrounds into physically safe but infantilizing places and where school and government edicts intrude on the rights of parents to assess and make decisions for their individual children. I know many of my readers are appalled at the idea of a sixteen year old single-handedly piloting a sailboat. Why couldn’t she just play a simulated video game of an around the world trip?

While most people agree that the government should intervene where children’s well-being is threatened, that sentiment can be a dangerous one. There is general consensus that beating a child until he is unconscious is abusive while insisting on piano practice before computer time isn’t. However, it is harder to agree on the huge gray area between those extremes. Parents are imperfect beings; some more and others less so. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, “No one pretends that parents are perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that parents are the worst people to raise children except for all those other choices that have been tried from time to time.” I, for one, am glad that the decision to let Laura sail was made by her parents rather than by the Dutch government. 

If you are in the Charlotte, N.C. area, I hope you can join us for one or our events there.  I'd love to meet you

The GOP's Harriet Miers Moment

I heard it said that Mitt Romney missed the 1960’s. While the youth in America rioted and upended decades of tradition, he played by the rules of previous generations. The path he chose brought him a stable marriage and an exemplary family along with financial success. I can’t imagine that he regrets missing out on “drugs, sex and rock and roll.” But the 60’s changed the country and I think one of its slogans, “Question Authority,” is hitting Mr. Romney rather hard right now.  

Mitt Romney and the GOP establishment are having a Sixties moment. Perhaps the moment started way back in October 2005. In that month, President George W. Bush exercised his prerogative nominating White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Nothing in her resume suggested that she was constitutionally unfit to serve and in an earlier time respect might have been given to a sitting president. Despite murmurings, her confirmation would have proceeded. But Supreme Court nominations were no longer what they had been. A cataclysmic change had taken place with Judge Robert Bork’s 1987 nomination by President Reagan. While the destruction of Judge Bork was a disgusting spectacle, one result of that brouhaha was a diminution in the power of the president with regard to judicial appointments.  

While Judge Bork himself stated in October 2005 that he was sure the Miers’ nomination would proceed, he also called it, “a slap in the face of conservatives.” He was right on the second count and wrong on the first. The outcry caused Ms. Miers to withdraw her nomination and Samuel Alito was confirmed to the Supreme Court. Rank and file conservatives learned to trust their instincts and not assume that the “establishment” was smarter than they. More recently, the Tea Party solidified conservative “power to the people” and this Republican nominating cycle is as much pitting conservatives against the Republican establishment as it is Mitt Romney against his opponents.

The 1960’s didn’t just happen spontaneously. By ignoring undercurrents of unrest and by not heeding valid complaints, the “over thirties” generation missed the opportunity to direct positive changes and to prevent flawed ones.  The ascendancy of Newt Gingrich and the increasing popularity of Ron Paul in this election cycle are both symptoms of the GOP’s ignoring undercurrents of unrest and not heeding valid complaints. Paul represents a group which insists on government fundamentally changing the way it has been conducting business under both Republicans and Democrats. Sniping at him and at his followers misses the point. Gingrich reminds me of Rudyard Kipling’s 1892 poem, Tommy. Tommy Atkins is a lower-class British soldier who gets no respect from society in his daily life. But when fighting is needed, all of a sudden he is sought after and valued. Here are two of the verses:

O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's ``Thank you, Mister Atkins,'' when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's ``Thank you, Mr. Atkins,'' when the band begins to play.

…..

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints:
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;

Newt Gingrich is severely flawed in many areas. He certainly isn’t a plaster saint. His personal life has been such that I need to state that I am not impugning the morals of Kipling’s Tommy by making the comparison. His public life raises serious questions as well. In an ideal world his candidacy would be ludicrous. But he is a brawler who ably mud-wrestles with words; someone who stumbles, falls and gets back to the fight. I think the South Carolina results show that many conservatives would rather fight hard to defeat the president in November, risking a great win or a great loss, rather than staging a campaign in the Bob Dole, John McCain pattern. As he showed in Iowa, Mitt Romney has both the money and the organization to wage war to destroy Newt Gingrich. Those tactics will be useless against the sitting president. If Romney becomes the nominee by virtue of being the last man standing rather than because he is a leader who millions want to follow, there is little chance of beating Mr. Obama.

If the stakes weren’t so high this election cycle would be fascinating. At the moment, “none of the above” probably sums up the dominant feeling of the Republican electorate.  So far, the Republican Party is the biggest loser and if amazing and unprecedented things don’t happen, so are the American people.

 

No Tax Credits, Please

Here are two pieces of information that might help you understand what I am about to write. A) I like Rick Santorum B) I appreciate large families

The combination of those two factors suggests that I should welcome Mr. Santorum’s campaign proposal to increase the per child tax credit.  Yet, my heart sank when I heard about it. I certainly have first-hand knowledge of how expensive it is to raise children.  Over the years, our orthodontist bills alone approached the budget of a small city. While our seven children were all home and the price of milk or eggs went up a few cents, my pocketbook felt it. You might say my opposition to the child tax credit proposal is a case of sour grapes since the benefit isn’t intended to be retroactive, but I don’t really think that is influencing my thoughts. I would be delighted for each of my children to have a large family (no pressure…well, maybe just a little), and empathize with how helpful some extra cash would be. As a grandmother, it might even free me up psychologically to leave Costco with clothing larger than toddler size. Still, while I am intrigued by Sen. Santorum’s candidacy, I think he is promoting a poor idea.

I have two basic concerns about this government giveaway plan. Firstly, I really, really, really want to see the tax system drastically simplified. I am tired of the thousands of codes and laws which favor some, reward “clever” accounting and legal footwork, and make most citizens cynical about the entire structure.  My personal idea is that everyone, including those who receive government assistance, should pay something and that anytime the tax code cannot be readily understood and complied with by the majority of the country’s citizens, it needs to be overhauled.  Granting that my idea may not be practical and certainly isn’t politically savvy, I do not want to hear about favoring some people over others. Period. Not government sector employees over those in the private sector; not those in some industries over others and not those who have children over those who don’t.

Even more than that, I don’t believe that government should be in the business of encouraging families to have more children. There is a huge problem, as both China and Europe have discovered, when a country’s aging population outnumbers its youthful one. But children are spiritual beings, not physical commodities which can be stockpiled. One of the ironies of the medals given by Stalin to mothers of large families (I would think long and hard before mimicking any policies of Stalinist Russia) was that some Jewish families, who were regularly harrassed because of their loyalty to their religion, were recipients of that medal. Of course, they had children not to help Mother Russia but in obedience to God’s command. Those children helped bring down the atheistic and communist Soviet Union. Getting into the procreation business - like other government favoritism forays - can open a can of unintended consequence worms.

Perhaps more importantly, while money may be tight in a family with children, getting a tax credit isn’t worth the price. I do not grant the government the royal mantle to reward or punish my decision to have or not have children. I want less government involvement in my family’s life, not more. Isn’t it funny that European countries who mandate parental leave unequaled in America, who provide much more government paid early education and day care, and who seem to make it so much easier to have children, have much lower birth-rates than America? Truthfully, the majority of parents who have large families, like Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and me, have them because we believe that God said to, not because any institution made it easy for us. I’d be happy for the government to take less of all hard-working people’s money and leave me the option whether to use it for raising children or in any other way.

There is a great deal I appreciate about Rick Santorum. His tax credit proposal doesn’t fit that category.  I would actually like to hear a debate between just him and Mitt Romney, with questions posed by a moderator who is not actively working against a Republicans win in November. It would give Mr. Romney a chance to win support as more than the default candidate and Mr. Santorum a chance to show that he has bold and broad ideas to invigorate the economy. But then, I have no secret weapon for manipulating reality and so I will only hope that as the primary season continues, the process doesn’t continue to demoralize as it unfortunately has been doing – to me at least – until now.

I Didn't Mean to be a Witch

Most book titles mean something only if you are familiar with the contents of the book. There is nothing particularly descriptive about the words, Little Women or Tom Sawyer. The titles evoke a reaction only because the books are well known. More intriguing names like The Red Badge of Courage or The Scarlet Letter are also only meaningful after reading the book. Even a short plot synopsis doesn’t automatically let you know that this book will be one of those that becomes a classic and which you might find yourself reading over and over. Four sisters during the Civil War years go about their daily lives, maturing from girlhood to womanhood. Not terribly gripping, is it?

The above doesn’t apply to one of my favorite reads, I Didn’t Mean to be a Witch. This mother’s lament at not always measuring up to her image of what she should be, grabbed me at the title. The author, Linda Eyre, had previously written a best-selling book with her husband, Teach Your Children Values, which evolved into a series of books like Teach Your Children Joy, etc. That information was enough for me to know that this book wasn’t going to be sordid tale of drugs or promiscuity. Indeed, I Didn’t Mean to be a Witch echoed my internal cry when I didn’t live up to my own standards. I enjoyed the book, but the title stayed my favorite part through the years. Just looking at it on the shelf could make me laugh and buoy my spirits. The book still fills that purpose for one of my daughters who has “borrowed” it, finding it reassuring after a disappointing day.  

This is all to say that I truly appreciate a clever title. Especially after laboring over the chore of selecting titles for my husband and my books and audio CDs, I value the time, creativity and frequently the angst that accompanies naming a creation. So, rather than skipping over the name of a professor’s book, which was mentioned only as a means of establishing his credentials in a recent Good Housekeeping magazine, I took the extra second to read his book’s name. Unlike Linda Eyre’s book, where I paid for a copy just to have the title peeking out of my shelf with the contents being an added bonus, this book’s title convinced me not to even order it from the library. Having not read it, perhaps I am misjudging it, but if that is the case then the author and publisher made a really big marketing mistake.

What would you think is the message of a book called, You and Your Adolescent: The Essential Guide for Ages 10 to 25? To me it says that a fair number of my children, who are functioning perfectly well as adults, should still be treated as—and think of themselves— as adolescents. Why I would want to confer immaturity on them and added responsibility on me is beyond my comprehension.  In a tepid approximation of research (I have a rather limited time each week to devote to this blog), I did look the book up on the Amazon website . Guess what I found? This is a new and revised edition. The 1997 edition was titled, You and Your Adolescent: The Essential Guide for Ages 10 to 20. I don’t know how to write sounds of me shrieking in the background, but if I could, I would. Perhaps the comic book rendition, “AAARGH!” says it best.

In a world where I feel increasingly out of step with what are considered mainstream ideas I want to take this opportunity to thank you for making  me feel less alone. To those of you who, like me, think that adolescence as a concept should be severely limited; who believe that “old-fashioned” values never go out of fashion and who struggle to be not only better parents but also better spouses and citizens in a society which increasingly makes all of those undertakings difficult, here’s to making our voices heard in 2012.

P.S. I am alternately excited and hesitant about the debut of a new DVD in which I co-host four episodes of the Ancient Jewish Wisdom TV Show with my husband. You can read about it here.  I’d love to hear your feedback.

Life Isn't Fair

A short while ago, National Public Radio ran a piece entitled, “Many Women Underestimate Fertility Clock's Clang.” It related the results of a recent study showing that most women are ignorant of the young age at which one’s chances of easily conceiving begin rapidly falling. Women who heed the prevalent cry to concentrate on their careers or focus on fun in their twenties are often shocked and saddened when they find that they may have missed a fertility window.

I give credit to NPR (which is different than saying that I think NPR should be taxpayer funded, but that’s another matter) for covering this story. As they report, there was a “vicious backlash” by women’s rights groups to an ad campaign ten years ago which was designed to make women aware of their bodies’ timetable. It seems that some groups feel that vast efforts should be made to educate women about how much they can achieve professionally while keeping them ignorant of the possible price of that achievement.

All choices have consequence; “having it all” just isn’t always possible.  While feminism led to some positive and necessary changes, many of us would argue that it resulted in quite a number of negative ones as well.   The twin sirens of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ lead many into troubled waters brimming with unhappiness.

There was a period when one of our daughters would ask for a bowl of “Life Isn’t Fair” cereal. Not yet able to read the cereal box she heard her older siblings referring to it as “Life” and she recognized the opening word of a phrase my husband and I repeatedly used.

In a house full of young children, there was a lot that didn’t seem fair. Perhaps one child received an invitation to a birthday party while the others didn’t; perhaps the child at the birthday party missed a fun family outing. If one child outgrew her shoes more rapidly than a sibling, we felt no compunction about getting a new pair for only the growing child. While there was much that was equally shared – like chicken pox and hopefully, at the end of the day, love – there were seven children with individual talents, personalities and situations. This meant that each one sometimes got a little more and at other times a little less. The cry of “it’s not fair” might have precipitated some sympathy, but also the reply, “Life isn’t fair.” My husband and I thought that was an important life lesson to absorb; not as a call to be passive but in recognition that learning that certain realities are built into this world helps one live more successfully.

Yet the idea that life must be fair persists.  The NPR article quoted a woman who struggled to conceive for many years as saying, “The ticking biological clock is not a burden women should bear alone.”   In her view, men should be equally concerned. After all, that would be only fair.   After years of celebrating the separation of sex and reproduction and demanding that a woman’s body is entirely her own business, it seems a bit weak to yell, “It’s not fair,” when reality intrudes.

The impending Health Care legislation raises lots of questions of fairness. A great deal is unknown about the Health Care bill that passed in 2010, including whether it is constitutional and if the upcoming presidential election will completely change the rules. But meanwhile, there are a lot of ambiguities about how it will actually work. Nancy Pelosi’s infamous words that Congress needed to pass the bill so that we could find out what was in it were hardly reassuring. One could conclude that the bill is a Pandora’s Box.

Let’s posit a number of thirty-five year old women, who made different life choices. I may be drawing these virtual women in broad strokes, but I do think that the situations described aren’t out of bounds.

Amanda loved to travel and while she always pictured a husband and children in her life, she thought that both she and her future family would be happier if she satiated her wanderlust before settling down. Never motivated by money she combined volunteer work abroad with occasional short-term jobs that financed further travel. Confident that Mr. Right would be around once she was ready; she has been disappointed in the quality of men she has met since returning home. Deciding that she can raise a child on her own she is discovering that not only will child care be outrageously expensive, but even getting pregnant may come with a hefty price tag.

Casey got married during college, despite the protestations of her friends who thought she was much too young. She and her husband both wanted a large family and they now have six children ranging from thirteen down to two years old. Finances are always tight, particularly since the couple manages on one salary so that Casey can homeschool the children.

Brianna always knew that she wanted to be a doctor and met her husband in medical school. Having established their careers after years of study (and a great deal of student debt), they agree that it is time to begin their family. As older first-time parents, they are realistic about possibly needing invasive medical procedures to get pregnant and know that both the pregnancy and their children face a statistically higher chance of medical complications.

Marcy never went to college. She had her first baby at seventeen and her second by a different father, at nineteen. She was married for a short time during her twenties and had two more children. She thinks it’s ridiculous that minimum wage is so low and believes that companies should be required to provide day care. How else will she and her children have a chance to move forward in life?

Amanda, Brianna, Casey and Marcy had different opportunities and made different choices. But they are where they are. Do Casey and her husband need to pay higher taxes so that Amanda and Brianna can receive fertility treatments? Is it selfish for Casey and her husband to want lower tax rates so they can save money and travel once their children are older? Should Amanda not have been allowed to travel or choose her own employment since it delayed her becoming a taxpayer?  Is it unfair that Brianna and her husband have an income which will allow them access to all sorts of specialists which their prospective children might need, and is Marcy entitled to the same level of psychological and medical help for hers?

Life isn’t fair. Government’s utopian and futile attempts to make it so tend to backfire. In the real world, human beings cannot be equal precisely because they are human beings with differing needs, desires and choices. Equality before the law is American; equality of outcome as a policy is the opposite of the freedom to choose life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.