Talking to Children About Trump

noreply@blogger.com (David) — Wed, 16 Aug 2017 12:40:00 +0000

Parents share a nearly-universal fear of the talks they will have to have with their children about teasing, bullying, disappointment, love, heartbreak, sex, religion, sickness, death, failure, and a host of other things. It's not having the talks themselves that instills fear (although some topics might be more awkward than others) -- it's the fear of screwing up the talks. What do I say? Will I screw up my child in some unfixable way?

Being a parent, I share this fear. I already carried this fear when my children were born in 2012 and 2014. What I didn't carry was a fear about talking to my children about the President of the United States (POTUS). My children are too young to need to have this talk anytime soon; after all, my 3yr-old son probably wouldn't be perplexed by an adult who shares many of his temperamental characteristics. But, I can imagine the awkward uncertainty parents of older children must be feeling having to explain the actions of the current POTUS, the holder of an office that is supposed to demand some basic level of respect, even if the officeholder is not who one voted for.

Many times throughout history, even successful US Presidents have done things that could reasonably be labeled as "beneath the dignity of the office". Certainly, Bill Clinton's liaisons with his intern make the list. But these were dominantly bad acts by otherwise-redeemable persons. That is, it was not the case that the President, himself as a human, was beneath the dignity of the office. Although, Richard Nixon and Andrew Jackson may come close to that threshold.

However, here we are in 2017 with a President who, despite what you think of his policies on trade, immigration, healthcare, etc, could only reasonably be thought to be, himself, inherently below the dignity of the office. There were strong hints of this throughout his presidential campaign -- particularly with the misogynistic revelations of October 2016. Expectations were that candidate Trump was putting on a show to get elected and would moderate to the adult middle once in office. That didn't happen.

So, we have a POTUS who supports bigots and bigotry, lies frequently and without shame, treats people around him purely as means to an end, and treats nuclear brinkmanship as a Twitter game.

How does one explain to a child that this person was chosen by the country's adults to be its leader? Wouldn't a child ask "Why would adults choose someone to lead the country who would be constantly suspended from school, were he a student acting the same way?" Or, "Why would adults choose a bully to lead the country? Aren't bullies bad?" Or, "Why does he hate some people -- isn't the President supposed to help everyone?" Or, "What does he have to do to get fired?" And so on.

Children these days already have far too many opportunities to lose their innocence earlier than is necessary. The fact that the POTUS' failings as a human forces a new avenue for loss of innocence marks a very sad moment for our Republic. I'm glad my children are too young to even be curious about this moment, and I feel terribly for those parents who are having to deal with it. I hope that some good comes of it as a "teachable moment" or a lesson in how not to comport one's self as a moral human being.

Gluten, Nazism, and Matching Uniforms

noreply@blogger.com (David) — Mon, 14 Aug 2017 13:57:00 +0000

Sometimes, a word or phrase becomes so popular or valuable that it gets applied to all sorts of things for which doing so is patently inappropriate. Take "gluten free", for example. Manufacturers/producers have applied the "gluten free" label to all sorts of items for which that label makes no sense. Rodale's "Organic Life" magazine put together a list of some of these uses, and it included items such as coconut milk, canned mushrooms, baking soda, and craisins.

After the past weekend's events in Charlottesville, VA, the usage of the word "nazism" seems to again be thrown around loosely. CT Capitol Report this morning had a link to a Journal Inquirer article by Chris Powell, titled "What about the Nazi stuff right here in Connecticut state government?". In the article, he puts forward that "Fabricating evidence to arrest an innocent man is Nazi stuff." Well, yes, but it would also be equally true to say "Wearing matching uniforms is Nazi stuff". The Nazis did both, but neither thing defines the true essence of what makes Nazism a distinct ideology. Just as every government in the world has security services that wear matching uniforms, every government --democratic or not-- has arrested somebody on trumped-up charges.

Nazism is defined by a web of characteristics --including an unshakeable belief in race science-- not simply the act of deliberately arresting innocent persons or wearing uniforms, or starting riots, or many other individual acts or beliefs. Thus, given the evil that real Nazism represents, and the fact that Americans of all parties, races, and creeds died fighting against Nazis, it is terribly irresponsible to so loosely throw around that label on behalf of executing workaday partisan political business. I would recommend Mr. Powell read Volker Ullrich's powerful "Hitler: Ascent 1889-1939" to truly understand what Nazism was (and what current strains of true Nazism are based upon). I don't believe any clear-headed person could absorb such a detailed story of Nazism's rise and functioning and continue to persist using the "Nazi" label for things where it clearly does not apply. Resorting to labeling things "Nazi" is typically the point where a writer's logic has jumped the shark and he/she have resorted to name-calling instead of argument. It never helps make anything better.

BunnyFun Kitchen

Talking to Children About Trump

Gluten, Nazism, and Matching Uniforms