Losing my libertarianism: parenting edition
Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2015 3:36 pm
My wife and I spanked our son for the first time yesterday.
We didn't want to go here. We really didn't, for a lot of reasons. The cultures that we come from say you don't hit your kids. Our libertarian leanings say that it makes no sense to hit a child you're teaching not to hit others; you're demonstrating that hitting is okay if you're in stronger or in a position of power. And it also just seemed distasteful to us.
Well, all of that ideology hit a wall. Our son is a very strong-willed child, which is probably a good thing overall. He's smart too. And he found our weakness: there's a limit on how far we're willing to go with punishment. So over the past few months, he's been ramping up how much violence he expresses, hitting more and more. Sending him to his room didn't work because he'd trash it. Time-outs would barely work because he'd just leave the time-out-chair, so we'd have to hold him in it, and he would kick and heatbutt, and at that point, we were basically out of options. It got to the point where he threw a heavy wooden toy at my wife's head yesterday and we realized that it was getting completely out of control. He could easily have injured her very badly.
I finally realized that, despite our desire to teach him that hitting is wrong, what we were actually succeeding in teaching him is that hitting is basically consequence-free: when you're willing to hit, but your adversary isn't, you win. That's the opposite of what I want him to learn!
So we spanked him the next time he hit. Nothing emotional, just a few quick slaps on the butt, followed by hugs and cuddles. After two times, he got the message and spontaneously stopped his tantrum. Today he hasn't hit at all. He's been an angel. It feels miraculous after months of escalating violence.
Ideologically, I realize that this is basically a rejection of both liberal and libertarian orthodoxy in favor of a conservative one: that people in a position of power can hit you if they feel they have a good reason to, which is a sentiment that is anathema to the former two viewpoints. But you know what? It's true. Despite all the ideology, both liberals and libertarians live in a world where those with authority over you may indeed hit you if they feel they feel like they have a good reason. Libertarians hate it and liberals are in denial about it, but it's simply the world we live in.
I also realized that this is why conservatives focus on authority so much: that authority be just rather than arbitrary is like the central theme of their ideology. This may sound silly, but think about the show Walker: Texas Ranger (which I unashamedly admit enjoying for the lulz); I think that never has there been a truer and more consistent exemplification of the pure conservative viewpoint expressed in media. And you know who a lot of the villains are? They're not whiny liberals. They're not haughty ivory-tower intellectuals. They're not foreign terrorists. An enormous number of them are middle-aged white males who are abusing their positions of power. Crooked CEO, corrupt police chief, trucking company foreman who traffics drugs, you name it. This trope is so common.
This is a good lesson, I think. Don't try to teach people to dismantle or deny hierarchical power. It will exist. It always has, and it always will. Rather, teach people to use their power justly, compassionately, appropriately, and sparingly. It's a lesson that I realize I feel much more comfortable teaching my son than the lesson that power is bad, power corrupts, power should be distrusted and denied and avoided.
We didn't want to go here. We really didn't, for a lot of reasons. The cultures that we come from say you don't hit your kids. Our libertarian leanings say that it makes no sense to hit a child you're teaching not to hit others; you're demonstrating that hitting is okay if you're in stronger or in a position of power. And it also just seemed distasteful to us.
Well, all of that ideology hit a wall. Our son is a very strong-willed child, which is probably a good thing overall. He's smart too. And he found our weakness: there's a limit on how far we're willing to go with punishment. So over the past few months, he's been ramping up how much violence he expresses, hitting more and more. Sending him to his room didn't work because he'd trash it. Time-outs would barely work because he'd just leave the time-out-chair, so we'd have to hold him in it, and he would kick and heatbutt, and at that point, we were basically out of options. It got to the point where he threw a heavy wooden toy at my wife's head yesterday and we realized that it was getting completely out of control. He could easily have injured her very badly.
I finally realized that, despite our desire to teach him that hitting is wrong, what we were actually succeeding in teaching him is that hitting is basically consequence-free: when you're willing to hit, but your adversary isn't, you win. That's the opposite of what I want him to learn!
So we spanked him the next time he hit. Nothing emotional, just a few quick slaps on the butt, followed by hugs and cuddles. After two times, he got the message and spontaneously stopped his tantrum. Today he hasn't hit at all. He's been an angel. It feels miraculous after months of escalating violence.
Ideologically, I realize that this is basically a rejection of both liberal and libertarian orthodoxy in favor of a conservative one: that people in a position of power can hit you if they feel they have a good reason to, which is a sentiment that is anathema to the former two viewpoints. But you know what? It's true. Despite all the ideology, both liberals and libertarians live in a world where those with authority over you may indeed hit you if they feel they feel like they have a good reason. Libertarians hate it and liberals are in denial about it, but it's simply the world we live in.
I also realized that this is why conservatives focus on authority so much: that authority be just rather than arbitrary is like the central theme of their ideology. This may sound silly, but think about the show Walker: Texas Ranger (which I unashamedly admit enjoying for the lulz); I think that never has there been a truer and more consistent exemplification of the pure conservative viewpoint expressed in media. And you know who a lot of the villains are? They're not whiny liberals. They're not haughty ivory-tower intellectuals. They're not foreign terrorists. An enormous number of them are middle-aged white males who are abusing their positions of power. Crooked CEO, corrupt police chief, trucking company foreman who traffics drugs, you name it. This trope is so common.
This is a good lesson, I think. Don't try to teach people to dismantle or deny hierarchical power. It will exist. It always has, and it always will. Rather, teach people to use their power justly, compassionately, appropriately, and sparingly. It's a lesson that I realize I feel much more comfortable teaching my son than the lesson that power is bad, power corrupts, power should be distrusted and denied and avoided.