I often describe myself as a libertarian Democrat. Some people don’t understand this, and I often have to fish for an example of an area in which I trust people more than government. Well, this is why I’m a libertarian Democrat:
Surprisingly, basic safety devices like booster seats and bike helmets aren’t required in most states — 31 fail to mandate one or both of them. “Having a law is essential, even if you wouldn’t dream of putting your preschooler in the car without a booster seat,” says Alan Korn, director of public policy for Safe Kids Worldwide, an advocacy group in Washington, D.C. “Not only does a law educate parents who might not be as safety-conscious as you, but it also makes it easier for you to handle protests from your kids. When my 7-year-old says he’s too big for a bike helmet, I just remind him that it’s the law. Argument over.”
There are a lot of good reasons to legally require booster seats or helmets. These, on the other hand, are two of the worst reasons I’ve ever heard for public safety laws. This sort of logic used to be particular to Democrats, but these days it’s endemic in both parties.
I had to eat peas to get dessert so why should kids today get away with not eating their peas? :). We should also have a law that children have to walk to school uphill both ways in the snow as I did.
Got to train kids to be fascists while they’re young, don’t you know?
I cringed. I believe I have used the phrase “because I said so” as a reason, but I would never say what he said. I’m still cringing.
“Because I said so” is not always the wrong answer. If it comes after four explanations of the reason, and the kid is still arguing, “Because I said so” is perfectly good.
Remember the wisdom of the old saying — “Never try to reason with a two-year-old…”
I have absolutely said “because otherwise we’ll get a ticket” after 15 minutes of telling my four year old why she needs to quit unbuckling her carseat as we’re driving down I-64. (There I am, pulled over on the interstate, trying to reason with a four year old, trying not to resort to coercion, bribes, threats…)
That being said, this as a REASON for the LAW is patently absurd. While we’re at it, let’s make it illegal for kids to play video games before doing their homework. And let’s also pass a law that says that kids aren’t allowed to whine, and they’re not allowed to talk back…
Idiots abound in all political parties, on both sides of any issue, etc. Sometimes I say ridiculous things, too. Like when I tried to convince my husband to move back up to NYC to raise our kids so that they’d be closer to my parents and would get to see them more. Um, moving from Cville back to NYC to raise kids? Whew. Yeah, sometimes we all use really stupid reasoning.
Thankfully, in this Alan Korn guy’s case, those 31 holdout states aren’t going to use THIS reasoning to enact new laws. Hopefully they will use any number of GOOD reasons to enact them, however. Seat belt and child restraint laws are a good thing, in my opinion. (Though some of the upper limits of height and weight are practically mandating that petite adults ride in boosters, so I think we do go a bit overboard sometimes… But that’s another conversation.)
Stupid thinking. Sheesh. Sometimes people are just so… human. ; )
My 4 year old never complains about wearing her seatbelt any more. A few months ago I truthfully explained to her that when I was a kid some of my friends from school were not wearing their seatbelts properly and when the car crashed, they went through the windshield and died in the middle of the road. Now they don’t get to have birthday parties or Christmas presents or go swimming or watch movies because they are in coffins 6 feet under the ground.
We have no arguments over seatbelts with Ida any more. She is a convert.
Libertarian Democrat? I hope you aren’t thinking that moves you any closer to being respectable in the eyes of the Republican base? They had you at “Democrat”. Waffling Democrat.
Ha! Not hardly. Mainstream Republicans long ago abandoned any interest in libertarianism.
Like Waldo, I now consider myself more or less a libertarian Democrat — after having been a strong-defense, budget-hawk libertarian Republican for most of my life.
I whole-heartedly agree that mainstream republicanism has abandoned any material interest in libertarianism. (Not that the Democratic party has especially embraced it, mind you.)
Fiscal restraint, civil and human rights, privacy concerns…all have fallen by the wayside, save for occasional tartings up and trottings out during empty-rhetoric exercises.
And so I’ve completely parted ways with the Republican party….
Yikes, Jackson, that’s some seriously straight talk. I’m sorry that you had such a tragic exposure to automobile safety awareness at such a young age. Wow. Personally, I’m sticking with the “don’t want to get a ticket” approach, but yes, at some point I suppose I will be talking with my kids about the fact that kids die, too. I’m hoping to delay that conversation for a while. Right now I intend to stay in the realm of “you could get badly hurt and have to go to the hospital.” Every kid (and parent) is different – different ways, different levels of what they can handle and when. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
In my mind, the very worst thing about Korn’s argument (“it’s the law; discussion over”) is that he completely abdicates his responsibility as a parent by shifting the burden of responsibility over to the government. The subtext is, “you don’t have to do this because I’m your parent, you have to do this because otherwise we’ll get in trouble with the police.” It’s telling your child that you’re parenting because you’re being forced to, not because it’s your reponsibility to provide for their safety or because they have a responsibility as your child to follow your rules. That’s ridiculous, and it’s made more ridiculous by the fact that this schmoe thinks he should not only be giving legislative advice, but parenting advice, as well.
Jackson may be a little bit more of a straight-talker when it comes to his 4yo than I would be, but I think it’s important to let your child know that you’re trying to keep him safe because you love him, you don’t want him to get hurt, and he therefore must follow your rules.
Waldo, this is a great blog entry because it hits on the pussification of parents in America. Too many parents are afraid (or, sadly, too lazy) to discipline their children. This whole “you have to because it’s the law” approach is pathetic. What happened to “you have to because I’m your mom (dad) and I told you to do it”?!!?
Young children can’t possibly understand the many reasons for all the things that they must do, or not do, which they may find uncomfortable. Any parent who can’t instill a sense of respect and authority in their child — to the point where the parent will be *instantly* obeyed, no matter what, or else there will be consequences — is doing their child a disservice, and is most likely raising a brat. Obviously, the parent will not *always* be instantly obeyed. When that happens, there must be negative consequences. That is the most important part, and the part that lazy parents choose to skip, probably because following through on the negative consequences is nearly always inconvenient for the parent.
Sorry for the rant. It’s jus so effing sad to stand back and watch the continued decline in parenting.
Kudos to you, Jackson. My wife and I have used those same sorts of tactics (IOW — told them the truth), and it’s never a bad idea. Kids are smarter than we usually give them credit for.
Wow, I.Publius, perhaps you should change your handle to “I.Pavlovus”?
(No Skinner off your back, I assure you!)
[grin]
Cute. ;-)
The first “big” word my kids ever learned was “consequences.” All the credit must go to my wife, who, with the patience of Job, homeschooled them through early elementary. Good choices have always led to very good consequences. Bad choices, which most often means defying mom or dad, lead to bad consequences.
I realize this is purely anecdotal, but we’ve had excellent results. They are respectful to young and old; say yes ma’am and yes sir to their teachers as well as the garbage collector; and the one in high school has a 4.9 gpa (4.0 scale) in a math-science magnet school.
…and if I tell them to wear their bike helmet, they say “yes, sir” and then they put it on — because they respect not only the law, but also their parents.
We homeschool as well, and while we stress civility, politeness, and consequences, we do not stress obedience or deference to/respect for “authority.”
Though individual flouting of authority may have negative consequences on a small scale, I consider excessive deference to authority on population-sized scales to be a far more troubling phenomenon.
I’ve had my political disagreements with I. Publius, but I very strongly support his comment about parenting (substituting “wussification” for his more offensive term).
Thank you, Nell. FYI, the word “pussy” is a derivative of pusillanimous, which means cowardly.
If you go back far enough, there’s another word used as a pejorative for a female’s genitals that actually finds its etymological root in the word “quaint” in middle English–but I’m still not going to use the word c*nt on Waldo’s blog, Pub. ;-)
I’m a little bit closer to Jeff’s line of thinking than I.Pub’s, although I respect both. I think it’s important to make sure children know the fine line between being respectful towards authority–and all other people, for that matter–and being unduly deferential towards authority and not feeling free to think for oneself. But I have to say that anyone whose children use the words “sir” or “ma’am” is doing a better job than most of the breeders out there.
“being unduly deferential towards authority and not feeling free to think for oneself”
You say that as if it’s only one or the other. I assure you that it’s possible to instill both.
I think it’s desireable for children to be respectful but not unduly deferential, at least after a certain age. I want to make clear that since I’ve never met you or your children, I’m not making any sort of assumption about your kids and their attitude towards their elders. If I was to make any assumption, it would be that your kids are going to be wonderful, successful adults because you and your wife took a very strong and active interest in their upbringing.
My earlier comment was simply an observation based on the fact that as much as I’d like it to be true, I’m not right about everything all the time. And when I was a boy, I called people sir or ma’am–and I still do, thanks Mom–but I was also taught that authority is as much something that is given at least as much as it is asserted (Jefferson called it “the consent of the governed”) and so while I was always respectful, I also frequently questioned authority when I was young. Now that I’m older and considered something of an authority myself, I hope to God that teenagers are still questioning us, at least on matters bigger than seatbelts and vegetables. If anything, it at least keeps me honest.
(And that’s my biggest complaint about the topic of the post, people who cede their authority over their children to a higher power are simultaneously teaching kids that they have to always be deferential to a legislature while not having to respect their parents’ desire to keep them safe).