Parenting

Last night I saw a clip of Sarah Palin addressing a School in Ohio (it may have been Pennsylvania) to which she brought 250 cookies to distribute to the children. Supposedly a school board somewhere in Ohio had restricted the number of sweets served to their kids. Sarah wanted to make the point that it is not the Governments business but the parents what the kids eat. It turned out that, in fact, the school board she referred did not restrict sweets but recommended that healthy foods also be made available for snacks. But I digress.

I have a strong conviction that children are an asset or liability to an entire community and not the “property” or sole responsibility of the parents. (I discussed this point of view in the post on education). It is interesting that prior to the birth, the left feels that the fate of the fetus is in the hands of the mother whereas the right feels it is in the hands of the government. As soon as the child is born, the tables turn and the right feels that the parents are solely responsible for the child and at the extreme its schooling, whereas the left feels that, particularly in schooling, there is a role for government in the child’s well being. The degree of control of a parent over the child, or for that matter the family varies with the level of development in a society. In Japan, during the feudal era, the head of the household, the man, had total control of the family and by law had the right to kill any member without consequence. In current primitive societies, heads of the family also have, absolute, though not lethal control.

Currently there are laws that prohibit the extreme, overt irresponsibility of parents. I don’t believe anyone on either side of the isle has a problem with laws that prevent cruelty and lethal neglect. These laws are examples of government interference in private affairs currently in place. How far should a government go to ensure that society benefits from the lives that are brought into it. A child is born and either blessed or cursed with great of lousy parents. To further complicate matters the great of lousy parents were also children once themselves and either blessed or cursed with parents. Is, and should, the fate of the child be strictly in the hands of the parent? Is there a role the government can play to improve the odds for success of every individual? There is no question that parents are essential to the well being of a child. Even totally dysfunctional parents, though they diminish probability of success, are probably better than most institutions.

Government already intercedes on behalf of children by providing mandatory public education and in cases where children are undernourished, food along with some protection. Can. or should it do more. There is a feeling, particularly on the right, that government can’t do anything right. Or should we just allow a child to suffer the “luck of the draw” and become either an asset or a drain on society. Obesity, for example, is a health problem for the individual and a huge expense for society. It is not only a familial problem, but also a societal one. Should we wait until the Free Markets figure out an advantage for business in heaving a healthier society, leave it to parents to properly feed and teach discipline to their kids, or can the government intercede and pass laws such as was done in San Francisco where “Happy Meals”, and others fast foods marketed to children, need to have a minimum nutritional value? I don’t know. There are many good arguments on either side. Not the least is the degree to which we should allow the government to interfere in our lives. I believe driving a motorcycle without a helmet should be someone’s choice. Though it costs a great deal to society, if they don’t value their life and well being, so be it. But a child cannot make that choice.