Obama, Roosevelt, And Rocky

Being a parent is hard work. It takes practice. And practice comes from on-the-job training. So you never really learn how to do it until you're done.

But it's worth it. And the lessons extend far beyond the home. In fact they can be applied to national and international policy. Indeed, in the other direction, the lessons of national and international policy can provide guidelines for child-rearing.

Let's back up a little. My dog is a gem.ⁱ At least figuratively. His name is Diamond – that's what my kids named him – but I call him Rocky. He's well trained and will never relieve himself on my property or anywhere near it unless given permission. And he'll never leave my property unless such movement is sanctioned. He's gentle with children, and very protective of them. And of all of my family. He loves us and we love him.

Achieving this result may not have been easy, but it wasn't as hard as it might have been. It resulted from a combination of love, respect, rewards, and punishment. Were I considering a horse of a mule, I might call it a “carrot and stick” approach, however in this case the tools, apart from love, were doggy treats and an “invisible” fence. I've never yelled at him, but I made my desires clear.

I treated my kids the same way.ⁱⁱ I tried not to yell, though they knew when I was disappointed with them, and they responded to my concerns. Punishment, while dished out with love, was clear and predictable, though not violent – at least not from me directly. When one of the kids was struck by another, I didn't hesitate to have the victim deliver “payback” in my presence, and to have the wrongdoer “take it” without response.

And the rules were organized and explicit. Expectations of each of the children were posted, and the list of individual responsibilities served as a guide to their performance. They understood both the rules and their roles, and they knew that failure would have consequences. They respected me and I respected them – but rules are rules. Notwithstanding free will, they knew what would result.ⁱⁱⁱ

I'm a great admirer of Teddy Roosevelt's philosophy. My approach is similar to what Teddy Roosevelt wrote in a letter to Henry Sprague:^iv “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” He was not yet President when he wrote it, but it was a view he took with him to higher office. We are a country that sees itself as a major power. Indeed, we'd like to believe that we're the predominant power on earth. One of the major debates we have had as a nation through the centuries involves the degree of involvement with other nations. Should we act as “the world's policeman,” or should we mind our own business? Time and events have shown us^v that we have a responsibility for our fellow men^vi around the world. That's where the “big stick” comes in. Carrots are nice, however they don't always work the way we'd like.

For, sadly, respect for our position is difficult to maintain in a changing world, and it's even harder to credit our worthiness of it when we're as deeply in debt as we are – especially to our chief rival for dominance, China. Having said that, however, there is no doubt that our importance to other nations remains a critical factor in the thinking and planning of nations around the world. Unfortunately it is because we have, and we offer, a lot of carrots. So other nations dangle hopes before us in exchange for what they hope to get from us.

And we wind up where we are now. We speak loudly but wield only a small stick. Our current foreign policy is one of threats of action if our ideas are ignored, but the dangled hopes keep us from acting – except to offer more carrots in the hope of getting others to follow our leads. We want to believe that we are respected, and those with whom we deal will agree with our analysis. We make contingency plans but never implement them, preferring to accept the word of those whom we are threatening that eventually they'll do what we ask. No threat we make is credible. The worst the current Administration is likely to do is “view with disappointment,” and suggest sanctions. There are no real consequences of continuing policies we consider wrong.

Those who oppose our “sticking our nose” into the affairs of others, along with the tyrants we threaten, are comforted by that knowledge. But those who are not isolationists – who view our behavior as an abdication of responsibility – mourn our loss of resolve, and regret that heinous actions will do no more than get us to wring our hands.

I hope my kids know better. My imaginary dog certainly does.

Next episode: “Romeo and Juliet: Democrats” – But you would have predicted that.

I        Actually we had a cat. She was good but a little independent, and the story of the dog, though imagined, is much more to the point. (If I had had a dog, that would have been the way I treated him or her.) The rest of the essay is true.

ii       Now we're back to fact. (I loved my cat but let's face it. Cats train you. You don't train them.)

iii     My children – now grown and with kids of their own – still tell me that I'm predictable. I view it as a compliment.

iv      January 26th 1900, though he repeated the sentiment later.

v       They've certainly shown me. And, I suspect, many others as well.

vi      That's figurative as well. Read “men, women, and children.”