An Epidemic of Troubled Children. Why?

We read in the papers about the rising rate of suicide and other emotional problems among teenagers.   People point to societal causes to explain what is happening, but while those factors have an effect, that is not the real problem.

We have seen articles questioning the role of parents in mass shootings.   These articles focus on parents not observing or acting on signs that their sons are radicalized.   But while this is often true, that is not the real problem,

The uncomfortable and inconvenient truth is that every troubled child, boy or girl, is troubled primarily because of the way they have been raised, the interactions they have had first and foremost with their parents as well as with siblings, their peers, and the world around them. 

It's not that most parents don't love their children and show them affection and attention.   It's that parents have their own problems and needs, their own distractions, and so they both cannot provide their young child with the love and attention he or she needs and they often react to their child out of anger, short temper or stress, for example calling the child bad, or stupid, lazy, or other pejorative phrases. 

This interaction, this accumulation of life experiences by the child, results in him or her feeling insecure and not good about themselves, feeling fear and anxiety.   This is the beginning of a life pattern that grows and deepens, like a cancer, until if the hurt is deep and bad enough, the child becomes a sociopath, capable of inflicting the harm caused by a mass shooter. 

But these children who commit mass shootings are just the tip of an iceberg, of an alarming problem in our society.   They are the extreme case of an epidemic of children who feel insecure, who don't feel good about themselves. 

I see this every day in the elementary and middle schools where I teach.   Children exhibit behavior problems which are not part of the natural process of growing up or experiencing new hormonal urges.   These are problems which are well established in these children by the time they reach school age and continue to deepen.   

It is no exaggeration to say that in a class of 20 children, there are typically only one or two who are well balanced and obviously feel good about themselves.   And by that i don't mean that they feel they are great or special, better than others; I mean that they simply feel good about themselves, they are comfortable in their skins. 

Why is this happening?  The problem is that child raising in our society has been a case of insecure parents raising insecure children who become insecure parents who raise insecure children who  . . . 

To some extent, this has perhaps always been the case, but it has become much worse since the industrial revolution and then in modern times as parents have become involved in work or activities which are not fulfilling and leave them stressed, as money and material things have gained importance, and as technology has separated human beings more from each other rather than brought them together.  This problem exists in all strata of society, whether rich or poor.

The result of the prevalence of this insecurity is that we see increasing violence and dysfunction at all levels of society – in the home, workplace, politics, and the international arena.   When people argue or act out, it is their inner child who is arguing or acting out,

Children are our future.   A child is a fragile, vulnerable person. From the moment the child leaves the womb, and even before, a child is deeply and permanently impacted by his parents’ moods and actions, as the young child is totally dependent on those around him for sustenance and nurturing. 

Every child has the potential to live a happy, wholesome, constructive, and fulfilling life regardless of their intelligence, ability, or looks.  There is no such thing as a "bad" or "stupid" or "ugly" child.   Every child deserves a happy life; that is their birthright.   

And so, it should be parents' primary responsibility to raise their children in a way that fosters in them the feeling that they are secure in themselves and happy.  We must protect children's psychic health.   But where do we start when only a happy, secure parent can raise a happy, secure child?  Are we in a cycle that cannot be stopped? 

I believe the answer is that it can be.   It requires first that parents understand the impact they have on their children.   Few parents intend to harm their children, but most in fact do, despite loving them.   It's a fact of life.   The point is not that parents should feel blame; the point is to be aware of your impact.

Second, it requires that parents take active steps to improve their own security and happiness.   These include (in brief): smiling mindfully, cherishing each passing moment, accepting ourselves/cultivating a compassion heart, accepting life, and staying grounded.   This does not require therapy, but it does require commitment and discipline because the control of our mind over our actions is great.

When parents have stepped back from the mental forces that grip them, they are able to stop and ask themselves, "Is what I am about to do or say good for my child's sense of well-being," as opposed to being on auto-pilot or doing whatever comes naturally based on their own childhood or their situation in life, be it their work, family or relationship with themselves. 

Parents cannot control what their children experience in the world out there.   But they can assure that their children are raised with a sense of self that will protect them from being damaged by the abuses they will inevitably face. 

What About Protecting Children?

During the past year, we have seen the #MeToo movement bring public awareness and public acknowledgement of the degradation suffered by countless women at the hands of countless men.  And for those men who were called out who were in positions of power, many of them have fallen.  Some have even been the subject of criminal action.

This was something which was long overdue.  No human being should be treated in this way.  And so women now join the list of people who are not just protected by law, but because they feel comfortable coming forward, are empowered to make use of those protections.

There remains, however, one significant category of person who, while protected by the law, is virtually unprotected in reality.  Both because they have no voice and because the injury they sustain is not acknowledged by society … children who are subject to sustained psychological abuse in their homes.    

We are slowly becoming sensitive to the bullying children are subject to in school and the damage caused by such bullying, including even suicide.  Although there are many adults, especially the parents of bullies, who respond, “Children will be children,” and fault the victim for overreacting.  

We have not, however, acknowledged the bullying and other forms of psychological abuse that children suffer at home and the terrible and lasting damage this does to them.  Why?  

The American Academy of Pediatrics defines emotional and psychological abuse as exposing “a child frequently and repeatedly to behaviors that impact his or her psychological well-being, including blaming, threatening, yelling at, belittling, humiliating, name calling, pointing out faults, withholding emotional support and affection, and ignoring a child.”  Shockingly, we see examples of this in public frequently, at which point I cringe; imagine the frequency behind the closed doors of the home.  

Pediatricians are required by law in many jurisdictions to report evidence of abuse to the authorities, including psychological abuse.  But despite their responsibility, doctors underreport evidence of physical abuse as well as psychological abuse.  Most often reported are cases of neglect.  

Why don’t they report?  One of the reasons why are “accepted cultural practices.”  Unfortunately, the list in the AAP definition above are all things which are pretty much accepted cultural practices by parents, especially if a child is “difficult.” Another is that doctors are less likely to report abuse when they have a positive relationship with the family.  

The generally accepted norm by both doctors and the public is that such things are going to occur in the home.  As with bullies, the reaction is that parents will be parents.  They have to have a free hand in raising their children.  They can’t be micro-managed.    Parents don’t intentionally harm their children.  And so children are not protected.

Perhaps the worst example of child psychological abuse unrelated to sexual abuse or other forms of physical abuse is the abuse suffered by children of a parent with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (Narcs).  This rather benign sounding psychological disorder is actually very malignant.  

According to the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, this is a sociopath who is dangerous to themselves and others:  1) has significant impairments in personality function such as exaggerated self-appraisal and requires excessive admiration to support self-esteem; 2) impairment in interpersonal function such as a lack of empathy; relationships are largely superficial and exist to serve self-esteem; little genuine interest in others; exploits others for personal gain; 3) pathological personality traits such as antagonism and grandiosity, believing one is better than others; condescending, arrogant, haughty; excessive attempts to attract the attention of others.  

Such parents see children as objects who they use to satisfy their needs, robbing them of all sense of self and self-esteem.  They have and show no care or love for their children.  The result is major damage to a child’s psyche.

Children of course, as opposed to adult women, do not have a voice vis a vis adults.  They are totally dependent on their parents for their welfare.  When asked, not only are children ashamed that they have received such abuse, but they know what will happen if they report on their parents.  Also every child wants desperately to believe that they are loved by their parents.  For all these reasons, they often hide the truth.

The only other person in a position to speak for a child is a relative or neighbor who is well-acquainted with the family dynamic.  However, these people will also usually not say anything for the same reasons as doctors … accepted cultural practices and closeness to the family.  There is one other.  If the parent is a Narc, close relatives or friends are typically enablers.  They have been brought into the Narc’s web of influence through various means and so see the Narc as a good person, not someone who is destroying their child.

Where does that leave the child victim?  Totally defenseless.

Why is this such a important topic?  If one cares about human beings, clearly one wants to prevent the psychic destruction of people, certainly children.  But beyond the individual, there are pressing social reasons to change this dynamic.  All of the dysfunction we see in the world … and it is everywhere … in the family, in the workplace, in the nation is a result of the suffering and insecurity that people experience as children.  (See my posts, “The Root of All Abuse and Violence - Insecurity,”  and “Insecurity as the Cause of Social Conflict and International War.”)  

If we truly want to make this world a better place for our children, then we must start by protecting our children.  The only way out of this terrible dynamic is to bring the subject of child psychological abuse out into the open.  It can no longer be a taboo subject.  Just like one never used to talk or hear about incest until a prominent person (a former Miss America) came out and told her story, prominent people need to come out and tell their story of being victims of child psychological abuse.

When people feel it is ok to talk about this subject, whether regarding their own experience or that of others, they will be empowered to free themselves of the suffering caused by denial by speaking the truth.  Then, hopefully, doctors, relatives, and friends will come to the rescue of children.  Adults who were victims as children will speak the truth.  We will be amazed at the prevalence of this tragedy.  Millions of children will be freed from their prison of suffering and countless adults will begin healing their trauma.

Raising a Secure and Happy Child

I have written in previous posts (1/7/13 & 1/10/13) how all abuse and violence stems from man’s insecurity, and further that it is the cause of all social conflict and war.  Insecurity is destructive.  I have also written a book, Raising a Happy Child, that posits that this insecurity is not inherent in man’s nature but learned.  And that the cycle of insecure parents raising insecure children who become insecure parents who raise … can be broken if parents become aware of this issue and take the steps I suggest in the book.

One of the things I discuss in the book is the critical nature of meeting a baby’s needs to be nurtured in first few months.  I cite as a problem the common feeling that it’s ok or even good to let a baby cry.  One doesn’t want to spoil a child, etc.  

As I note in the book, on the contrary this is harmful to the child because it creates feelings of insecurity.  A baby doesn’t cry for no reason.  It is seeking nurturing.  Birth is a very traumatic event for a baby, to leave the warmth and security of the womb for the harsh reality of the world, where very shortly after birth he is typically removed from his mother and put in a basinet.   That can only be scary.

While meditating recently, I thought of the example of how an animal mother cares for her young after birth.  For an animal mother, there is no purpose in life other than nurturing her young and seeing that they are safe until they are weened or its equivalent.  Except if the mother has to hunt for food, the young are always in close contact and within site of the mother.  And during the periods when they are alone, the litter has each other’s company for warmth and security.

How different that is from the contemporary human experience, at least in developed countries.  While a typical mother certainly cares deeply for her baby, often the baby’s needs are somewhat in conflict with the mother’s needs, interest, and convenience.  And so the baby’s needs often just aren’t met.  As a result, the baby experiences insecurity, which makes it cry all the more.

Now I do not mean to imply that the baby is neglected.  It is a rare mother who neglects her child, in the legal sense of the word, even in today’s culture.  However, the typical baby just does not get the frequent or almost constant nurturing it needs and wants. The advent of body slings has certainly improved the physical contact between mother and child, but that doesn’t meet all the baby’s needs.

But you can’t really blame mothers.  They are not taught what a baby needs.  Instead, they are taught, for example, that it’s good to let a baby cry.  Their own experience, the example of peers, the books they read … none of these begin to explain the amount of nurturing a baby needs in order to not start life feeling insecure, which creates a growing element for later learned insecurities.

What we need is to recognize that there is a conflict between the desires of modern man, our way of life, and the needs of babies.  Even before a couple decides to have a baby, they need to be made aware of what the baby’s needs will be and the “sacrifices” they will need to make for the sake of the baby’s well-being.   If they then decide to have a baby, there is at least a better chance that the baby will grow up secure and happy.

But because we are human beings and not animals, because we have a brain that can either be channeled to neurosis or to peace and happiness, more is required of a parent than early child nurturing.  That “more” does not depend on how much money the parents make.  Whether affluent or poor, whether living in a gated community or in an urban ghetto, whether a child grows up happy and secure depends in large part to how the child is equipped by his upbringing to handle the challenges that life will throw his way.

What does that mean?  It means raising a child to have a sense of security … not material security but spiritual security, faith that regardless what life throws his way all will be well because he will always go deep within himself and be at peace and find happiness in the moment … and self-love … not in the modern sense of “I’m wonderful” but in the spiritual sense of  “I’m a good person.”  

If a child is not raised in this manner, then attaining success and possessions as defined by his peer group will not make him happy because below the facade of happiness will always be a deep-seated insecurity.  But if a child does possess spiritual security and self-love, then regardless what life throws his way, even if he does not achieve success in the eyes of his peers or even lives in poverty, he will still be secure and happy because he will know who he is and will not be dependent on the approval of others.

Changing Free Will from a Harmful Illusion to a Life-Affirming Fact

Underlying many of the social systems and moral perspectives that govern our society is the concept of free will.  Whether stated as the ability to know right from wrong or whether it’s the belief that anyone can pick themselves up by their bootstraps, our system of laws, both criminal and civil, and government’s approach to helping those in need is founded on the concept of free will.

But do we really have free will?  Does each person really have this broad range of options from which he or she can choose?

The answer, in short, is “no.”  We are, each of us, a product of our upbringing, in all its many aspects ... from our experience in the womb, to the nurturing we receive in our early formative years, to everything we experience and learn at the hands of our family, peers, and the larger culture.  How all those different factors impact each person results in the multifaceted nature of humanity ... literally, no two people are the same, not even twins, and certainly not siblings.

While this statement should not be controversial, the further implications of it will likely be viewed as highly so.  The environment of our upbringing programs us (our minds are like extremely complex computers) to act the way we act. This is not to say that we are like robots.  Because we have minds and the ability to think, each of us has a range of actions that we can take.  But it is a much smaller range than assumed by the concept of free will.

Whether someone has ambition or has none, becomes a criminal or not, is kind or ruthless, and the list could go on and on ... regarding almost every area of human activity, most of the “decisions” we make are not really decisions, because decision implies a real choice.  Instead, these “decisions” have been made for us by the way we have been programmed by the environment of our upbringing.

Let’s take the example of two individuals growing up poor in the ghetto in similar circumstances and with a similar lack of educational achievement.  One takes the path of crime to provide money for the basics of life; the other rejects that route and takes a low-paying job.  The conventional view would be that the first individual makes a conscious decision to do what he knows to be wrong, while the second one makes a choice not to do what he knows to be wrong.  

But that is false.  The first individual, by virtue of his upbringing, does not think crime is wrong; he knows it’s illegal, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong as far as he is concerned.  The environment of his upbringing programmed him to disregard the larger society’s morality and to believe he had no other options for making it.  The second individual, on the other hand, had something in his upbringing ... possibly a parent or church ... that taught him that crime is wrong.  He could no sooner do that than chop off his hand.

Then there is the well known example of the child or wife abuser.  As research has clearly shown, these individuals do not choose to abuse their children or their wives.  They themselves were typically abused as children and their minds equate abuse with love because as children that’s how they coped with being abused by a parent.  And so, they are programmed by their past to abuse their loved ones.  They have no choice, absent intervention and therapy.

It is the mind’s programming that causes those who are abused to become abusers themselves.  As hard as it is for us to understand and accept that fact, as incomprehensible as it may seem, it is nevertheless a fact.

The implications of this analysis is significant.  There is no such thing as a bad person; that is to say, no one comes out of the womb a bad person, no one is an inherently bad person.  But people do come to do bad things because of what they’ve been taught by the environment of their upbringing.  

While that should and can have no impact on the laws of what is socially allowable behavior.  And those who violate those laws must take responsibility for their behavior, even if they in reality had little or no choice ... that is necessary for the stability of society ... how we treat such individuals is another matter.

Based on this analysis, how we deal with those who violate the law needs to change drastically from current and past practices.  For example, the goal of the criminal justice system is to increase public safety.  We know all too well from experience though that fear of incarceration or even death does not act as a deterrent and change people’s behavior.  Such is the power of their programmed minds.

Thus, while the criminal justice system would still determine guilt or innocence, the driving goal of the sentencing process would be rehabilitation not punishment.  Not just sentencing, but the whole prison culture would be totally transformed because in order to rehabilitate, a person’s thought process must be reprogrammed.  This is a complex process, but first and foremost it involves building someone’s feeling of self-worth and his sense of oneness, his interconnectedness with all people.  Only then will a person stop treating others badly, whether family, peers, or strangers.  (See my post, “Prisons as Monastery not Dungeon,” 11/20/14.)

The latter lesson will be very controversial for most readers because our whole system of social interaction, from the micro to the group to the nation is based on an us v them analysis, which in turn is based on our insecurity.  Virtually every conflict that man has been involved in has been a result of this insecurity and his us v them perspective.  Even the three great western religions have an us v them perspective at their core.  But this human weakness must be eradicated wherever it appears if we are ever to achieve peace at any level.

This analysis of the programming that robs us of free will also should impact the function of our public schools.  It is not enough to teach people job-related skills (yes, I know that many schools do a poor job of even that).  Schools must teach people what they are all too often not taught at home or by the media ... to be ethical human beings, regardless of the circumstance.  (See my post, “Schools as Educators of Citizens,” 3/10/14,)  Only then will children see beyond the immediacy of their environment and have a real chance to exercise free will

The goal of these changes I’m suggesting is to provide a real opportunity for people to exercise free will, to free themselves from the straight-jacket of their mind’s programming.

I stated in the beginning that for the most part, our systems are based on the invalid assumption that we have free will.  But in one critical arena, the injustice suffered by many results from the opposite assumption ... that they have no free will.  Schools, especially inner-city schools, mostly accept as given that children from bad backgrounds are hopeless, s lost cause, and nothing but trouble.  And that has become a self-fulfilling prophecy,

Let’s take two people of equal talent and intelligence,  One is born in an upper middle-class family with all the attendant privileges and supportive parents. One is born into a drug-addicted family living in poverty on the fringes of society.  There is no difference in the two children regarding their genetic-based talents and intelligence.  

In the one case the talents and intelligence are recognized and nurtured, sometimes obsessively, the talent and intelligence blossoms and the person goes on to become a productive person.  But in the other case, the talents and intelligence are neither recognized nor nurtured ... the seeds that are within are not watered ... and so that talent and intelligence atrophies and the person goes on to the life that is more or less typical for people raised in those surroundings.  Free will was not a factor in either case.

This is a huge waste of human potential and a crime against humanity.  Children indeed do not have free will, but they are young and their minds are malleable enough that they can more easily be taught to feel self-worth than adults.  Thus, all schools must instead function with the goal of making the most of each child’s potential and from the perspective that a child’s background and SES group does not predetermine that potential.  Just as our criminal justice system ideally follows the maxim “innocent until proven guilty,” our schools should follow the maxim, “talented and intelligent until proven otherwise.”

Our system of justice and social engineering based on the assumption of free will, or in the case of many inner-city schools, the lack of free will, has done an injustice to untold millions of people to the detriment not just of their lives but of the health and stability of our society.  We assume that people have free will when convenient for us, when in fact they do not; but at the same time believe that people have no free will, when that is what’s convenient.

What we must do is reform our systems so that all people develop a sense of self-worth, of opportunity, and thus in fact can exercise free will.  Only with such reforms will we ever see the full implementation of the promise of the Declaration of Independence ... that all men are created equal, have an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that governments are instituted to secure these rights.

The Damaging Impact of a Lack of Community on Children and Our Society

When Hilary Clinton wrote her book, It Takes a Village to Raise a Child, there were many, especially on the right, who ridiculed her for making this statement.  Bob Dole in his 1996 presidential nomination acceptance speech said that it doesn’t take a village, it takes a family to raise a child.

But this ancient African proverb is as true today as it was when it originated in the village-based societies of Africa.  Of course it takes a family to raise a child.  The influence of the immediate family, for better or worse, has a dominant impact on a child’s  development, emotionally and otherwise.  

Children, however, do not live in an isolated world bounded by borders of their family home.  From an early age they come into contact with many other influences ... mass media, peers, teachers, strangers.  Unfortunately, in our culture, most of these influencers, even teachers, have very little interest in the healthy development of the child.  Each has their own interest that prevails.  

Media wants to influence the child to do what its bidders want the child to do.  They want to manipulate the child.  

Other children are often quite selfish and can be very cruel.  They deal with their own insecurities by acting out against others who are weaker in any way than they are.  

Teachers ... and of course there are many exceptions ... are so burdened by the number of children they must deal with and the often chaotic condition of the school and classroom that they are overwhelmed.  They go through the motions of teaching, rather than really teach.  

And strangers, except for the occasional good samaritan, have no interest in the child and will act on their own interests and needs.

What I’ve described is the antithesis of growing up in a village, at least the communal villages of primitive societies.  Even before the industrial revolution, the village in western cultures, while a self-contained society, was not communal in nature.  The impact of individualism, while so much more pronounced now, was present even in those nostalgic days.  And so the child came into contact with many people who had little or no concern for its wellbeing and development.  And its insecurities were deepened.

In the communal villages of primitive societies, the attitude towards children was very different.  Every child was in many ways everyone’s child, not just the parents’.  Everyone in the village had a concern for a child’s wellbeing and development.  That was the culture.  The strength of people lay in the combined strength of the village, not in their individual attainments.  You of course had individuals who excelled in various areas, but their work was dedicated to the good of the whole, not themselves as individuals.  A child brought up in this atmosphere felt secure and wanted, a part of a larger whole.

It is this absence of community in our society that has resulted in the prevalence of gangs and other antisocial organizations, and more recently of growing ultra-religious groups, that provide the feeling of community that everyone yearns for but at the cost of the larger society’s cohesion.  It is the absence of community that results in a heightened insecurity and an attitude that the only thing that’s important is me, and perhaps my immediate family.  We live in a dog eat dog culture because of the absence of a feeling of shared community and responsibility for each other.

I don’t know how we revive a sense of community in our country.  We are farther from that ideal now then ever, I fear.  And there appears to be precious little interest in turning back from the polarized state we are in.  It does not bode well for the future of our country.

The Fallacy of the War on Drugs - Getting to the Root of the Problem

There is no question but that the drug abuse epidemic that has swept across our nation is a catastrophe.  It is a catastrophe for those who are addicted and are subject to its cravings.  It is a catastrophe for their loved ones, who suffer in innumerable ways.  It is a catastrophe for our economy because of the lost productive value of those who are addicted and the cost of dealing with the drug problem.  Estimates of the total overall costs of substance abuse in the United States, including productivity and health- and crime-related costs, exceed $600 billion annually.  

Recognizing the importance of getting people off drugs, the government has engaged in a policy aptly named, “The War on Drugs.”  Its concept is one of prohibition ... whether by criminalizing the use and sale of drugs and thus deterring such activity, or Nancy Reagan’s campaign of, “Just say no.”  

What simple-minded approaches to a deep-seated problem!  First of all, we know from our experience with alcohol prohibition that it not only doesn’t achieve the goal of reducing consumption, it has an actual negative impact by creating a whole illegal subculture around the manufacture and distribution of the substance.  And that has been our experience with the war on drugs as well.

Then they decided that the deterrent aspect needed to be strengthened by making prison sentences mandatory, even for relatively minor possession charges.  Well, our prisons have filled to overflowing, and yet it has made absolutely no impact on the demand for drugs.  

The criminalization approach to drug control and Nancy Reagan’s appeal to people to just say no have failed for the same reason.  As Time said in a report, “Americans tend to think of drug addiction as a failure of character.”  Such approaches assume that one has the ability to make a rational choice whether to do something or not.  Yet that is clearly not the case when it comes to drug abuse.

Others who recognize that it is not a failure of character, view drug addiction as primarily a biological problem relating to the chemical process of addiction.  But that is also looking at the wrong place.  That certainly describes why addiction is so hard to break out of, and why treatment rather than incarceration is often more appropriate, but it does not begin to help understand why people choose drugs to alter their mental state, which is where addiction and abuse begins.

Drug abuse is at root a societal problem.  People want to alter their mental state because they feel painfully insecure and thus unhappy.  It is an indictment of the failure of our society to raise children who feel secure, psychologically, and grow up be secure adults.  There is an abundance of academic research stretching back decades that finds that, to quote from an NIH report, “factors such as peer pressure, physical and sexual abuse, stress, and quality of parenting can greatly influence the occurrence of drug abuse and the escalation to addiction in a person’s life.”  These are all factors that induce feelings of insecurity in children.  The same can be said for almost every type of addictive behavior.

No one chooses to become a drug addict, or an alcoholic for that matter.  The problem is not that addicts have less moral fiber or character flaws.  The problem is that people who choose drugs or alcohol to alter/escape their mental state are typically people who are in agony.  They are suffering from feelings of insecurity and low self-esteem that are so intense, even if they are outwardly successful, that they feel that their only escape is through drugs or alcohol.  Yes, there are those who fall into drug addiction accidentally because of peer pressure, but the vast majority are trying to escape a world in which they can find no peace and security.

Indeed, one can argue that almost all of our social problems flow from a failure to raise secure children who go on to become secure adults.  Assuming that our government or a local community understood this and wanted to address the root cause, how would it go about it?  How could it change the pattern of insecure parents raising insecure children, with the situation repeating itself without end?

In my book, Raising a Happy Child, I note that it is a myth that childhood is a happy, carefree time. Typically it is neither carefree nor happy; it is instead fraught with insecurity. Raising a Happy Child seeks to change this fact of human development.

Why do children suffer this fate? What becomes of our lives is overwhelmingly a function of learned experience ... from our family, our peers, and the larger culture ... but first and foremost from our parents. The vast majority of parents are good people and would not do anything intentionally to harm their child.  But parents are people who are a function of their own upbringing and learned experience. They have their own fears, frustrations, angers, and desires.  And they see things through the lens of that experience and those emotions, which in turn impacts how they interact with their children. 

The result is children who do not feel loved unconditionally, are as a consequence insecure, and grow up to become insecure adults who do not love themselves unconditionally.  This is the primal basis of our fears and neuroses.

But this does not mean that parents should simply lavish praise on their children, give them what they want, or be uncritical of their children.  Direction and criticism are important parental functions; the question is how they are given, in what context. Raising a Happy Child seeks to provide parents with the means to step outside themselves, to be able to experience their child, themselves, and the world around them mostly free of their learned experience and emotions, thus enabling them to provide their children at all times with the nurturing and unconditional love they need to be happy and secure. 

The book then guides parents through the critical development stages of a child's life, providing advice on how to address the significant issues that arise at each stage within the context of unconditional love.  Raising a Happy Child  seeks nothing less than to fundamentally alter the quality of the relationship between parents and children, and thus change the way children relate to themselves and the world around them.  For more on the book and sample text, click the book's cover in the sidebar.  

What government, civic leaders, religious leaders ... anyone who is in a position of influence should do is read this book and encourage all parents to read the book and follow its advice.  Beyond that, government must take action to reduce social problems that exacerbate these issues, especially the failure of our schools.

Raising a Happy Child assumes that there is nothing fundamental that we can change about the competitive, consumption-driven society we live in.  I think that is beyond hope.  But governments and parents can take steps to improve the quality of life (and I don’t mean the number of possessions one has) that the average person experiences, insuring that everyone feels part of the larger community, equal in opportunity, and that everyone is nourished by their immediate family.

When Ego Drives Politics, Can There Be Any Hope?

We can rant all we want about the insufferable and destructive attitude and policies of the Tea Party and its fellow travelers, but truth be told, virtually all politicians are sorely lacking.  

A politician should be first and foremost a public servant ... there should be no greater interest than to serve the interests of his or her constituents and the greater public good.  And where the greater public good conflicts with the interests of constituents, politicians should back the greater public good because the welfare of the nation should always take precedence over the narrow interests of a locality.

Why is it that there are no, or at best a handful, of politicians today, and for that matter in the past, who encompass this ideal?  The short answer is that all politicians, and indeed all people, are driven primarily by their ego ... which is to say the sum of their learned experience that forms how they view themselves and the world around them.  All people and all politicians are programmed by their upbringing and societal environment to look at things a certain way.  They cannot really do otherwise.

And what is the primary lesson that our culture teaches?  Is it that we must work for and if necessary sacrifice for the good of the community, or is it that we should insure first and foremost that #1, ourselves, is taken care of first.  During much of our history there was a balance between these two messages.  But over the past 30-40 years, it has become increasingly the latter.  Everything else is secondary, at best.

When one combines the self-centeredness of politicians with their programmed view of the world, the result is often disaster for the nation they are supposed to be serving.  In the past, while politicians and people have always been driven by ego, most people were exposed to a strong centrist tradition ... for example the news broadcasts of the three networks and most major newspapers ... and that formed the core of their political learned experience.  Thus they were able to see it in their interest to come together, not on all issues but with sufficient frequency, to serve the public good.

But as the power of corporations has increased in politics and as the attitude of the people has become more extreme, especially on the right due to the emergence of right-wing cable news and right-wing radio talk shows, there remains virtually no issue on which the two Parties can come together in the nation’s interest.  The result is the total dysfunction that we’ve been seeing in Congress.  The result is a growing fissure in our society.  The public good and the interests of those most vulnerable suffer.

Our political system is a mess.  The electoral system is a mess.  Our society is a mess.  Is there any hope out of this morass?  There is no hope so long as even well-meaning politicians and people seek to find answers within the system as it exists because within those constraints there can be no real change.  There is no hope without being willing to examine the concepts that lie at the very core of our culture.  For it is these concepts that make people what they are and make our system of government what it is.

What in the world am I talking about, you might ask.  It means going back to basics.  The core moral ethic behind all the world’s great religions is, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  Yet there are few people, even among those who profess themselves to be ultra-religious, who practice this core ethic.  

Why is that?   The bottom line reason is that most people are insecure, both individually and as groups.  If you are insecure, you only think of yourself, not others.  Yes, many people, groups, and nations may appear to have strong egos and are full of bluster and bravado, but deep within, people whether low or high are insecure.  That’s why those on top are typically so imperious.  It’s a mask.

And why are people so insecure, even those who have “made it” in our society and have so much?  The answer is that most people were not brought up with unconditional love and compassion.  

I know this sounds very new age, but don’t laugh.  We are all cursed with the learned experience that we have to be someone other than we are, we have to be better than we are, in order to be loved and respected.  We learn this in childhood from our parents and later from our peers and the broader culture that bombards us with messages that we need to be or do more.

If on the other hand, we were all brought up with the constancy of unconditional love and compassion ... and mind, this does not mean no criticism; it means that criticism is done with loving kindness; children need direction, but there’s a way to do it and a way not to do it ... then we would not be insecure as children and we would not grow up to be insecure adults.

This atmosphere of unconditional love and compassion would not be limited to the family, but would extend to all people in the community, in the country, indeed to all mankind because we would be taught that all of humanity is one.  We are all children of the same God (if there is one), we all suffer in the same way, we all are programmed by our learned experiences to act the way we do.  No one is innately bad or evil, but history has shown that it is surprisingly easy to teach people to be bad or evil.  With that knowledge we can have compassion and love for all, even those who seek to harm us.  

This new attitude does not mean that we would not defend ourselves, as a nation or individually.  But with this new attitude we would have a chance to break the cycle of hate with love.   To show those who are insecure that they have nothing to fear from us; that there is no need to be aggressive.  And with time, this new force of love would gain in strength, encompassing ever more people and nations.  Slowly but surely the aggressive traits that we have assumed are part of the human condition would be replaced by a more spiritual perspective based on unconditional love and compassion for ourselves and for all others.

Martin Luther King said, "Someone must have sense enough and religion enough to cut off the chain of hate and evil, and this can only be done through love."  To that I say, "Amen."

Make Proposed Budget Cuts Transparent for the American People

Believe it or not, but the American people have not been told the impact of the proposed $61 billion budget cuts recently passed by the House of Representatives.  Yes, they’ve been told that health, education, and safety will be impacted, and that some jobs will be lost, but they’ve been given very few specifics to react to.

So today I tried to find out what that impact would be.  To my shock and dismay, I found that there was no … I repeat … no source that answered that question.   No newspaper, no magazine, no government report, no Democratic Party position paper … nothing.   I searched the Internet in vain.  All I could find were the same vague statements being repeated over and over again.

And so I went digging for specifics.  Here’s what I could find:

Veterans:

            $75 million      Would deprive 11,000 homeless veterans of vouchers for housing

Children:

            In total, programs benefiting children are cut 21%

            $330 million    Health

            $2.6  billion     Education … for example, significant cuts are made in Head Start

                                        and other early education efforts that would cause 368,000 children

                                        to lose early education slots.  These cuts will also cause many

                                        Head Start programs to close and many teachers to lose their jobs.

            $139 million    Youth Training

            $3.5  billion     Housing subsidies

            $30   million    Safety

            $782 million    Nutrition, mostly from the successful WIC (Women with Infant

                                        Children) program

Food and Health Safety:

            $1.3  billion     cuts from FDA, FSIS, and CDC budgets.  These cuts will iimpact

                                        everything from the number of federal meat inspectors ($53

                                        million) to dollars spent to control the spread of HIV.

Border and Immigration

            $600 million

The bill would also completely eliminate federal funding for a host of programs including Americorps, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting  (NPR and PBS), and Planned Parenthood. 

The number of jobs .. both government (federal, state, and local) and private … that would be lost as a result of the $61 billion in budget cuts has been estimated as high as 700,000.  Needless to say, any sizeable increase in unemployment will hurt the economy and hurt families.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg.  WHY hasn’t the Democratic Party or any news organization put together this vital information, preferably in a comprehensible form, so that the people can see what is happening and voice their opposition … if indeed they are opposed … to their representatives in Congress?

Remember that 2-years extension of the Bush tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 that the Republicans insisted on and the Democrats opposed.  That tax cut added $100 billion to the deficit for just that 2-year period.  But the Republicans won’t consider the impact of tax cuts on the deficit.  This is a clear example how they give to the rich and take from the poor and workers.  For them, there is no shared sacrifice.

If ever there is a need for effective communication, that time is now!