Presidential Lessons from the Playground

It is almost impossible to pick-up a newspaper or magazine these days without finding articles with suggestions for women who are attempting to re-enter the workplace after taking time off to raise children. Some advise women to emphasize volunteer work and other “professional” duties to explain the resume gap—while others propose women take on consultant titles to show that they were never really out of the game. Perhaps instead of trying of hide years of child rearing behind clever resume language women ought to proudly stand-up for their time in the home and the skills they honed by managing their family.

No one who has ever had to talk a three-year out of a temper tantrum in the middle of a shopping center, negotiate between siblings or prepare a nourishing meal, while arranging the week’s carpool and finishing off the school auction’s marketing plan knows there are plenty of lessons to be learned from rearing our children. Lessons that have direct application in a policy maker’s world. In fact, when looking at our country’s current leadership—it is clear that none of them has ever been a fully-engaged parent. They couldn’t have been, because no one who teaches children life’s basic lessons could pursue these policies.

Anyone who has ever been on a playground has witnessed a tussle between children. Someone took her doll or kicked his ball and the angered child takes a whack at the offender. The first thing (most) caregivers would say after calming the children down is that you never solve a problem by hitting someone; it only makes them angrier and sooner or later you both end up hurt. Hmmm. Telling our children that hitting doesn’t solve problems and that they need to use their words is a mantra that fills playgrounds throughout the country, yet the Bush Administration continues to advocate policies that most 4-year-old’s can comprehend won’t work. Since when does beating-up someone (read blowing up their country and killing hundreds of innocent civilians) ever make anyone better off? They certainly aren’t and we certainly aren’t any closer to getting what we want—that is, people who aren’t angry enough at us to want to blow us up.

Yes, most people in the United States and Iraq believe that Iraqis are better off without Sadam Hussein as its leader. But, simply getting rid of the bully doesn’t necessarily make the playground a fun place to be if steps are not taken to make sure that water fountain works, the swings are in good condition and that ground isn’t full of broken glass. Any good parent knows that people thrive not only where they are safe from attack, but in environments where basic needs are met and people are allowed to develop community. Winning is not only about conquering your adversary it is about reaching out to others and supporting their development. The United States never focused its planning building a country—only destroying it. We now witness daily the destruction and chaos that comes from destroyed communities.

The Golden Rule, “treat others as you want to be treated,” is the basis for good playground etiquette. If our leaders had thought more about this fact they may not have rushed to war based on the failed idea that “our enemies are jealous of our freedom.” But rather thought that perhaps there are people that are not as they should and that “hitting” is not going to solve the problem. Perhaps too, if more women were fully welcomed back into the workplace after childrearing some of these simple lessons could be taught to a group of people that desperately need to learn these lessons.

When Will Leadership Mean Telling the Truth?

The debate on the Iraq war making its way through Washington this week via General Petraeaus’ testimony before Congress, brings to light the chronic issue of our policy debate today–how dubious facts are often related as truth to buttress political positions. We are well aware how the weapons of mass destruction “data” was used to build a case for going to war in Iraq and despite public numbness toward the deception this type of “factually-based” opinion is rampant in Washington policy-making circles. Many such examples of this type of “fact-finding” were evident in the General’s testimony yesterday–down to the differention of how an individual is shot to delineate if it a crime of war or of “ordinary circumstances.”

Let’s be clear–facts are something that are not only observable, they are points that can be agreed upon by all those involved. Instead of basing violence statistics on the entry wound, would it not be more effective to discuss number of poeple shot? Then there is no debate and we can have an honest discussion about what is really happening in Iraq.

If we are to effectively move forward in our appraoch to this ill-conceived war and indeed in all our policy decisions, they the public must require our political leaeders to stop the spinning and start using real facts. Why not start a discussion of what is going on Iraq by agreeing on what is really happening. How many civilians are being injured? How many are able to access basic public services? How many children are enrolled in school? Until our policy discussions are based in facts we all agree to, we will never be able to move forward.

So to all those in Congress I ask that you begin your debate about the war by agreeing on the facts. In doing so, you will cut down the political rhetoric and begin making progress by staring from a place of agreement.