By comparing them to Saddam Hussein (or, excuse me, by comparing Saddam Hussein to them).
Sure, you say, but she’s talking about disturbed children. And, as Jennifer Roback Morse reminds us, disturbed children are a drain on families, and sometimes, the most compassionate thing to do is to make them wards of the state:
Protecting the innocent is the central purpose of all this. It is the purpose of the Iraqi court, currently trying Saddam. It was America’s purpose in removing him from power. It is even the purpose of parents of disturbed children.
These parents, of course, would like to heal their children. But that is not always possible. I have known families who had to give up an adopted child, for the protection of the other children in the family. They felt they had failed, I am sure. But they would be negligent toward their other children if they had acted otherwise. Likewise, allowing Saddam to continue his regime, or letting him go unpunished now, is not compassion toward anyone.
What? You mean that adoption doesn’t always work out perfectly? You mean that it’s totally acceptable for parents to “return” a kid they don’t want, so long as that kid wasn’t built from their own genes? And I thought the right-wing ideal was to kill Saddam. What does that mean for these disturbed children who apparently share so many of his attributes?
Disturbed children deflect responsibility for their actions by a lot of talking. As long as he is allowed to talk, the child thinks the issue is negotiable. Saddam has been disrupting the proceedings of the Iraqi court by running his mouth.
You can’t let these kids chatter. They will suck you into their craziness and excuse-making. Sooner or later, you will slip into some opening they can use to divert attention from what they’ve done.
Don’t go there. When the kids break a rule, my husband and I make a point of saying as little as possible.
Instead of talking, we deliver the consequence. It may take only a single word: “Sit.” We may bodily (and wordlessly) remove them from whatever they were doing. Sometimes, we’ll say, “go get me a dollar.” If they’ve offended another child, we may say, “thank you for volunteering to do Johnny’s chores.” (At which, Johnny breaks into a wide grin.)
Ah, so she has disturbed children of her own. I’ll bet they’re proud to be featured in her column this week!
Disturbed children are masters of manipulation. Saddam manipulated the whole world community. Should we be surprised that a sadistic, genocidal dictator is also a liar? Every time Saddam successfully conned Hans Blix, the world became a sicker place.
Speaking of being conned, don’t go there. Getting away with lies makes the person sicker. “If his lips are moving, he’s lying,” describes children we have known.
When they claim innocence, we don’t accuse them. They might run their mouths with denials. We don’t get into evidence and arguments. Instead, we say simply and truthfully: “I don’t believe you.” When they (inevitably) protest their innocence, we respond, “what do I think?” They say, “you think I did it.” Whatever else we might do to handle the situation, at least the child knows he hasn’t fooled us.
Boy would I love to have her as a parent — “If your lips are moving, I know you’re lying!” Christ.
But the bio is the best:
Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., is the founder and chief visionary of Your Coach for the Culture Wars, a business devoted to supporting organizations that want to preserve their core values and achieve prosperity by taking a stand in the Culture Wars.
Core values, like returning adopted imperfect children as if they were last season’s sweater-vest. Like comparing Saddam Hussein to her own kids. Like winning the culture wars through child psychology. Yay!