David Brooks on the power of love

Does this mean that maybe, just maybe, Hillary Clinton was correct when she put forth the idea that it takes a community to raise a child?

No, maybe Dan Qualye was right when he said 'it takes a family'.

No, because Hillary equated "community" with "government", as most politicians, particularly those on the left, do. Community is not about government and in fact government destroys community, as people living in a vital community have the resources to stand up to government over reaching that lone individuals don't.

Does this mean that maybe, just maybe, Hillary Clinton was correct when she put forth the idea that it takes a community to raise a child? Nah...that could never be.

Actually, I wrote in "Crunchy Cons" that Hillary was right to the extent she meant that the moral formation of children depends not only on the individual family, but the social context in which they're raised. That wouldn't, or shouldn't, be a controversial point on the right, at least not among social conservatives. The suspicion of Hillary is that she meant "...and therefore we need more government programs."

The village is gone. It is dead. It gets resurrected here and there, for shorter or longer periods, but as a ubiquitous model in our society, it is gone.

We see the innate desire for it. Play dates, sports leagues (Little League was there well before the first soccer mom was born), the spaghetti dinner at the firehouse. Instead of standing on our porches or lawns, we congregate at malls.

There were two moments of realization for me, which together made me face that fact. The first was an argument I was prepared to have with my wife shortly after we started our life together. I wanted to find a nice neighborhood and nice school district outside the city ("in the suburbs" is no longer accurate for these urbanized extensions of our city), and she blew my entire argument away with one sentence: we'd have to drive everywhere. That made me realize that my romantic memories were no longer accurate.

The second was in our downtown urban mall. I'd just snatched a careening child (4 or 5 years old) from certain injury, and was immediately attacked (very nearly physically) by two parents who were right there watching, fully prepared (or supremely ignorant) for the child's imminent trip to an ER. If I hadn't taken my own aggressive stance, the man quite likely would have tried to hit me. The woman was screaming words that didn't quite make sentences, but "police", "arrested", "lawsuit" and "child molestation" came through in the clear. That made me realize that for all the debates and impassioned arguments about the importance of children to our society, there was an entire generation of adults out there willing to see a child injured. That the child was actually the offspring of my accosters didn't seem to make a difference, though that was unusual in this case. My reaction was mainly for the dozens of adults who might have intervened before I found it necessary to do so, but simply watched the child go by. And having parents respond with anger instead of thanks is, in my experience, common enough to seem normal to many.

The village is gone. It won't come back -- we've grown too large and too mobile -- until "from here" is wiped clean from our psyches and replaced with "belongs here". But that's just my opinion.

Rod, I hardly know where to start here. I wish I could write you three paragraphs on the topic that were so wondrously persuasive that all hearts would instantly be convicted and melted. But I can't. Jesus tried it, and he couldn't either, and the student cannot surpass her teacher. So this is no more than what springs to the tip of my tongue.

I'm astonished that David Brooks is going to write this book, but I hope it's a good one and that it sells millions. It doesn't take neuroscience to know that it's true--love is what you need. Love is the bright substance of the human universe, and without it there's nothing good. And the only way love gets into this world is if some individual human being makes the commitment to put their heart into it, put their shoulder to the wheel, and put out true, kind, caring, persevering, patient love for another human being for as long as it takes. For a lifetime, if necessary, with no whining about how they aren't getting anything in return. You will get plenty in return--full measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over, as Jesus put it--but you have to have faith and keep going.

Love is like math--it always works. It doesn't always work in the sense that it makes everything okay right away, here and now. But it's never wasted, and it always helps. And even when it falters, it's for damn sure that nothing else is going to work better. So don't ever let frustration flip you over and make you say "Okay, love hasn't worked so now I'm just going to kill you!" Uh uh. That's not love, and never was to begin with. ; ) Sometimes the answer is to add more wisdom and better technique to your love, but it's never to give up on loving.

I speak from personal experience, and I know what I'm talking about. Love is the only miracle there is. This may be the most important topic you've ever posted on, Rod, and it comes at the perfect time. My sadness is that I think people will pass it by as if it didn't matter, to be distracted by some relatively petty controversy. Scoring points by slapping someone else down is like a tic, like an addiction, that most of us--myself included--are sadly prone to. (I say "most" of us because there are a few zen riders of the purple combox out there who manage to balance atop two galloping horses with apparent ease, never once slapping leather . . . hiyo, Franklin! awaaaay . . . . )

My frustration is that you, Rod, can see and notice and care about the power of love--and yet speak dismissively of "emotivism" and "the therapeutic society" as if you believed people should be able to just suck it up and do without love. The conservative movement in general is very strong on anger and contempt. Those are emotions they can get behind. They seem to think love is for sissies--and women.

As witness reactions here--it's much easier to start another tired argument about Hillary than to look into one's own heart and ask: If this is TRUE--if love is the bottom line for humans, and this is not an opinion or a religious ideal, but simply a FACT--then what does that say about how I'm living my life? My wish is that everyone who is reading this would decide to give love a try instead of whatever you've been doing. Commit to it as the most important thing in your life. Let that be the first question you ask yourself when you see people in the course of the day: "how can I show this person some love?" Don't commit for a day or a week--try it for a year, or two. By then you may actually get to like it. You might save someone's life. You might even save your own.

Rod: "Actually, I wrote in "Crunchy Cons" that Hillary was right to the extent she meant that the moral formation of children depends not only on the individual family, but the social context in which they're raised. That wouldn't, or shouldn't, be a controversial point on the right, at least not among social conservatives. The suspicion of Hillary is that she meant "...and therefore we need more government programs.""

I can accept that explanation, Rod. And I have listened for years as many conservatives rail against the expansion of government programs. But what I have not seen is a similar commitment to raising up community-based groups (churches, service organizations, etc.) to step in and take over when government services are cut.

Here in Iowa there has been a lot of complaining about expenditures for what is commonly called the "social safety net." Welfare, food stamps, WAC, and the other support mechanisms for those families in need. Many voices have been raised on the right to cut these programs, tighten restrictions on them, or even abandon them altogether.

Yet there is virtually nothing being done in the churches to start replacing them. The need will remain as long as we have a poor economy (and here in Iowa the economy has been poor for several years). Yet we have a terrible time getting donations for local food pantries, homeless shelters, and soup kitchens. It's almost impossible for the local Salvation Army center to field enough volunteers to have a Sunday evening meal. Traditionally the Sunday evening meal has been run by local churches, with a different church taking each week, providing food and volunteers to feed the needy who come. We are a small town, and yet we consistently have 50 people show up for food on Sunday nights.

If the conservatives wish to make the case that increased government programs are not needed, then what is going to fill the gap and meet the needs of the growing number of poor, homeless and hungry people in our communities? If we accept the position that government isn't the answer, then what is? And more importantly, when are conservatives going to step up and show that the government is not needed in this area?

The basic idea is so old and obvious that we really shouldn't need to be discussing it. We have to discuss it because the American Left and Right, in different ways, have negated the basic idea over the last 50 years. The Left denies because you can't acknowledge family without acknowledging that males and females are different. The Right denies because community gets in the way of Randian perfect atomistic individualism and risk-taking entrepreneurs.

FDR understood the basic idea, and his welfare programs were aimed at PRESERVING the family, preserving the different roles of male and female. Sometime around 1970, under the influence of both parties, we lost it. All gov't programs since then, whether Leftish or Rightish, have been aimed at separating the individual from family and community influences.

I'd quibble with the word Love, though. It has too many loadings and connotations. I prefer the word Attention. Social animals such as dogs and humans need to know that they are "the apple of your eye".

This was so profound that I've copied and sent this along (with the link, of course) to members of my family.

The problem with "programs" is that they are necessarily a one-size-fits-all thing in a world where each individual is unique. Those who've raised families know that that what motivates one child may well cause another to shut down, that what inspires one may well bore the pants off another. Good managers know that adults are no different.

The best program on earth can never replace caring for the specific individual standing before you.

It's so much more than the "nuclear family" (a creation of the late 1940s), it goes to clan and community. I was blessed to have positive influences other than my parents as I was growing up, both friends and neighbors, and teachers (8th grade, sophomore history, college dean) who literally changed the way I viewed the world. We made sure our daughter had the same.

Programs can't love. Only individuals can impart the caring, attention and validation that causes us to thrive.

While we spend millions in Iraq, the problem of Sudan and Darfur has been around much longer. And as of Yet, the American "Freedom Loving" America has not sent troops to protect and feed the millions of starving, victimized people of this ravished land.

Where are our priorities? We complain about the stock market and the loss of jobs and the mortgage meltdown and yet we are not demanding that the Free World intervene in Darfur. All the speeches are meaningless if we don't take action now.

Demand that our Nation take action NOW! Write your congressmen and call for a vote to send forces into Darfur and end the terror.

There is lots of good stuff out there in neuroscience looking at how children learn. MRI studies have been used to look at what learning styles work best for kids. Positive reinforcement works much better for younger kids. Call it love if you will.

Children raised in poverty hear many fewer words from their parents. The words they do hear are more likely to be negative. Middle class kids hear more words, and those words are much more likely to be positive. Call it love expressed.

The simple Marshmallow test is very strongly predictive of future success. Tell a 4 y/o they can have a marshmallow now, or if they can wait 20 minutes w/o eating it they can have two. This is deemed the ability to delay gratification, but can also be viewed as the child who has been loved and learned to trust others.

Love in a broad sense is probably a good way to look at what is needed for better learning. It seems more and more clear, IMO, that it must be experienced very early in life to be effective.

Steve

Re: US Military action in Darfur, Rod states: "Because it was so effective when we did this in Somalia, right?"

Which effort are you referring to, Rod? Are you speaking of the support we gave to a dictatorial regime there in the 80s? Or are you speaking of the failed efforts made in the 90s under the Bush/Clinton administrations? Or are you talking of the efforts made later under the current administration to try to influence the situation by supporting warlords there?

My guess is that you are speaking about the military intervention began under Bush I and continued by Clinton. This was decried by many conservative voices as a useless police action (many of the same voices that later would support our invasion of Iraq, which has turned into a costly police action). And quite honestly, their criticism has merit. Had the Bush and Clinton administrations managed the Somalia situation differently we might have seen beneficial results. They didn't, and we are stuck with the aftermath.

The question we must address then is simple: should we ever intervene with military forces solely for a humanitarian-based reason? Darfur is a good example, but we can choose from several others as well for purposes of discussion. Can/should the US act solely on the basis of preventing genocide, or must there be "something else in it for us" such as a strategic interest in the region, an interest in some natural resource, or some other interest we label as a national security issue (such as keeping the gum arabic flowing from Sudan exporters)?

"Really, as Christians, shouldn't we be more concerned with showing that the Bible was right than with showing that Aristotle was right?"

Even Paul (who was Saul) cited the Greek's "unknown god" instead of the Law of Moses when preaching to the Greeks.

Besides, if Ari was okay for St. Thomas Aquinas, he's okay for me.

Seems like a few people here gwt it. Yes, the USA has a first class A #1 military, the very best there is. It can blow stuff up and kill bad guys better than anyone. When you start adding to that mission-policing, humanitarian aid, spreading democracy(Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq?)-it starts to break down. While the surge has been an improvement, for how long and to what end? We keep assuming we can change the nature of men and nations, and it's wrongheaded foolishness. Which is why Brooks and "American greatness" deserve scorn. There are limits, nd instead we keep pushing them or ignoring them.

"The question we must address then is simple: should we ever intervene with military forces solely for a humanitarian-based reason? Darfur is a good example, but we can choose from several others as well for purposes of discussion. Can/should the US act solely on the basis of preventing genocide, or must there be "something else in it for us" such as a strategic interest in the region, an interest in some natural resource, or some other interest we label as a national security issue (such as keeping the gum arabic flowing from Sudan exporters)?"

The question of an American intervention in Sudan comes down to how much local support it could secure before it took place. I'm talking about support from the people in power, who would never allow such a thing and even resisted a peacekeeping force that wasn't predominantly African. Also, the situation in the nearby Congo is spiraling deeper into chaos, (as if that were possible). The political undercurrent there traces back to the same rivalries and power struggle that enabled the Rwandan genocide.

Since America doesn't see much strategic value in investing in Sudan, China has also more than happy to step in.

Suggesting that mere military intervention is the answer is myopic. This is a region with little infrastructure or formal institutional foundation. The little that exists would be too foreign to the US for them to secure any peace in the region on a short-term military mission.

Has the US gained any insight in its experience as to what kind of intervention might be most sustainable in the long term?

Extremely moving post...

Bravo, David Brooks!

Cheers, Nicholas Kristof!

Obvious observations...

#1= Each and every person posting here is precious and beloved of God.

#2= Let's practice this "sacrificial suffering toward others" called LOVE.

#3= Let's stop the circular firing squad between the Left and the Right. We need BOTH loving families/neighborhoods/communities AND we need effective government. Duh! Please... can't we get beyond this false argument? Sheesh.

Tonight- before I turn out the lights- I will name for my children what I hope they've experienced throughout the day. I will say, "I love you." Of course, no government can do that for me.

Yet, my family, my neighborhood, my church cannot make a dent in the situation in Sudan. The government can. My congregation cannot single-handedly pay for the health of the person who has been fighting cancer for 20 years. No amount of offerings or bake sales could pay for that. So we need the government, as an instrument of God (created good, fallen, and being redeemed) to act in a manner beyond the power of individuals, families and faith communities.

May our government, of the people, by the people, and for the people (of the earth) become an instrument of grace.

It is not either/or. It is both/and.

FWIW, Duh-sciple

Cuchulain,

Thank you, kind sir!

God, I would have killed (metaphorically speaking) to have been there.

Hear, hear, Duh-ciple. (And, of course, you too, Rod, for an excellent post.)

What the hell are we going to do about Darfur? I agree, our military peacekeeping missions tend to fall in on themselves, but we have to do something. We have a moral obligation and we are fluffing it.

I hate guns, (relax, I don't want to take yours away, I just don't want any in my house) and I rarely think arming anyone is the answer to anything, but if somebody wants to organize a 21st century Beecher's Bibles mission for the innocents in Darfur, well, I'd donate money. At this point, I'd do anything to stop the janjaweed.

Oh, and BTW... HRC was quoting. "It takes a village to raise a child" is an ancient African proverb. It's silly to discount wisdom just because some politician happened to recognize it, too.

Dreher asked previously if we really doubted that Sarah Palin didn't know that Africa was a continent, or who was in NAFTA? David Brooks has said that Palin doesn't have the 'human capacity' to learn enough to be president.

I'd ask Dreher and Brooks if they really believe that, given the demographic changes in America, the children flooding into our public school systems really have the capacity to improve much, even with massive spending, even with community. Overall that is, there are always exceptions. But both Dreher and Brooks are overlooking the changing demographics and everything we know about the characteristics of the increasing populations.

Keep your kids away from the public schools, be prepared for stresses in our society. It might be nearing its end as a single country.

"I guess I just wish public schools were smaller and that a good atmosphere could be encouraged at all of them, instead of the impersonal clinic feel common to many of them. The problems extend beyond the schoolyard of course, to the kind of atmosphere each child experiences before and after school."

Unfortunately, if the economic pressures continue as they have for the past 10-15 years, you are going to see school continue to consolidate. Here in Iowa there is tremendous pressure for smaller schools to consolidate with larger schools around them. State funding is beginning to be formulated to favor schools who have consolidated or are planning to consolidate.

The goal, we are told, is to achieve economies of scale and save the taxpayers of our districts money. In the classroom we end up with larger and larger class sizes, more push to teach to the middle of the spectrum, which abandons the gifted children as well as those needing assistance.

And then there is always NCLB to worry about, which does not count how well you provide a safe, caring and loving environment for children. The only thing it looks at are the bottom line numbers from standardized tests.

Many private schools do not have to jump these hurdles. They can afford to turn away students who are problematic. They can afford to take extra time in the classroom. And yet, with those private institutions who do attempt to follow NCLB testing, there appears to be little if any difference in performance between their students and those in public school.

DeeAnn, my brief reference has many long conversations behind it. Your point is one I'm well familiar with. Thanks for the thought, and for your desire to promote community. I didn't mean to minimize those (so very few!) places where it survives. More power to them.

I like ChuckDFW's semantic shift to compassion. It covers the issue nicely for me.

There is a cognitive disconnect between a US with situations and locales that are bad -- not as bad as Darfur, to be sure -- which go unnoticed or ignored. I don't consider it a fatal disconnect, and I don't mean to start a moral explosion around accusations of hypocrisy (which carry a core of validity), but truly we can't seem to see our own reflections.

For much less than the cost of a peace-keeping mission, we could do a Habitat for Humanity gig on entire sections of some cities. For a fraction of the monthly cost of the Iraq mission, we could repair and as needed replace the entire physical plant of an urban school district. It is not about finger pointing, but it absolutely is about priorities.

RJohnson: Many private schools do not have to jump these hurdles. They can afford to turn away students who are problematic.

Not always. Around here, many private schools have signs up, advertising for enrollment. Often the first thing to go in a family budget, when times get tough, is private school tuition. And I have personally known several people whose kids have *not* had easy times in private schools, precisely because smaller schools struggling to maintain enrollment do *not* always "just kick out" troublesome students.

Private schooling is fine for those who find one that's a good fit for their kids, and that the family can afford. It's not a panacea for every education problem.