My son is 6 years old — old enough to have strong opinions about everything, but not old enough to have reliable judgment, especially when it comes to clothes. In some families, parents completely control what their children wear, from their shirts to their shoes. My husband and I, on the other hand, let our son have some say in what he wears because it makes him happy and because it teaches him about making good choices.
“Do you want to wear your blue shirt or your red shirt today?” we will ask. Usually our son is satisfied picking from the options we have laid out. Occasionally, though, he will ask to wear a green shirt instead of a red or blue one. If the green shirt is clean, if it matches the slacks we want him to wear, and if we’re not in a rush to get out the door, we usually let him have his way. If we do not feel the green shirt is suitable, we try to explain why. We also force him to choose from what is already laid out when we are pressed for time.
I think of these parent-child interactions as a metaphor for how different countries govern. In some places, citizens have no say in who is in charge, much as some children have no say in what they wear. In others, the selection process for leaders resembles dressing my son. In the United States, for example, we review political candidates to see if they are “clean” — free of corruption and political liabilities — and if they match our values and goals. Time is also a factor; if a candidate starts campaigning too close to an election, he may not win, no matter his qualifications. Like the clothes my husband and I preselect for our son, Democratic and Republican nominees also have an advantage over those from smaller political parties. But, like our son’s preference for green shirts, people in this country sometimes reject the suggestions of major parties in favor of Libertarians, Greens or other third-party candidates — and sometimes those independent choices win.
In giving our son small freedoms now, we hope he will learn to make good choices about bigger things. Some day he will vote for lawmakers and presidents. Some day he may even become one.
After practicing law for a number of years, Michael Jay Friedman returned to school and earned a doctorate in U.S. political and diplomatic history.
Michelle Austein Brooks is a U.S. government and politics writer who has covered three national elections for America.gov.
Peggy B. Hu defied Asian-American stereotypes in college by studying comparative literature and international relations rather than math and science.
Stephen Kaufman is an experienced writer who has covered the White House and the State Department, and continues to report on international and democracy issues, including press freedom.
Tanya Brothen is a blogging enthusiast who began writing for the web on a whim. Now it’s her job.
Comments (5)
ssfarzanarooma
May 28, 2009 at 10:36 EDT
Permalink
Very nice title and nice writing. I am reading this and thinking if I have children I will give them this type freedom. I .am a specially challenged woman. I have no family;never no one call me mother. Thanks for nice article.
fatin
May 29, 2009 at 02:25 EDT
Permalink
New hope brings new relation.our life always goes for making a better future.we need to share us with others without any doubt.
Peggy B. Hu
America.gov Staff
May 29, 2009 at 12:03 EDT
Permalink
Dear ssfarzanarooma,
I’m glad you liked the piece! Thanks for writing.
Sheyoen
May 30, 2009 at 23:19 EDT
Permalink
Makes absolute sense to me…..thanks for reminding….
I think children in school could also be given this kind of “small freedom” - their preferred style of learning, extracurricular activities on the basis of their hobbies, etc.
Peggy B. Hu
America.gov Staff
June 1, 2009 at 09:41 EDT
Permalink
Dear Sheyoen,
My husband and I recently had to fill out a form asking exactly these types of questions about our son, so I think schools may indeed be trying to take children’s learning styles and other preferences into account.