theories on politics and parenting

I've been working on this post for a long time in my head. Just be forewarned that there are many generalizations here, and I don't mean to offend, so please just hear me out and if you want to comment then great. At least I'll get you thinking, right? Loyal followers, today we are going to talk about politics and parenting.

First, politics. Here are our nation's political parties as I choose to generalize them:

• Democratic: The government takes care of the people. You pay your taxes, and in return, the government makes sure your needs are met. Social programs like welfare, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, etc., are important. The Democratic party is, arguably, the more "charitable" party when it comes to funding programs for the needy. The government should ensure your quality of life.

• Republican: You take care of yourself. You pay taxes because you must, but you don't necessarily trust the government to be there for you. Predominantly agricultural states tend to be more Republican (taking care of yourself, growing your own food), Republicans are more likely to support, say, individual retirement accounts as opposed to Social Security (funding your own retirement), and I'd argue Republicans more passionately support educational programs that "teach a man to fish," instead of just funding a solution to his problem (education programs for homeless vs. tent cities, and the like).

OK. Now, parenting:

• Attachment Parenting (AP): The parent takes care of the baby -- literally. The baby is not permitted to cry, ever, indefinitely, because crying means the infant feels "abandoned" by the parents. The parent always soothes the baby, and co-sleeping is common. Advocates argue AP creates feelings of security in the child.

• Common Parenting: The child, when able, learns to take care of himself. The baby can learn to soothe himself to sleep, generally by needing to "cry it out" to figure out how to do so. Baby often sleeps in his crib. (I found this site that outlines the "opposite" to AP as the Babywise method, some of which I don't necessarily agree with, but if you're interested in more of the differences this is a good place to look.)

I was thinking about this a couple nights ago as I sat on our futon in Wesley's room, talking to him sweetly as he cried and cried and cried himself to sleep. I didn't want to leave him, but I knew that eventually he'd have to learn to put himself to sleep. The book Healthy Sleep Habits, Happy Child argues that sleep is an individual thing; I can't sleep for you, you can't sleep for me. A baby must sleep for himself.

As I sat there in the dark, my little heart breaking as Wesley cried, I thought to myself, "Wesley, you need to learn to do this. I can't do this for you." I know he is at the age where he can physically put himself to sleep. I believe it. All the books say it. So, I have to give him the opportunity to try it. To figure it out for himself. If I don't, I'm robbing him of an opportunity for growth, or even, an opportunity to fail (and learn from it). I couldn't help but think that my views were so very "teach a man to fish"... trying to give my son that opportunity to grow, even though it was painful (for both of us), and it would have been easier if I had just picked him up and rocked him for 20 minutes.

AP advocates argue, however, that a baby shouldn't be permitted to cry, under any circumstances. The parent, in all cases, needs to rush to the baby's side and "solve the problem." Soothe the baby to sleep at all times. Stop the car if the baby cries. Breastfeed for years. Offer the "family bed" as an alternative to a "cold, lonely" crib.

I have some friends who are staunch "AP believers," and they totally drive me crazy. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that this runs along political party lines (which would make sense, seeing as how Washington is extremely "blue"). If you lean more liberal and Democratic, you buy into the AP thing -- you rush to the aid of your child and take care of everything, like the government is expected to be a firm hand in the care of the country. If you're more conservative or Republican, you support what I would argue are more "traditional" or common methods of parenting (babies sleep in cribs; they use pacifiers; they cry sometimes), like government doesn't need to be this big entity controlling every aspect of everyone's lives.

Here are some other things to consider:

• AP outlines that the parents need to adjust to the baby's schedule, and baby is in control of feeding, sleeping, etc. I would argue otherwise and say there is a big world out there that was already in operation when the baby was born, and the baby should (not at first, mind you, but eventually) learn to adjust to it. If not, in a couple years what you'll have is one surprised (and spoiled rotten) kid who finally figures out he isn't the center of the universe.

• Maybe this is a family thing? Some of the AP advocates I know talk about co-sleeping with their parents until they were five, etc., which explains their being passionate about the practice. I slept in a crib; in fact, my folks have told me they let me cry it out. I feel pretty normal, and I don't hate them for it, nor have I ever felt abandoned or insecure.

• Baby goes to sleep at 7:30 pm, right? So, if you have a "family bed," you're going to leave your baby in bed while you go back to the dinner table or your blogs or your nightly chores? In the short period of time Wesley was sort-of sleeping with us, Shane forbid us to leave the room. You never know when baby's first "roll over" is going to be. Wouldn't you feel awful if it was off the bed, when you thought he was sleeping? And now that Wesley rolls over constantly, leaving him alone on the bed is absolutely out of the question.

• I feel intense pressure around AP followers to continue breastfeeding. Yes, it's healthy for my baby and I don't mind doing it for that reason (and avoiding the co$t of formula), but I wouldn't say I'm doing it for the "emotional" aspect of it. Sure, it's a nice way to bond with the baby, but I feel like I bond more with him when we're playing or I'm making him laugh. I often feel intense scrutiny that Wesley uses a pacifier. My AP friends argue that for their babies, "all sucking needs are at the breast," and since Wesley is a skinny little dude, all of a sudden I am a bad mother for starving my baby by giving him a pacifier so he can sleep in his crib instead of on my boob all night in the same bed.

• (And, to further badger the point across that I am anti co-sleeping, Wesley has teeth now and our pediatrician even encouraged me to wean him off night feedings since the sugars on his teeth are at their worst at night. A baby with teeth on mom's boob all night, I'd argue, would have the same issues as a baby with baby bottle syndrome. None of my AP-crazy friends' babies have teeth yet.)

• Wesley is such a good baby, but he cries in the car sometimes and I tell him, "Wesley, you're all right. You're fine." Eventually -- 5 minutes? at the most? -- he calms himself down and either falls asleep or looks out the window or whatever. He's fine. My AP friends stop the car and jump in the back and coddle their babies at the first whimper. Are you kidding me? A little fussing won't kill anyone. I look at it this way: Wesley's only way to communicate with me right now is by crying. When he is 10, he'll be able to talk. Right now, we go somewhere in the car and he's bored so he cries. When he's 10, we'll go somewhere in the car and he'll tell me he's bored, probably with a million "are we there yet?" and "how much longer?" statements. In either case, it's communication and totally normal. I'm not going to stop the car. He is fine. His needs are met.

• I heard once that a weak mother does everything herself, meaning, it's so much easier for a mother to do the laundry herself or clean up the house herself. The strong mother is the one that outlines chores for her child and teaches her child how to be self sufficient, even though it is painstakingly difficult sometimes. Sometimes I feel like that is the difference between the AP moms, who want to solve the problem themselves, and we other moms, who want to give our kids the opportunity to figure it out on their own. Even if it means there will be crying.

• I could go on for days.

This, to me, seems so "big government" (hyper-involved parents) vs. small government ("stand-back-and-see-what-he'll-do" parenting).

I must chime in with one exception, and that is that one of my good friends follows AP, but not by choice. She had a very very colicky baby and could not get him to sleep without her. He still sleeps with her. I know she'd put him in his crib, if she could. I know she'd give him more bottles, if she could. He's very very fussy. So, you do what you need to do to take care of your baby. I believe Wesley is well taken care of, and he is extremely loved and doted over. But he has cried himself to sleep, and that doesn't mean I love him any less (or that my pro-AP friends love their babies more).

And I guess the truth is, AP followers and myself, we both have the best intentions for our babies. We all have our struggles, and we're just trying to make our way through, doing what we think is best. I firmly believe that, even though I get confused sometimes at AP thinking.

So, now the day of reckoning for me: What do YOU think? Did you come from a co-sleeping family and do you vote liberal? Do you let your kids cry-it-out and grow their own tomatoes? Or, are you totally on opposite ends of the spectrum -- and how do you explain that?

P.S. As a final exclamation point that I think I'm faring well as a parent, Wesley has learned to soothe himself to sleep. My Christmas gift was a 13-hour stretch of him sleeping. I am sure that at various points in that 13 hours he woke up but was then able to soothe himself back to sleep in his crib without crying or needing me to come in and "save him." I couldn't be more thrilled. Bedtime is much better for us every night. We play and laugh and cuddle, and he goes right to sleep. Wow.