Brooks and Shields

I don't know them beyond what I have seen on television or read in the newspaper, but I am ever impressed with David Brooks and Mark Shields. Mr. Brooks espouses the general goodness in people and the ability of people to resolve problems without excessive interference from government. Mr. Shields makes a persuasive case that government isn't evil as it is made up of people who are trying to solve problems.

As they debate they maintain their intellectual honesty. When their own positions fail, or when politicians misstep, it is not the opponent who has to point out the error. Each will admit mistakes when mistakes have been made. This type of dialogue promote conversations that spend less time describing the problem but pronouncing responses and solutions.

For several years, my responsibilities representing children required me to interview parents in order to make custody recommendations during contested divorce proceedings. Over and over again I conducted the exact same interview and the responses were the same; the only differences were the names and the dates. Almost every single mother would sit across from me and describe all of the errors of her former husband or partner; each defect a reason why he should not have custody.  Almost every single father would sit across from me and describe all of the errors of his former wife or partner; each defect a reason why she should not have custody.

I developed an approach where I would take my legal pad and I would have three columns. The first column had the issue which had been raised, improper discipline, infidelity, controlling behavior, temper, and the list goes on and on. The second and third columns were labeled as mom and dad. As the person began the speech I would listen for several minutes and I would list all of the issues and by them I would make a check in both the mom and dad columns. I would then stop the parent and show them the list. I explained that I put a check by both parents because the fact that they had chosen to have children with this person, who was clearly so flawed, gave me cause to question their judgment to protect the children in the future. That usually led to some stammering and then silence.

I then clarified that what I hoped to hear was the best case he or she had to be the custodial parent. It is always better to go in to court and tell a judge that she has two good parents to choose from, rather than leave the court with two awful options and suggest she go for the least bad. I often had to reschedule the appointment so that they could think about what they brought to the table rather than how their former partner was simply bad.

I thank Mr. Brooks and Mr. Shields for keeping the dialogue positive and for regularly giving us affirmative reasons to be persuaded by the analysis they provide.