Our first child was autistic or to use the preferred characterization " a person with autism". The help available to us was considerably worse than useless. It was advice from Freudians-most of whom probably meant well-but whose underlying theory was so wrong that their suggestions could only be- not just of no use -but bound to make matters worse.

In the 60s that begin to change and in the forefront of those with changed views was a Brit psychologist  named Winnicott  who coined the useful phrase "The good enough mother".

As opposed to the Freudians- whose core belief was that a child became a person with autism because of its mother's failure- Winnicott said that most mothers do a " good enough" job. And that included  most mothers  whose child was a person with autism.. They too did a good enough job in an impossible situation. But their child disappeared into the world of autism anyway.

To put  it simply:  Winnicott was right and the thousands of Freudians -who had spent the preceding two decades trying to provide advice- were wrong. The mothers  they criticized were good enough mothers.

But not everyone was good enough.They weren't good enough shrinks!

Reading Hal's comments on  Hillary's campaign  reminds me of those pre-Winnicott days.  If the mother of a person with autism says something , anything e.g. "The sun rises in the East" it must be wrong because she said it. Let's look west to see the sun rise.

If Hillary believes that before we announce a plan to help with the "migrants"  we need to discuss what that plan will be- well that must  be wrong , because she said it.

Sure there are things Hillary  says that I disagree with. And maybe I'm right. Or -more likely-maybe she's right. What matters is this: What do I think she would do as President? Would she be a good enough President:? And would I prefer what President Hillary would do compared to what President Trump, or Jindall or Lord-knows-who would do.?

 . .

.