Bruenig is a White populist, not a socialist or even a Marxist, whose views are based in conservative interpretations of Catholic thought. So she's going to be less-troubled by any form of coercion than by the idea of certain folks committing sin. https://twitter.com/nberlat/status/1338723412777316354?s=19

The mistake White progs have made with White populists like Bruenig and Glenn Greenwald is thinking that their support for single-payer healthcare also makes them progressive. Well, Friedrich Von Hayek, the cofounder of free market economics, also supported single-payer.

Hayek was anything but a socialist or Marxist. He did recognize that the last thing markets should handle is anything related to health (as well as life). Because any sensible economist can tell you if you want to maximize death, make healthcare a purely market activity.

Hayek, however, didn't necessarily apply this sensible thinking to anything else. Neither does Bruenig or her fellow White populists. In both cases, it's because they are ideologues. In Bruenig's case, its Catholic-driven conservative populism that is also White Supremacist.

Note that Bruenig didn't consider Berlatsky's overall point (which is that the parent-child relationship is naturally a coercive one in many ways for many good reasons, but it can also be abusive, something to which psychiatrists, interventionists and social workers can attest).

But that's not shocking. Bruenig isn't a deep thinker anyway. What should shock progs (not really) is that Bruenig didn't consider one prime example of how parent-child relationships can be abusive: When kids are come out as one of the LGBTQ.

There are parents who force their kids into conversion therapy once they find out that their kids are gay.

There are parents who kick their kids out of their homes once they come out as lesbian or non-binary.

There are parents who refuse to help their kids transition.

A lot of that abuse is implicitly allowed in parental-child relationships, often by Christian, often Catholic and White Evangelical, institutions who should be following Christ's first command: Love everyone!

Many parents use the Bible to justify such abuse.

For someone like Bruenig, the idea that such abuse is possible in what is naturally (and until a child turns 18) a coercive relationship, and can often extend into a youth's adult years seems impossible. But in many ways, that's likely because their dogma overwhelms sense.

As a parent, my view is that my job is to raise my child to be an independent person. Which means he will eventually be out of my control. Which, in turn, means I have to be willing to take on the transition from authority figure to guide and counselor, to wise elder.

But in order to do that, I have had to look hard at the areas of my own parenting (and my own childhood) in which, well, things could have been better. It's rough work - and there are some areas in which I grew up with a tad too much coercion (and in other cases, not enough).

Then I have to change so that I can be a better parent. That's hard work - and no one gets it right.

But I will admit that right now, with a seven-year-old, coercion is part of the job. The question is how much? That's something every parent must ask at all times.

The mistake Bruenig makes is thinking that there is no point in which parental coercion can't be abusive. It can be, and oftentimes, happens when children find out that they aren't binary or will never want to be in relationship with someone of the opposite gender.

If Richard Gelles and Richard Wexler, combatants over the role of government in child welfare, can agree that there's a point where parental authority can become abusive (and they do), then the rest of us can agree that is possible, too.

By understanding how parental authority can go from being necessarily coercive (because children lack the ability to make many life-affecting decisions for themselves until they are late in their teenage years), we can also understand how other forms of authority can be abusive.

Because in many ways, the parent-child relationship (and the family systems built around them) are models for how our community and governmental systems operate, often to the detriment of the marginalized and oppressed.