Compassionate, or enabling?

I’ve generally avoided reading commentary on addiction and Hunter Biden because there’s so much more to his story than addiction.

However, a few lines in a printed Washington Post conversation grabbed my attention because it introduced questions about enabling Hunter.

Alexi: In some ways, Hunter’s trial gives President Biden an opening to talk about his compassion and empathy for his son — something voters liked about him in 2020, especially compared with Trump, who of course isn’t known for being that way.

David: Compassionate, or enabling?

Chuck: Correct, DVD.

Alexi: You might be right. Say more on that.

David: As a person with some experience around addiction, I’ve had to learn that smoothing the way for an addict does not help. It appears the Biden family has let Hunter slide on a lot of bad behavior for a lot of years and even now appears dedicated to trying to prevent him from suffering the consequences of his actions.

Alexi: Thanks for sharing that, DVD. I’m sorry you’ve had experience with that. As someone who has, too, it is the hardest thing to be tough with someone you love when that person is actively fighting for their life.

David: Yes, Alexi, it is. Parenting can be really, really hard work. Even if Hunter has some technical excuse for his misleading gun purchase form, there is no question that he has been committing repeated state and federal felonies for years, not to mention his boorish behavior. He is a grown man and should face consequences.

Alexi: Unlike at Trump’s trial in Manhattan, a lot of Hunter’s family members have shown up for him in Wilmington during this trial.

Chuck: I wasn’t 100 percent okay with Jill Biden’s presence in court, which looked like a way to lean on the jury.

Alexi: Hmm. I think it’s fine for a stepmother to show up for her stepson!

When my job involved spending more time talking with families, mostly parents, about how to respond to the problems addiction created for them and their loved one, we almost never talked about enabling.

People often came looking for direction about whether to give money, allow them to move in, to lie to protect them, what to do about safety concerns for grandchildren, how to respond to events ruined by AOD use and handle future events, whether to pay for treatment, etc.

They were often frustrated that I wouldn’t answer those questions for them. Instead, we’d talk about the following:

• The risk of drifting into living a life organized around addiction rather than a life organized around their values and goals.
• The 3 Cs, that they didn’t cause it, they can’t control it, and they can’t cure it. (Neither punishing or rescuing works.)
• While they can’t control it, they can influence it. They can respond in ways that increase or decrease the chances of change toward wellness.
• Play their roles to the best of their ability.
  • What’s their role in relation to their in relation to the person with the addiction — parent, sibling, friend, child, partner, etc? Whatever their role, decide how they want to play that role, knowing that they can’t control the outcome.
  • What are their other roles — parent, spouse, child, employee, neighbor, friend, etc? Decide how you want to play those roles.
  • When roles come into conflict, use your values and goals to try to figure out the best (or, the least bad) path.
• The right path might look different from person to person, family to family, role to role, and time to time.

This didn’t tell them whether to give them money, let them move in, pay for treatment for the 7th time, or anything else. However, these conversations made it clear that, despite it often being difficult to discern the right thing, it was hard to imagine expressing love and support, or showing up for them being the wrong way to play your role.

Compassion is never enabling.