Some people are having a difficult time distinguishing between attacks on public officials and attacks on their children.
It is a general rule that children are off-limits. This is a good rule. It should be enforced enthusiastically and responsibly, with an emphasis on the word “responsibly.” This week alone has seen two examples of people getting tied in knots over remarks that do not quite represent a breaking of that “off-limits” rule.
On Wednesday, for example, Stanford Law School professor Pamela Karlan appeared before Congress to testify for the House’s impeachment investigation. In complaining about President Trump’s alleged abuses of power, the professor likened him to a monarch, arguing further that the founders intended to guard against such men.
“Kings could do no wrong because the king’s word was law. Contrary to what President Trump has said, Article Two does not give him the power to do anything he wants,” Karlan said.
She continued [emphasis added], “I will give you one example that shows the difference between him and a king, which is, the Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility. While the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron.”
Corny? Yes. Over-rehearsed? Yes. A lame resistance-pleasing applause line? Absolutely. Did it make her look like a small, petty partisan? Yes (though I would argue that ship already sailed).
Do her remarks represent an attack on the president’s 13-year-old son, as social media users, members of the Trump campaign, and even members of the Trump family allege?
No, of course not. Come on. It was a play on words.
Karlan’s criticism was for the president. She only referenced his son’s name as part of a larger argument about abuses of power. Karlan did not “attack” Barron Trump. It was no more mean-spirited than noting that the words “Barron” and “baron” can mean different things while also sounding exactly the same. There is no version of this where her pun can be taken as mockery of the meaning or sound of the young Trump’s name. The word “baron” is not even derogatory, rude, or embarrassing!
Just because Karlan mentioned Trump’s name does not mean this was an attack on a public official’s child. This was an attack on the public official!
Another good example of someone tripping over himself this week in a bungled attempt to enforce the “off-limits” rule comes from NBC News’s Jonathan Allen.
The political reporter was very upset Tuesday that former 2016 candidate Jeb Bush tweeted the subhead to a Reason article that reads, “Elizabeth Warren was so ‘#PublicSchoolProud’ that she sent her son to expensive private schools for the majority of his K-12 education.”
Allen noted remorsefully, “It used to be that politicians drew the line at attacking each other’s children.”
First, Bush himself did not say any of that about Warren. Reason‘s Corey DeAngelis (a Washington Examiner contributor) did. Secondly, and more importantly, what Reason published is not an attack on Warren’s son — who, by the way, is now 43-years-old (we may be stretching the word “children” to its limit).
DeAngelis very reasonably pointed out that the Massachusetts senator and 2020 Democratic primary candidate is two-faced when it comes to the issue of school choice. He never attacked, mocked, criticized, or in any way “went after” Alex Warren.
The article was not an attack on a public official’s child. It was an attack on the public official!
Children are off-limits, and it should stay that way. But let’s save our righteous fury for when that line is actually crossed.
