Any Verbal Attack on Children of Politicians Should Be Off Limits Regardless of Party Affiliation

Heating up the news are various tweets and statements by comedians against President Trump’s 10-year-old son, Barron.  From Rosie O’Donnell speculating Barron Trump suffered from autism to Saturday Night Live’s Katie Rich declaring the 10-year-old as a “first homeschooled shooter” to Stephen Spinola claiming the young son of Donald Trump a “date rapist to be,” these attacks on President Trump’s son, even when these individuals declare it done in humor, are actually tasteless, classless, and totally out of bounds.

But, how far is too far?  Any verbal attack on any politician’s minor child should be off limits regardless of party affiliation because the child is unwittingly thrust into the public view due to the “job” held by the parent (s).  Just as the minor children of celebrities are basically “off limits,” so should children of politicians.

As many have heard the old adage, ” there is some truth in humor,” one could say these individuals are exercising their opinion through the use of humor in order to anger President Trump and the First Lady into action that would then become the “newsworthy” front page depiction on supermarket tabloids.  These comedians referenced lean far left and view any thing and every thing up for exploitation, including children.  In fact, Rosie O’Donnell, the lesbian has-been talk show host, has adopted children of her own.  One has to wonder if they are fair game based on her chosen lifestyle and public life.

When certain individuals in the media targeted the children of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), he had no problem chastising the individuals and expressing the sentiment that children should be off limits.  The reasoning is very simple, but one that escapes the lame-brained, far-left liberals — children deserve to have a childhood and have their innocence maintained as long as possible.  This is one job of being a parent — protecting your children from the horrors of the world until they are emotionally and intellectually developed enough to understand and comprehend events.

If anyone knows about growing up in the White House, it would be Chelsea Clinton and Amy Carter.  Both of these women were young girls when their father became president of the united States.  Life is difficult and stressful enough for children who are not in the public spotlight.  But, for young children thrust into that limelight because of their parents’ profession, life becomes that much more difficult.  It is because of the understanding of the pressure on these young children that Chelsea Clinton publicly claimed that Barron Trump should be off limits.

For these children of politics, added to the normal struggles of development are Secret Service Agents that shadow them when venturing into the public.  No one else in their school has “special people” following them around all day, everyday, 24/7, 365 days a year.  It stands out to a child that somehow they are different than others.  The children of politicians are also prime targets for paparazzi.  Their privacy is almost nil and being treated like the average child is definitely not in the works.

When they attend functions with their parents, it is expected for them to be dressed a bit better than the average “Sunday best.”  Even though the focus is on the political parent, it is inevitable the child will appear in a photograph or video where their every move is scrutinized.  How their hair is combed, styled and coiffed is under review.  What clothes they wore and where the clothes originated make for fascinating coverage.  And, Murphy’s Law forbid, should something unexpected happen, such as a typical child behavior like wiggling around in a seat or spilling something on their clothes or being caught by the camera making an unusual face, because the media is all over it attempting to analyze what happened, which leads to some individuals issuing unkind remarks.

Now, some may say that those of us who commented on Malia Obama twerking and smoking marijuana at a concert are guilty of hypocrisy for calling out young Malia.  But, here’s the difference.  Malia Obama is not considered a minor child at the age of 18.  Sources have her date of birth as July 4, 1998.  Now, Sasha Obama is still underage and therefore considered a minor child.  As a means of courtesy, the media should not scrutinize Sasha, letting her experience as much of a childhood as possible even though her parents are in the political sphere.

Much was said about how the girls were inappropriately dressed at an event by many in the media.  However, the comments were directed more toward the parents not emphasizing the importance of dressing appropriately.  Just as one would not wear a swimsuit to church, one would not wear casual attire to an informal or formal political event.  Being in politics does not excuse the parent from parental duties.  As a redeeming factor, the Obamas did have their children dressed appropriately for their age at a subsequent White House dinner function.

Each of these children, Amy Carter, Chelsea Clinton, Malia Obama, Sasha Obama, all experienced the pangs of puberty while their father was president.  For any average child, male or female, puberty is difficult by itself.  It would make sense that going through puberty under the public spotlight would be more difficult.  This is something that Barron Trump, through no action of his own, will face during his father’s tenure as president.  Moreover, children struggle with body image during puberty, which can be traumatic in and of itself.  The unneeded stress of dealing with a cynical, minutiae scrutinizing, and hostile media adds to this difficult time.

In all this mix comes the “comedians” who look for any small tidbit to take a swipe at anyone under the guise of humor.  They sometimes need nothing other than an image to engage in what I term, “caustic comedic commentary.”  These are best demonstrated by the tweets of former Saturday Night Live comedian Katie Rich and comedian Stephen Spinola.  Rosie O’Donnell, while falsely declaring young Trump to be autistic, is not engaging in “caustic comedic commentary,” but taking a jab at the President and First Lady at the expense of a 10-year-old.

All in all, the media and supposed comedians should “check their nasty” at the keyboard when it comes to the children of politicians when that child is considered a minor.  It matters not the political affiliation of the parents.  What matters is having consideration and compassion for a child.  If you would not do your children or the children of your friends the way Barron Trump has been done, you should not do it to a minor child of a politician.  Engaging in such behavior is classless, tasteless, nasty, unnecessary, and hurtful.


About Suzanne Hamner

Former professional Registered Nurse turned writer; equal opportunity criticizer; politically incorrect conservative;
This entry was posted in General, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.