11-20-2018 05:16:52 AM -0800
11-19-2018 03:27:33 PM -0800
11-19-2018 09:39:05 AM -0800
11-18-2018 11:51:36 AM -0800
11-18-2018 10:45:25 AM -0800
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.
PJ Media encourages you to read our updated PRIVACY POLICY and COOKIE POLICY.
X


Stretch, grab a late afternoon cup of caffeine and get caught up on the most important news of the day with our Coffee Break newsletter. These are the stories that will fill you in on the world that's spinning outside of your office window - at the moment that you get a chance to take a breath.
Sign up now to save time and stay informed!

Why Do Leftists Use Children to Make Political Points?

Why does the left think that using their children to make political points makes those points more valid in any way, shape, or form?

Surely you remember the days after the 2016 election, when the left went crazy and many women with small children (or perhaps with no small children -- who knows?) posted that their eight-year-olds (usually eight-year-olds olds) were “terrified,” or scared, or not sleeping, or stressed, or whatever because of Trump’s election. It was so common that one had to laugh or cry (or both) at it.

Well, they never really stopped.

And it makes no sense whatsoever.

First of all, the left is not, in general, fond of children. Oh, sure, they talk about the children a lot. “It’s for the children” has been used for gun control, welfare, and all the pet programs of the left. But in reality children are far less prevalent on the left than on the right. And most of the left seems to be convinced we are overpopulated and favors lunacy like voluntary human extinction and taxes on families with “too many children.”

Sure, medieval ballads are full of “suckling infants” and even horses that speak and confirm the “true king” or denounce a murderer or whatever else. So perhaps this is a common human impulse. Except that there was some kind of rationale to that use of infants and other non-rational creatures for medieval people. You see, such unthinking vehicles could be direct conduits for divine judgement.

Of course, if there’s something the left likes less than humans it’s even the notion of a divinity, so that won’t wash.

Sanely and rationally: why should we care about what your elementary school child thinks of national politics? What do your children know about national politics, precisely? What do they know of history or economics? What do they know that you didn’t teach them or impart to them through your own reactions?

Even my older son who at eight could hold a spirited discussion about, say, the monopolies instituted by Emperor Augustus (he was weirdly obsessed by Rome) lacked the deep knowledge to discuss that – or much of anything else – rationally, or to see how similar policies affected our time. In fact, he knew just (barely) enough to drive his teachers (and occasionally me) insane by getting in convoluted arguments.

So, why should we care what your children think of the election of Trump? What do we care if they’re “scared” or “stressed”? If they’re any of that it’s because you’ve been scaring or stressing them, and maybe Child Protective Services (CPS) should have a look at you. Why do we care if your eight-year-old daughter thinks that because Hillary didn’t get elected no woman ever will get elected? It’s incumbent upon you as her mother to explain to her that Hillary was not a symbol for all women, but a deeply flawed and corrupt individual who, when her husband was president, aided and abetted his abusive behavior toward women by casting doubt on claims of rape and blackening the reputation of any of the many women who complained about his improprieties.