Obviously, two themes particularly disturbed my thoughtful correspondents: That I criticized a 12-year-old girl and that I wrote she had not earned the right to publicly ridicule the vice president of the United States.
Regarding the first, the criticism of me presupposes that my column was all about the girl. It wasn't. It was about the Democrats' use of her.
Having said that, however, why should a 12-year-old girl be immune from adult criticism? Because of her age? This objection is staggering in its inversion of traditional wisdom, which held that it is 12-year-olds who generally need to hold their tongues before they criticize, let alone ridicule, an adult; and that it is adults' role to criticize the young so as to make them responsible adults. Unlike those liberals who take great pride in a 12-year-old publicly mocking the vice president of the United States, I would be ashamed of a 12-year-old conservative who publicly ridiculed a Democratic vice president.
Furthermore, note the double standard invoked here. A 12-year-old girl should be invited to speak at a national political convention and be taken seriously when she speaks -- but criticizing her is out of bounds because she is 12! This line of thinking reinforced my contention that the Democrats hid behind a 12-year-old girl because they did not have the courage to attack Vice President Cheney themselves.
I am also certain that the fact that the child was a girl added to the dismissal of me as out of line in criticizing her. In the feminist world in which liberals live, liberal girls and women of any age are immune from criticism, especially from men. We are allowed only to celebrate opinionated liberal females, whether Teresa Heinz Kerry or Ilana Wexler.
The second major liberal objection -- that all Americans have the right to free speech, so only an enemy of free speech could question the right of Ilana to do what she did -- is a non-sequitur.
You have to willfully misread what I wrote to infer that I questioned the girl's legal or constitutional right to do what she did.
What I wrote is that "She is a mere child, more foolish than most, in that she actually thinks she has earned the right to publicly ridicule the vice president of the United States."
I was simply asserting that before one mocks the American vice president at a national political convention, one ought to have earned the stature to do so, and I cannot imagine any 12-year-old who has. It is abundantly clear that the notion of earning stature is alien to many, probably most, liberals' thinking. Rights thinking so dominates the liberal mind that having the right to speech has to come to mean the same as always exercising it.
Childhood is the time to be a child and to be imbued with the values that will enable one to be a politically wise adult. I have enormous interest in speaking with children, but I have little interest in their political views. But, hey, I'm not a contemporary liberal.
Dennis Prager is a SRN radio show host, contributing columnist for Townhall.com and author of his newest book, “The Ten Commandments: Still the Best Moral Code.”