What does Rachel Tiven mean by "a new low" here?
Can we support the idea that Donald Trump has not previously attacked children? Does Tiven care to do so?
I think that we cannot. I think that she would not. But t also suspect that the literal argument made is irrelevant to what Tiven intends: by characterizing Trump's move as "a new low," Tiven seems to intend to imply that attacking children is not a typical move for people in Trump's position.
If so, this is rot. It is also very dangerous rot because it indirectly supports the attacking of children that has been done regularly by both Democratic and Republican administrations.
All of the moves that presidents typically make that increase poverty and inequality, all of the moves that presidents make that sacrifice environmental values for the short-term profits of associates attack children, and children above all. But, more obviously, drone-bombing children and their families and blowing the limbs off their bodies attacks them, and suffusing their living environment with the radioactive detritus of so-called "depleted" uranium ammunition attacks them, manufacturing and delivering and deploying dragon-tooth personnel bombs attacks primarily children. The latter two distinguish themselves by attacking primarily those not yet born.
There is nothing wrong with attacking Donald Trump's positions, for the love of mercy. And I will hold for the silly ad hominems that are blossoming all over too, up to a point. They don't prove much, but he fishes for them enough, and if it's fun, I guess people can have a good time without proving anything. But the Democratic Party cannot run over a half-dozen open wars of aggression during eight years of its administration, back a candidate that takes foreign bribes to expand them, and then expect to hold any high ground as regards attacking children.
It's really a pity. Trump's is a policy that could use attacking, and Tiven has some good points, but the sorts of rhetorical riders in this undercut that severely.