Even without those safeguards in place, I highly doubt Biden’s policies would be affected by sales of his son’s terrible paintings. (The New York Times generously described them as “leaning towards the surreal”, which is a polite way of saying: “Looks a bit like a Covid-stricken Mr Blobby vomited on a canvas.”) There are already plenty of other ways, after all, that you can “buy” influence in the US’s rich democracy. It is well established, for example, that you can donate your way to an ambassadorship. Still, the optics of Hunter’s pricey paintings aren’t great. In fact, the whole situation screams nepotism.

Weirdly, however, while the situation has raised a few eyebrows in the mainstream media, liberals haven’t been as outraged about the situation as one might expect. If Donald Trump Jr had been flogging art for oversized amounts while his dad was in office, I reckon the liberal reaction might be rather different. I get it: the Trump family set the bar for ethical conduct lower than a dungeon in hell. But, guess what? We don’t need to keep the bar there…

A rather better example of ethics in action, I think, is if Biden had had a rigorous conversation with his 51-year-old son and persuaded him to do as much painting as his heart desired, but leave off selling his work until daddy left office. I mean, Biden has made a big deal about how he is tough on Putin; if he gets an autocrat to do what he wants, surely he should be able to influence his own kid.