ArticlesI’ve never had much respect when I hear the claim from politicians (and at least once, from a singer) that they don’t answer hypothetical questions.
I can see no logical justification for that position. Considering hypotheticals is a core of intelligence. It is a fundamental part of planning and risk management. It is a key skill that every politician – nay! every human – needs to survive.
So why not answer hypotheticals? I don’t think it is supported by rational logic. The real reason is to avoid having to answer tricky – sometimes trap – questions.
A reporter asked “If you are found guilty by the inquiry, will you resign?”
It was a tricky question. If he answered “No” he was showing he had no respect for the legal system investigating him. If he answered “Yes” the message he would (unfairly) convey is that he was preparing for a guilty verdict.
Bannon understood this, and fought back with the traditional example of a trick question. He answered the question by asking another: “Have you stopped beating your wife?” This question has a similar sting.
I was amused to see that some members of the press had the last word – accusing him of belittling the problem of domestic violence!
The reason this issue of the legitimacy of hypothetical questions comes up, is that the news media extracted a sound-bite on Tuesday from this exchange in parliament (Ref):
Mr SWAN— My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, is it the case that if there is a rate rise next week it will be the eighth stitch in time, which will have cost someone with a $300,000 mortgage an extra $383 a month in repayments?
Mr HOWARD—The question is hypothetical. However, I am very happy to answer, but I tell you something that is not hypothetical: interest rates will always be lower under the coalition than under the Labor Party. That is not hypothetical; that is a proven fact.
Wow, that’s clearly the response of an adroit politician.
First, he managed to spout a sound-bite that was widely broadcast by the media – where the original question he was answering was ignored.
Secondly, he gives a classic example of avoiding the (grandstanding) question by protesting it is a hypothetical – a position I don’t support.
Then he claims he is happy to answer the question – despite failing to do so!
Finally, he is proposing that if you assume in the future that a coalition government is in power, interest rates will be lower compared to the case if you assume a Labor government is in power,
That, Mr. Howard, sounds exactly like a hypothetical to me!
You must be logged in to post a comment.