The wisdom of dodging questions
By David Von Drehle,
With his genius eye for the telling detail, historian Rick Atkinson — the Homer of World War II — puts us in the room with Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt in May 1943. The vast armies they command have driven the Axis from North Africa. Now they are turning to the liberation of Europe. But the question gnawing at Churchill is whether he can get his hands on enough of America’s industrial output to make Britain an equal partner in the war.
Atkinson writes in “The Day of Battle”: “The president sat by a window with his beloved stamp collection; when Churchill’s pleas grew too insistent for more tanks or more planes, more this or more that, Roosevelt would cut him short by holding a stamp specimen to the light and murmuring, ‘Isn’t this a beauty from Newfoundland?’ ”
Few political arts are more valuable than that of dodging questions. The wise leader understands that tomorrow is an enigma, next week a mystery and next month an unknowable country. Flexibility to react to new and changing circumstances is a priceless asset; it should not be squandered through excessive candor. “If elected, will you . . . ” is almost always a trap, designed to pin the would-be decider to a fixed position.
The non-answering of direct questions is a hot topic. Democratic senators spent much of the week grilling Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, but she zigged and zagged her way past the salvos. Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden continued his dogged — though not at all graceful — dance around the question of whether he supports a plan to pack the high court. Meanwhile, President Trump continued to avoid questions about his covid-19 tests or his tax returns as if they were bowls of quinoa and kale.
American voters generally prove willing to remain in the dark — as long as there’s a sense that the evasion serves some national purpose. We know from our own mundane lives that the future we expect does not always materialize; thus, some anticipated questions never need to be answered. Says Atkinson of FDR: “No politician was ever better at resolving problems by ignoring them.” Given time and silence, the apparent crisis might creep away harmlessly to answer itself.
Two widely admired presidents, Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan, deployed humorous stories to fend off unwelcome questions, but their reasoning was much the same as Roosevelt’s. One of Lincoln’s punchlines put it this way: “Brethren, this here talk ain’t no use. I never cross a river until I come to it.”
What voters want even more than answers is a strong sense of how a seeker of high office will address tough questions once they are ripe and can no longer be dodged. Here, our week of evasions was less than encouraging. We saw nothing approaching Lincoln’s or Reagan’s underlying strong foundations or well-defined principles.
Barrett came closest. Her time before the Senate Judiciary Committee largely confirmed what Justice Elena Kagan declared before her own elevation to the Supreme Court: Confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominees are a “vapid, hollow charade.” Ever since Robert H. Bork gave his opponents enough rope with which to strangle his nomination, the skillful lawyers who find themselves one step from the high court have fended off virtually every substantive question. In the process, they display their quick and disciplined brains, their mastery of case law and grasp of history — but there is an inescapable feeling among supporters and foes alike that their minds are not as open as they profess them to be.
Yet there was something valuable in Barrett’s description of her approach to judging: “When I write an opinion resolving a case . . . I ask myself how would I view the decision if one of my children was the party I was ruling against,” she said. “Even though I would not like the result, would I understand that the decision was fairly reasoned and grounded in the law?” If confirmed, I hope she delivers on that promise.
Of Biden and Trump, we learned nothing at all from this past week’s town halls — nothing we didn’t already know. Faced with the court-packing question, Biden fended it off, then undid himself by promising to answer before the election. He wrestled himself to the mat, in other words, thus confirming what voters have sensed about Biden through three presidential bids over 30-plus years: He’s a good, but not a great, leader. Could we do better? I hope so in the future. As for now, we could do much worse.
Which brings us to Trump. His evasions concerned past actions, not future decisions; he dodged not to preserve flexibility but to shirk responsibility. He knows what straight answers about his covid-19 tests and taxes would reveal: his lack of character. But on that question, there is no doubt.
Read more from David Von Drehle’s archive.
Read more: Fred Hiatt: The most illuminating answer Biden gave in his town hall Alyssa Rosenberg: At Trump’s NBC town hall, reality strikes back at a reality-show president Erik Wemple: Trump needed a factual dressing-down. Savannah Guthrie obliged. Ruth Marcus: Barrett’s hearings were a frustrating charade. But they were still chilling. Jennifer Rubin: Barrett seeks refuge in ignorance and evasion
