[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 141 (Wednesday, October 8, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2003-E2004]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  IN DEFENSE OF HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BARNEY FRANK

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, October 8, 2003

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, from time to time Members 
use the vehicle of the Congressional Record to emphasize their 
positions on ideological or political issues of great importance. That 
is an entirely valid function for those of us who are supposed to be 
engaged in democratic debate. But I think it is also important from 
time to time to call attention to non-ideological, non-partisan matters 
which could improve that debate and the recent article by Michael 
Kinsley in the Washington Post entitled, ``In Defense of Hypothetical 
Questions'' is a superb example of this. Often when we are using the 
Congressional Record to call attention to an important statement we 
seek to summarize its message in prefatory remarks. In the case of 
Michael Kinsley's article--as is often the case with Mr. Kinsley--he 
does such a good job of making the case that my trying to do so here 
would be not only redundant, as these summaries are by definition, but 
a mistake because it would not do justice to his argument. Instead, in 
the interest of improving the quality of political debate in America, I 
ask that Michael Kinsley's defense of hypothetical questions be 
printed.

                       [From the Washington Post]

                  In Defense of Hypothetical Questions

                          (By Michael Kinsley)

       One of the absurd conventions of American politics is the 
     notion that there is something suspect or illegitimate about 
     a hypothetical question. By labeling a question as 
     ``hypothetical,'' politicians and government officials feel 
     they are entitled to duck it without looking like they have 
     something to hide. They even seem to want credit for 
     maintaining high standards by keeping this virus from 
     corrupting the political discussion.
       ``If I've learned one thing in my nine days in politics, 
     it's you better be careful with hypothetical questions,'' 
     declared Gen. Wesley Clark in a recent presidential 
     candidates debate. He might have learned it on TV, where 
     ``Never answer a hypothetical question'' is one of the rules 
     a real life political strategist offered to real-life 
     presidential candidate Howard Dean in HBO's fictional 
     Washington drama, ``K Street.''
       The question Clark was trying not to answer was ``your 
     vote, up or down, yes or no'' on President Bush's request for 
     $87 billion to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for 
     another year. This question is only hypothetical in the sense 
     that Clark doesn't literally get to vote on the matter. That 
     kind of literalness could make almost any question 
     hypothetical. The obvious purpose of the question was to 
     elicit Clark's opinion on the $87 billion. And surely it is 
     not unreasonable or ``hypothetical'' to expect candidates for 
     president to express an opinion on whatever controversy 
     surrounds the presidency at the moment.
       Secretary of State Colin Powell was asked this week whether 
     Americans would have supported the Iraq war if they'd known 
     we weren't going to find those weapons of mass destruction 
     the administration used to justify it. This really is a 
     hypothetical question, as Powell labeled it in declining to 
     answer, but it's a darned interesting one and one an honest 
     leader in a democracy ought to be pondering about now, even 
     if he doesn't care to share his thoughts.
       Neither of these examples is the kind of hypothetical 
     question that calls on the answerer to imagine a situation 
     that is unlikely to occur and one there would have been no 
     good reason to think about. What if a man from Mars were 
     running in the California recall? What if President Bush were 
     secretly writing a treatise on moral philosophy? And so on.
       Avoiding questions (from reporters, from opponents, from 
     citizens) is the basic activity of the American politician. 
     Or, rather, avoiding the supply of answers. Skill and 
     ingenuity in question-avoidance are a big factor in political 
     success. Usually, avoiding the question involves pretending 
     to answer it or at least supplying some words to fill the 
     dead space after the question has been asked. But if you can 
     squeeze a question into one of a few choice categories, the 
     unwritten rules allow you to not answer at all. There's 
     national security. (``I'm sorry, but revealing the size of my 
     gun collection might imperil our war on terrorism.'') There's 
     privacy. (``I must protect my family from the pain of 
     learning about my other family.'') There's legal proceedings. 
     (``That arson allegation has been referred to the Justice 
     Department and I cannot comment further.'') But only an 
     allegedly hypothetical question may be dismissed because of 
     its very nature, irrespective of subject matter.
       This is silly. Hypothetical questions are at the heart of 
     every election in a democracy. These are questions the voters 
     must answer. Voters are expected to imagine each candidate 
     holding the office he or she is seeking and to decide which 
     one's performance would be most to their liking. Every 
     promise made by a candidate imposes two hypothetical 
     questions on the voter: If elected, will this person do as 
     promised? And if this promise is kept, will I like the 
     result? The voter cannot say, ``I don't answer hypothetical 
     questions.'' And voters cannot sensibly answer the 
     hypothetical questions they've been assigned without learning 
     the answers to some hypothetical questions from the 
     candidates.
       Hypothetical questions are essential to thinking through 
     almost any social or political issue. In law school there 
     called ``hypos'' and the process is called ``salami 
     slicing.'' Imagine this situation and tell me the result. Now 
     change the situation slightly--does the result change? Now 
     change it in a different way--same result, or different one? 
     It's just like an eye exam, in which you peer through a 
     series of alternative lenses until you zero in on the correct 
     prescription.
       Yet even lawyers turn against the cherished hypo when 
     nominated for prestigious judgeships. Then they say self-
     righteously that they cannot answer hypothetical questions 
     about how they might rule. Once they are safely on the bench, 
     of course, they issue public opinions every day that are, 
     among other things, statements about how they analyze the 
     issue at hand and strong indications, if not more, of how 
     they will rule in the future.
       A refusal or inability to answer hypothetical questions is 
     nothing to be proud of. In fact, it ought to be a 
     disqualification for

[[Page E2004]]

     public office. Anyone who doesn't ponder hypothetical 
     questions all the time is unfit for the task of governing. In 
     fact, it's hard to see how any halfway-intelligent person can 
     manage to avoid taking up hypothetical questions a dozen 
     times a day.
       But we can all name a few politicians we suspect are up to 
     this challenge.

                          ____________________