Quote from rgelite:
Certain questions are designed to elicit only harm; they are formulated not with the facade purpose of gaining useful information but rather to trap the answerer in a no-win. "Do you still beat your wife?" is an obvious example. The hidden premise contained in it is that one has at some point beaten his wife. The answer, whether it be yes or no, still indicts.
The so-called "reporter" from Time Magazine who last night asked the country's alpha male, "What mistakes have you made in your presidency?" was, as AAA correctly points out, disrespectful. It appears on the surface to pose as a valid question, but drops the context of what an alpha male is--who the man answering the question is, his role in the public eye (like him or not), and the psychology behind having gotten to where he is today and needs to remain (arguably if only for the next 8 months).
The reporter either doesn't understand this dynamic; or, is only interested in generating controversy to sell; or, has his own political bias which he places above his ostensive role. He'd never admit the last two to his readership. The first, however, can be demonstrated to him first-hand if it were possible to assemble his children, wife, relatives, close friends AND enemies AND the local Department of Child Social Services around him, then ask him to relate in detail what mistakes he's made in raising his children, including his biggest ones.
I'm not saying the contexts are identical, I'm saying that anyone here could introspect on such a process and, with some honesty, see that he or she would naturally hesitate with answering quicky, too. People who have actually been in leadership positions and who have to make decisions in real-time (and that includes traders who lead their own bank accounts), know the difference between trading the hard right edge and second guessing eight hours later.
Some have valid reasons to dislike this administration's policies (as I do) and some have valid reasons to like them (as I do). A few are true-believers of the Left and Right and will never give an inch. But like trading, picking nits (focusing on inessentials) is really the sole purview of the uninformed and biased (no matter how articulate and emotional they appear).
Alpha males lead. Whether you agree with their direction, that's what they do. They don't do well answering bombshells whose only purpose is to undermine their leadership. I don't imagine safety-first, consensus-driven soccer moms from Connecticut would ever understand that in a way that allows them to account for it. But it's true nonetheless.
In November, I suspect a significant majority of American voters are going to vote for a man who, when asked a question which is designed clearly and only to embarrass him on live TV, stumbles and honestly says with as much class as he can that he'd wish he'd have seen that one in writing beforehand, than one who cooly and confidently looks straight into a camera and with as much charisma as he can muster lies, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," or who behind closed doors tells a questioner, "It depends on what the meaning of the word is is."
Right or wrong, like it or not, and whether or not you think you know how I intend to vote in November, I believe that is how the majority of Americans still come at life. And something that many intellectuals on the Left continually dismiss.
RS
