Every Question Doesn’t Deserve an Answer

There’s something for many people about being asked a question that makes them feel as if they have to answer it. More liberal people can even feel as if all questions are somehow “honest” ones that give them a chance to profitably educate the questioner. 

Put a microphone in front of even a seasoned politician and it’s as if their being asked any question by a reporter or anyone else holding that microphone is some sort of honor or special recognition.

Even the usually astute Texas senatorial candidate when asked about transgender athletes in women’s sports felt he had to answer the question like this: “As a former public school teacher, I care a lot about our student athletes, I care a lot about our students. And so I will oppose trans athletes playing in girls’ sports if it risks safety or fairness.” 

He could have merely answered with just the first two sentences and moved on. But he took the questioner’s bait on a well-worn, over-hyped right-wing culture war issue.

So, it was predictable that such an answer would divide his constituents. Was it an answer that reflected his actual values about trans women or was it just a political ploy that meant he could compromise his values to get elected in a red state? After all, he voted against Texas’ transgender athlete ban in 2021, but then he also supported unsuccessful amendments that would have allowed local communities to determine whether transgender athletes could compete on particular teams.

The point, though, is that he did not have to answer a question that was a gotcha question posed in terms of his opponents’ framing at all. By doing so he confused his constituents who can now wonder if is he willing to throw transgender people under the bus.

The reality is that the question itself did not automatically deserve an answer, especially from an experienced politician, but, then, politicians of his party often fall for the idea that they do. Yet —without saying that anyone’s opponent would thereby be a better choice — there are alternative ways to “respond” to any question.

People who are taught to work the press away from its self-promoting agenda and back to their own know that an “answer” can be instead a chance to change the subject to the central point one wants to make in public — “The more important question is…” or “My real concern is…” or “What I am here to talk about is…” or “That question represents a distraction from the fact that…” or even “What’s behind that question is an issue about God’s love for every human being….” etc.

In anyone’s life, whether we’re politicians or not, people pose questions that don’t deserve the type of answer they are looking for, much less any answer at all.

Some are asking for information that's just really no one else’s business. Some are starting with a false premise that any answer will merely reaffirm. Some are merely parroting a question they heard with little sense of what’s really behind it. Some ask questions to get you off topic and on theirs or to go down their rabbit hole with them.

Consider a simple question such as “How are you?” The question after all is asking something very personal if it's meant literally.

And it’s usually answered with something that might be totally inadequate and even false such as “I’m fine.” Some people even expect such a response to save any sad feelings or to keep them from having to commit to anything further.

But just because someone asks that question doesn’t mean that they have the right to the information that would be an honest (think so-called “sins of omission”) or full answer. After all, a real honest answer that sets ones boundaries might be: “I’d rather not share that personal information.”

Think of other such questions: “Does that person have AIDS?” or any other health-related question about someone else. 

Knowing something about the person asking the question, their goals, their perspective, their purpose, how they’ll use the answer, and so on, helps one have creative alternatives to the answer they hope to hear. Reporters’ questions are often meant to give them a dramatic scoop and get the attention of their boss and the public to enhance the reputation of the reporter. Think of the White House press corps for example.

Knowing, as well, the setting in which others hear the answer also determines what alternatives will make the point without getting trapped in an affirmation of the agenda of the questioner. Who is also listening? Are you the speaker at an event? Are you alone or are others gathered around who will learn from your response?

After a session where I discussed LGBTQ issues and the variety of views on acceptance within Christianity, I was asked if I would debate the topic further with him by a conservative minister whom I knew well enough to know that he would respond to reasonable answers. I said I would after he read a book I recommended on the variety of positions Christians down through history have taken on the subject. That would let us both have information to discuss.

His next question was loaded: “Is that book by a homosexual?” I chose not to answer but to respond: “I know why you’re asking that — you’re afraid that if it’s by a straight person they would be biased against LGBTQ people and skew the history.”

It wasn’t the answer he was expecting, but it made my point about the common prejudice behind the question – if a straight, white man writes something on topics related to non-dominant groups it’s usually considered to be more unbiased than if it’s by someone from the non-dominant group. The actual question didn’t deserve a direct answer – just a response.

So let’s check any liberal guilt at the door and find alternatives to gotcha questions, nobody’s-business questions, or questions meant to keep the questioner energized by not threatening their own prejudices amd their need to start thinking differently. The old saying applies to our responses as well: "Never do anything that confuses your friends and inspires your enemies to act."