Imaginary Friends and Enemies

by Michael Kendall

For a few months now, I have watched the escalating bitterness in the Democratic Presidential Primary between my fellow Bernie supporters, and the Hillary supporters.  As you read this both sides draw battle lines, ask imaginary questions, declare imaginary answers, and challenge the sanity and good will of themselves and each other over a purely hypothetical question.  At its simplest the hypothetical question goes something like this:  “If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination in late July 2016, will you vote for Hillary against the Republican nominee?”  

        According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a “hypothetical” question is “based upon an . . . imagined situation rather than fact,”.  I call this imaginary question “The Great Hypothetical Question of 2016,” or the “TGHQ” for short.  The GHQ of 2016 is a perfect example of why only frustrated or devious people pose hypothetical’s, why they have disappeared in Law, and why only the witless answer them.

        For starters, think of what imaginary information is missing.  Who is the Democratic VP nominee?  How much of Bernie’s plans have made it into the platform commitments and promises?  Is Bernie the VP?  What if a moderate third person gets the Republican nomination?  Who is the Republican running mate?  And for good measure, what if Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn fail to align the first week in November and no one can see to vote?  You get it. 

        My modest plea to all of us who feel the Bern, and to Hillary supporters as well, is this:  Don’t ask and don’t answer hypothetical, imaginary questions from anyone. 

        Bernie supporters are their own worst enemies when the ask TGHQ as a ‘selfie’ in the mirror and answer it.  You loose your political power if you say “Yes” or “No” because you give up your power, which is great, and Hillary need do no more.  At best you feel good by telling the world how much you distrust, dislike, and deplore Hillary.  Journalists, pollsters, and Hillary supporters who ask the question use your answer to their advantage.”Yes” means she’s got you no matter what.  “No” means you have nothing to offer her and she need not pay much attention to your issues.  She will fish elsewhere for votes.

        Conversely, to the Hillary supporters and fellow travelers, I say stop asking TGHQ.  It only makes you seem arrogant, condescending, and patronizing—at best.  You learned better in sandlot baseball.  Imagine the bottom of the 5^th inning, a kid from the other team that is ahead 5-3, saunters over to your dugout and asks you to promise to come cheer for his team at the championship game after they beat you.  Think you’d say, “Sure!”?  Think the kid would get anywhere 5 innings from the game being over by calling you a sore loser?  Or do you think you’d redouble your efforts to beat the little bastard? 

        The Questioner is the powerful person in control of the conversation in all situations. For example, “Before answering ‘will I support Hillary if she’s the nominee,’ I’d like to know and perhaps you can tell me, when will she make the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman-Sachs, Verizon, and others available to me and the public?”

        The direct exam and cross-exam of witnesses have been called “the greatest truth seeking engine” developed by the Anglo-American legal system.  One reason it is so successful is the questions cannot be hypothetical, and the answers cannot be based on assumption or imagination.  The question must be based on fact and the answer must be based upon personal knowledge of facts.  The Law is interested in the Truth and the Question extracts it, or a lie, or reveals a dodge.   

        So Bernie supporters, please answer TGHQ of 2016 with your own factual question.  Ask for facts that take the imaginary out of the question.  Use your power to find out how badly she wants your vote, never answer the hypothetical, and see if she and her supporters really are as politically savvy as they perceive themselves to be.  You are being asked TGHQ because you have power (knowledge and the vote) and HRC wants it.  Don’t give it away by answering hypotheticals.  Use your power to force change.  Use it or loose it.