Dear Members of the Press: Stop Asking This Question!

It's happening again.

One after one, left and right, members of the political press are repeatedly asking what may be the most useless question in the history of American journalism. The phrasing may be slightly different, but the essence of it remains the same:

"Will you accept the results of the upcoming election?"

On May 5, Kristen Welker of "Meet the Press" posed the question to Sen. Tim Scott, who is on the short list of people whom Donald Trump might name as his vice-presidential running mate, resulting in this surreal exchange:

On the one hand, I give her credit for at least trying to get Sen. Scott to give a straight answer. On the other hand, the question does not deserve to be asked. Here's why:

First of all, it is vague. What does "accept the results" even mean? Does it mean, "Will you believe the results?" Does it mean, "Will you yield to the results without contesting them?"

Because it is vague, the question NEVER elicits a clear, enlightening response. Instead, it always elicits vague verbiage that is at best sheer mush, and at worst a veiled threat.

Second, the question simply doesn't get at what I think the questioners really mean. The concern behind the question isn't about whether or not Trump or his supporters will believe the results. They can disbelieve all they like. It isn't even about whether or not they will contest the results. We have a whole system for allowing people to contest outcomes that they they disagree with. It's called the judiciary system, and the last time around, Donald Trump made full use of it, with 62 court cases challenging the results of the election (he and his people lost in all those cases except one, in Pennsylvania, and the favorable ruling in that case was later overturned by the state's Supreme Court).

No, the question they're not quite asking is, "If Donald Trump loses, will you express any disagreement with that outcome peacefully and legally, or will you resort to violence such as we saw on Jan. 6?"

While the press tends to tiptoe around the issue of political violence, Trump himself is clearly open to the possibility, as reported in TIME magazine:

Trump does not dismiss the possibility of political violence around the election. “If we don’t win, you know, it depends,” he tells TIME. “It always depends on the fairness of the election.” 

Let's note three things about this oracular pronouncement:

1. It is vague about what will happen (what else is new?): "it depends"
2. It is vague about who will decide or direct what happens. No specific person or people will be responsible for what happens. And yet,
3. Someone will decide what happens on the vague criterion, "the fairness of the election."

Since Trump and his supporters have already declared that the only way for him to lose is by the election being unfair, then such a loss would automatically fulfill the criterion needed for his supporters to act violently, without Trump himself needing to do so. So it's easy for Trump to say this.

 

But Sen. Scott and others of his ilk, aren't going to come right and say that they would, or even might, resort to violence . So for them, the best approach might be to use a little bit of a lead-in. Something like this:

"Would you agree that in any given election, it is possible for either candidate to win?"

Presumably Sen. Scott would agree. Then get at the real concern with a question that is both direct, and open-ended rather than binary.

"Obviously, if Donald Trump wins in November, you will first celebrate, then begin preparing for a second Trump term. But what will you do if Donald Trump loses?"

Not, "What will Republicans do if Donald Trump loses?"

Not, "What will Trump supporters do if Donald Trump loses?" That's important, but in a one-on-one, the question must be,

"What will you do if Donald Trump loses?" 

If that question makes Tim Scott and other like him squirm, let 'em. 

But make them answer.