A leading question is not always apparent. They don’t always take the straightforward or obvious approach: “How often do you beat your wife, sir?” There is a subtle way, a trolling way, if you will. Frame a question in a way that no one was thinking about in an attempt to push them on their heels, get them on the defensive. Your first instinct is to object, to defend the idea because its opposite seems fundamentally wrong, unseemly, at odds with good manners and just the not the way fair and openminded people should think.  Especially if the question is aimed at some uncomfortable or disquieting fact, sometimes words or ideas are intended to smooth over complex ideas and raw, visceral emotions.

Such is the “genius”, if you can call it that, of Tucker Carlson’s seemingly innocuous question “How exactly is diversity our strength?”  A bit of subterfuge against inclusivity. “I’m not a bad guy, I’m just asking honest questions.” What follows is a response full of flustering, sputtering, anger, denouncement, and then inevitably defending something you hadn’t felt the need to defend 5 seconds ago.  In other words, we give the troll exactly what he wanted in the first place.

Why is this trolling? Because no one comes away from this “debate” with any degree of enlightenment or clarity.  That was never the point.  It isn’t an argument. It isn’t intended to be persuasive. Those who were predisposed to defend or oppose multicultural societies will continue to do so. It is intended to evoke an emotional response from an opponent, in order to say “Gee, what’s wrong with you? One little question and you bite my head off.”

There is a better way, though, to address a leading question by turning it around and considering it on its merits. At first blush, the framing of the question is entirely specious.  Unpacking his question and subsequent examples, it becomes clear that he equivocates “strength” and “ease” in a rather careless and thoughtless manner.  No, diversity is not easy, just as no weightlifter thinks bigger muscles are easy to obtain. No one would ever think of defending such a silly claim. Diversity is a struggle. When has strength come without struggle? Working through language barriers, cultural, and ethnic misunderstandings is just one of the many challenges.  We are better because of the struggle – that’s the claim we are actually trying to defend.

The real argument is diversity is a SIGN of our strength.

There we seem to be on firmer ground. Overcoming challenges, differences, in the hopes of promoting greater understanding, in the hopes of producing a better citizenry and a more stable, and dare we say, stronger society? In the end, symbolism matters a great deal.  Now, on equal footing, let the real debate commence.