Whataboutism

Whataboutism is a funny thing. When used as originally conceived (as defined in the graphic), it is a moral atrocity. Recent use of this term has morphed to include asking “what about” when examining rank hypocritical behavior - an attempt by the asker to question the veracity or morality of current behaviors considering past behaviors.

Even with this modern twist, it is terrible argumentation. We should base our support for or against an idea on something more substantive than, “well he did it too.” But we always want to employ it. Probably because in our day-to-day lives we could never be so wildly hypocritical.

Politicians seem to have absolutely no compunction about naked hypocrisy. They display no shame about having done the thing they are now seemingly so morally enraged about. This sort of behavior tweaks our spidey sense. It is so disconnected from what most of us perceive as a normal moral baseline that it messes with our moral gyroscopes.

And when others defend the demagogic behaviors of these pols, our sense of decency cries out about the grotesque double standard. It is as though we are constantly trying to assure ourselves that the person we are engaged with isn’t a complete psychopath. I mean, if they can’t see the clear double standard, we wonder if they are thoroughgoing inveterate liars or actually that naively blind. Either way, it is not the sort of signal that screams honest broker. At a gut level, it is very disconcerting to us when somebody can’t see the beam in their own eye. So even though whataboutism is crummy disputation, it is a sort of litmus test of good faith and serves an important purpose.

Trump supporters are therefore correct in pointing out that many on the left who are now pulling their skirts over their heads about egregious attempts at jiggering an election by seeking faithless electors in the electoral college are the very same people who were pushing for faithless electors four years ago to seat Hillary Clinton in what they claimed was an illegitimate election. This level of gaslighting and rank hypocrisy is infuriating and morally obtuse.

But what the Trump supporters are wrong about this episode is that this does not therefore create a permission structure for reprehensible behavior. Just because somebody did something horrible does not therefore mean you too can do something horrible. The hope is that societies should be better than that.

Whataboutism is only useful when the recipient is capable of self-reflection and moral rectification. That is perhaps the hope of everyone wh;l employs whataboutism in an argument. When met with a who cares attitude or responses like, “It was a debate,” to sweep away prevarications and double standards, it can very easily turn into a permission structure that allows for bad behaviors because it feels like the other is operating in bad faith or is just outright cheating the unspoken moral arrangement. Once that door has been opened, it is very hard to close it since everyone then feels like they have to cheat to move forward. And quite honestly, when there are very few repercussions, you would be a fool not to.

Cheat to win is a lot like a pyramid scheme in that it is a great slogan that works well for the first few. But once everyone else catches on and adopts that montra, then everyone loses and societies collapse.

At its best, whataboutism is the last ditch effort of those who have not given up all hope. We should pay attention to it. When used in good faith to elicit self-reflection and to engage moral compunction (rather than as a tactic to excuse behavior as done by despots), it really can be a canary in the coal mine. The next step is to just say, “Fuck it. I’m cheating too.”