You know, “whataboutery” — for example, if you criticises the Koran for its violence, and the response is “well, what about the Bible?? Huh? It’s equally violent”. “Whataboutery”… aka tu quoque.
And sure, it’s often quite right to call out “whataboutery”. Because it deflects.rather than addresses the issue at hand. The fact that the Bible has violent passages doesn’t mitigate the fact that the Koran is violent. And why don’t we address that, rather than deflecting to the Bible by “whataboutery”?
But there are times when “whataboutery” is justified. Very often it’s calling out hypocrisy.
And I was just about to write about this when, “how’s this?”, I stumbled across exactly the same thought in a post by the wonderful Ann Althouse, a quote and link to an article by Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz. He of the O.J. Simpson fame — he was O.J.’s lead defence counsel. A life-long Democrat now shunned by fellow Democrats because he had the gall not to succumb to Trump Derangement Syndrome.
My basic defence of “whataboutery” is about consistency. There should be consistency, for example, in the way the justice system treats both parties in the US. But there clearly is not. The raid on Trump’s home in search of documents may be legally justified, as Andrew Sullivan says, but is not proportionate. Hence, “what about Hillary’s emails?” Or, as Dershowitz says:
There can’t be one rule for Democrats and another for Republicans.
So the question “What about her emails?” is an appropriate one. Mocking it is no answer. Neither is the cliché “two wrongs do not make a right.” A second wrong doesn’t justify or excuse the first, but unequal treatment of two comparable wrongs should raise concerns about fairness and equality. Unequal treatment of two equal wrongs is a third wrong.
The “whataboutism” argument applies as well to the manner in which Trump loyalists such as Peter Navarro, Roger Stone and Paul Manafort were arrested. In comparable cases involving similar charges, the defendants weren’t handcuffed, shackled or subjected to restraints generally reserved for those who pose a risk of violence or flight. [The article at Wall St Journal]
Liz Cheney just lost her seat in Wyoming, for going against Trump and his claim the 2020 election was “stolen”. Media never fails to say that his claim was “unfounded”. Then, whatabout the 2016 election? And the Russia collusion claim? That was totally unfounded, but was subject to three years of extensive investigation culminating in the Mueller Report that there was nothing in the claims of collusion. Again, unequal treatment, because while the Trump claim does appear untrue, there was certainly some tampering with votes, which ought have been investigated.
Another Whatboutery: the Hunter Biden laptop. Enough evidence for FBI investigation, one would have thought. Surely if it had been Donald Trump Jnr’s laptop it would most certainly would have been. Whatabout that?
