You’ve no doubt run into someone who said, "Well, what about that time you…” after you accused them of something similar. The “what about…?” device, preferred rhetoric of children and narcissists, has probably also cropped up if you’ve spent any time talking about politics.
The origins of Whataboutism are often attributed to Russia. However, while Russia famously employed it as a favored tactic during the Cold War, it’s not actually a Russian invention. Whataboutism is a chimera of logical fallacies: a three-part combo of some simple rhetorical devices, namely, ad hominem, tu quoque, and red herring.
For clarity, Ad Hominem is the tactic of refusing to address the argument presented, and instead attacking the messenger to distract attention. For Donald Trump, this is often employed with childish name calling on Twitter.
Tu quoque is the lesser known cousin of ad hominem, where you accuse the other side of hypocrisy in order to invalidate their point. In Trump world, this usually amounts to accusing your opponent of what you yourself are doing.
A “red herring”, finally, involves bringing up something totally unrelated in an attempt to divert attention away from the argument. Trump usually dangles the red herring by saying something so obscene and outrageous that everyone is forced to address it – for instance, when Trump falsely claimed on Twitter that Obama had ordered his “wires tapped."
So what exactly is Whataboutism?
The True Nature of WhatAboutism
Whataboutism falls somewhere in between the three, employing the brutality of a personal attack with an attempt to divert attention from the original argument. It may be tempting to simply name the logical fallacies, then assume you win the argument. By nature of the argument style, the ‘what about…?’ response would be correct, but only in a theoretical way, which makes it disingenuous because it ends all communication.
Despite the fact that people in competitive debate circles would say that “what about” is a cheap and simple rhetorical technique to defeat, it is currently wielding lots of power – many would say too much power – in politics. “Whataboutism,” as it is affectionately called, is the verbal equivalent of throwing sand in someone’s eyes during a fight: a below-the-belt tactic that is very simple but also shockingly pervasive, and successful.
In essence, people use “what about?” to make all criticism invalid. They do this by finding examples of the opposition having done shady things too. By stripping away context, the manipulations take advantage of our human bias to "compare a mountain to a molehill," as the saying goes.
The tactics of Whataboutism mean simply this: that every point made against someone, no matter how valid and evidenced, can be deflected with a simple “what about…?” and a smug smile.
The real tactics of "what about" usually bely the term's seeming simplicity. Typically, it goes something like this: You criticize a conservative, for instance by noting the numerous credible allegations of sexual assault levelled against Donald Trump, and you immediately get an earful in response about Bill Clinton and his unsavory sexual past.
The logic here is beyond facile: If “your guy” committed sexual assault, then my guy can, too. But the real, more dangerous logic behind the statement is: "If you have ever done anything wrong, then I can do whatever I want and you are a hypocrite for daring to criticize me."
As absurd as it sounds, Whataboutism has been adopted with great success by the far right, and now it dominates the political discourse. Whataboutism is concerned with rhetorically winning a point – not having a debate in good faith. It erodes the very spirit of discourse and poisons the national dialogue, reducing conversations and discussions to propaganda, pushing our divided country further apart.
Ultimately, the polarizing nature of Whataboutism prevents any fruitful exchange, where each side ends up shouting into the void of shared opinion. The world does not exist in black and white, but that is exactly the kind of world that Whataboutism creates on the political stage. It is no more than an overly simplified rhetorical trick. So why is it so effective?
Some Whataboutisms are so common that you're no doubt already well acquainted with them. “...But her emails” has become so common, reappropriated and repeated that it's now an insufferable meme. It's also reminiscent of a favored Whataboutism employed by Russia during the Cold War in which that country used America's history of lynching African Americans as a catchall defense against any criticism levelled at the Soviet government.
During the presidential election, Hillary Clinton and her careless, but non-criminal, use of a personal email server during her time as Secretary of State was put forth as defense of nearly any criticism of Donald Trump. On one level, it is remarkable that it was the worst thing Hillary's attackers could find out about her conduct – what would at any time in the past have been viewed as a clerical-level error.
However, it was wielded as a defense again and again when people pointed out Trump’s many personal failings and criminal acts. A Gallup analysis showed that the emails were by far the most commonly heard topic when discussing Clinton, despite their seeming insignificance. “What about Hillary’s emails?” remains Donald Trump's catchall defense – deployed even in Helsinki, of all places – following the strategy's successful effect in 2016.
Even if Whataboutism fails on the debate circuit, in most political discussions we aren’t formally debating using a set of rules and docurum, with a neutral judge deciding the winner. Instead, on a daily basis we are arguing with our neighbors, coworkers and even our family. Pointing out the absurd logical fallacies will win in a debate competition, but it’s rhetorically ineffective against your drunken uncle.
So what can you do when you face someone convinced that their “What about...?" trumps your pleas for sanity? Thankfully, this rhetorical device can be beat. Like most specious arguments built on implications alone, Whataboutism stands on ground that isn't solid. A good command of the facts along with the right rhetoric can break through the jingoism, propaganda and brainwashing that has been beaten into the minds of a large portion of America.
In the second installment next week, we'll discuss solutions to Whataboutism with a guide to help you respond the next time someone throws a "What about....?" your way.
