[ed. draft started back in July]
The basic idea is that if someone possesses any moral failing then they have no ground to criticize others’ flaws. It’s considered a high skill of propaganda perfected, of a sort, by the Soviet Union when any government or NGO outside of their walled society would denounce their corruptions or human rights abuses. After all, don’t other countries have bought-off politicians? Governments that have committed just-this-side-of war crimes? Lynchings? The basic flaw with this defense is that if something is wrong it is wrong no matter who is doing it. Being accused of murder by another who has murdered does not make you a non-murderer. If only the flawless were permitted to criticize then we all would devolve, without valid dispute, into the worst that has occurred.
There is a pot and blackness of kettle type of support to whataboutism. There is a mocking of hypocrites. Yet it certainly doesn’t absolve murder or equate degrees of murder. Reporters in the United States have been put in free speech zones. Reporters and opposition leaders in Russia have been assassinated. There is no equivalence.
Trump said, during his Helsinki debacle an interview, that “There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, you think our country is so innocent?” This is the sweet sweet temptation of whataboutism. Its siren call etc. is compelling. If the US spies and subverts, its acts ameliorate the corruption of Putin (and no not that of the Iranian leader, and no not that of the Syrian president (or maybe so), but yes that of the North Korean leader, and yes that of the assassination-frenzied Philippine president, and yes that of other authoritarians whom the president-small-p, re their power, covets-captital-C) and bars any societal self-reflection and self-correction when we commit moral crimes or even offenses. Can we fail and hate ourselves and still be nobler than ruthless autocracies? As per Trump: no, we can’t.
While researching the history and rhetorical qualifications of whataboutism, I found a Stack Exchange discussion on How can I respond to Whataboutism? which had answers nuanced and in great detail. I cannot add anything valuable to it. Read those questions, answers, and the in-betweens.
Enumerated, or at least bullet pointed, points from notes for my previously intended essay:
- Arguments made in support of the Trump/Putin summit. Can there be any? Is there any world that can defend Trump’s actions?
- False equivalence – US spying, a corrupt murderous Putin and oligarchs, and now Trump may be equally corrupt. Is this satisfactory to us for our leaders? Have we become that because whataboutism says we were already that?
- (In war, do we look the other way when someone tries to shoot us even if they missed? (I really feels this has nothing to do with whataboutism. What did I have in mind?))
- Keep your enemies close.
George W. Bush and Bill Clinton met Russian representatives in private like Trump did with Putin. What is the difference?
What happened every other time Putin met with US presidents
The difference is one of quality. Neither previous presidents praised Putin with fawning earnestness or held his veracity above American intelligence or had any history of compromat. A private meeting should be met with greater concern. Roger Ebert–in interviews I cannot find or am remembering incorrectly–repurposed the law of the excluded middle to be a flawed premise. In logic, the law states that a statement is true or not. However, we tend to try to apply that speciously to intent. Trump has suggested (again, cannot find the quote) that not talking to Putin or Kim Jong-un will result in nuclear war. Talk or not-talk is not-war or war and supposedly there is no in between. I often think of conservatives as having black and white and not gray thought. This is a perfect example.
[ed. written after Helsinki and cleaned up now, after the midterms]
Random links:
- Trump, Treasonous Traitor by Charles M. Blow in The New York Times
- How Republican Lawmakers Responded to Trump’s Russian Meddling Denial in The New York Times
- Trump sides with Putin over U.S. intelligence chiefs on Russian interference in U.S. election by Daniel Dale in The Star
- This sad, embarrassing wreck of a man by George F. Will in The Washington Post
- Russian National Charged in Conspiracy to Act as an Agent of the Russian Federation Within the United States from The United States Department of Justice regarding Maria Butina
- How can I respond to Whataboutism?
- White House: Trump open to Russia questioning US citizens
- Before inauguration, Trump reportedly saw evidence Putin personally ordered election interference
- Here are 10 critics of Vladimir Putin who died violently or in suspicious ways
- List of journalists killed in Russia
- If this is not treason, then what is it?