In Defense of Whataboutism

 

I do see an obvious criticism of my last post.  Certainly one could dismiss it as an exercise in whataboutism. Do I seek to justify the failures of scientists, mainstream media and the like by pointing to the failures of the right wing?  

In answer, I would say that the reason whataboutism has significant intuitive appeal is that it is often fully justified.  To consider when "whataboutism" is an is not justified, it is best to think about context.  Because there are at least three cases in which the accusation is made.  Not all three are the same.

Whataboutism when used to justify one's own misconduct.  (First party criticism).

The criticism of "whataboutism" is quite correct when the speaker seeks to justify the speaker's (or the speaker's "team's") misconduct by pointing out someone else's. Worse still is the implication that somebody else's misconduct not only justifies one's one misconduct, but that so long as other people do bad things, one's own side is in some way morally obligated to do similar bad things, and that to improve one's own conduct if other people do not improve theirs is somehow hypocritical.   This is what my sister called the "Darth Vader kills people so why shouldn't I" argument.  

Example:  An employee is embezzling from his/her employer and refuses to stop because the employer is cheating on his/her/its taxes. The employer's misconduct in no way excuses, much less mandates, the employee's.

This argument was much used during the War on Terror to justify killing civilians, indefinite detention, torture, and other types of abuse. Any criticism of our own behavior was met with quite accurate accounts of the worst things terrorist did and a strong implication that it was immoral to refrain from such things so long as our enemies did them.

For much the same reason, I do not agree with people who say Elon Musk is a hypocrite for denouncing Twitter's coordination with our government while complying with censorship by the governments of China, India, etc.  It is perfectly reasonable to say that it is not Twitter's job to change government policies in countries like India or China, and that it is asking too much to expect Twitter to defy the law of the host country.  It is also reasonable at the same time to say that we expect our government to refrain from meddling in social media, except as part of a criminal investigation.*

Or consider the classic expression of hypocrisy from Matthew 7:3-5:

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

The Gospel does not say what you should do if the mote is in your own eye and the beam is in your brother's.  But presumably you are not under any obligation to leave it there, much less to measure and insist that it would by hypocritical to remove your own mote so long as your brother's beam is larger.

Whataboutism when used to refute an implied claim of moral superiority.  (Second party criticism).

This is what is known as the tu toque fallacy, not a refusal to engage in self-criticism, but an attempt to deflect another person's criticism by pointing out the other person's flaws.  The point of the tu toque fallacy is that just because the other person has the same moral flaws, it does not follow that your own misconduct is morally right.  That is true, of course, but it is not the whole story.  When the other person calls out your moral failings, he or she is almost always making an implied claim to moral superiority.  It is not unreasonable under these circumstances to point that out.

Example:  An employer cheating on his/her/its taxes calls out an employee for embezzling.  The employee points out the hypocrisy.  If the mote is in your eye and the beam in your brother's, you are in no way required to leave the mote there -- but perhaps you are justified in calling our your brother for criticizing it.

Another classic example was the Soviet Union under Communism retorting to criticism of its human rights records by raising the question of lynching in the United States.  But can we point out the obvious. Implicit here is the assumption that US lynching was worse than anything happening under Communism.  And what, after all, would be most Americans' response to Communist criticism of our record on race?  Presumably, to point out the Communists' own failings.

So, too, any time the right wing media points out the real failings and errors of the mainstream media, the clear implication is that the rightwing media is more reliable.  It is entirely reasonable to point out that this is not so.  Or if Elon Musk points to the alleged censoriousness of Twitter before he bought it out, it is fair to shoot down any implication that he is not censorious.

But even hypocritical criticism has its value.  US Presidents in the Cold War threw their support behind the Civil Rights movement in large part to maintain the moral high ground against the Soviet Union.  And if right wing criticism leads the mainstream media to strive to be more accurate, that is all to the good.

Whataboutism when used to choose between imperfect options in an imperfect world.  (Or, third party criticism).

But the time that whataboutism makes most sense, is when addressed to a third party other than the accuser who has to make choices between imperfect options in an imperfect world.  In that case, it makes perfect sense to weigh the relative degree of everyone's faults and misdeeds before making a choice.  This would be, say, a triage facility deciding what item to remove from somebody's eye first.  Presumably it would be the great beam.**

Suppose the white collar crimes division is investigating and embezzler and the embezzler points out that his/her employer is engaged in tax evasion.  The white collar crimes division will presumably take note.  And it will probably weigh the relative severity of the two offenses in deciding which party to offer a plea in order to testify against the other.

Much the same principle should apply to viewers deciding whether to follow the mainstream media or the right wing media.  Neither is perfect; the only question is which is more reliable (or less unreliable). 

Political candidate are an obvious example of this principle at work. Donald Trump is actually quite spectacular in this regard, because no matter what Republicans say is the Democratic candidate's worst quality that make them unacceptable, Trump invariably manages to exceed them.***

Are you running against Bill Clinton and want to argue that character is what is most important?  Well, on any character test, Trump will run dead last.  Do you oppose Bill Clinton because the one thing you can't stand is sexual impropriety?  Well then, you must hate the man who says, "Grab 'em by the pussy."

But her emails (Mar-a-Lago raid)

Do you oppose Hillary Clinton because she was careless in her handling of classified documents?  Then you must hate the man who took hundreds of them home.  Is the real issue that Hillary evaded record keeping laws and deleted e-mails?  Trump routinely tore up every paper that crossed his desk in clear violation of the Presidential Records Act and even flushed some down the toilet. Are you worried that the Clinton Foundation creates possible conflicts of interest?  Then it makes no sense at all to vote for a candidate with a far-flung international business empire. Are you concerned about personal profiteering in the Clinton Foundation?  Meet the Trump Foundation.

Similarly, if your biggest issue in candidates is sons who who trade on their family name to profit, or whose international business ties create potential conflicts of interest, Donald Trump is probably not a good choice.  And a lot of people wonder about drug addicted sons as well.

_______________________________

*And to note, while I think this is a reasonable position, I am not necessarily saying that I agree with it.  My mind is not made up on the subject.  What is clear is that it did not take Musk long to learn what other right wing social media operators learned -- that it is simply not realistic to have no terms of service or content moderation, and that any attempt to do so quickly degenerates into a complete sewer.

**Don't think too hard about how a great beam would fit.

***Of course, if what you really find unacceptable about Democrats is their policies, then doubtless Trump will seem the better choice.  But, given how closely divided the electorate is, candidates invariably have to reach out beyond the party faithful to explain to undecided voters why the other candidate is unacceptable for reasons other than policy.