Whatabotism

 There has been discussion in the last few weeks about “whataboutism”. Whataboutism is the act of responding to a true accusation of  character flaws in or bad actions by someone one favors by pointing out  the same or similar flaws in or actions by those the accusers favor.  It has appropriate and  inappropriate uses.

Whataboutism is invalid as a means to excuse  bad character or  conduct.  If the candidate of party A is a worthless, low life, chicken thief, it does not make him any less so for his supporters to point out that the candidate of party B is also a worthless, low life, chicken thief.

However it can be valid for other purposes. It can be used to demonstrate the hypocrisy of accusers who tolerate and accept things in those they like while making a show of moral outrage over the same things in those they dislike. More important it can present useful evidence that  those favored by the accusers also fail to meet appropriate standards.  Some people have a tendency to believe that if one person is bad, his opponents must be good and need reminders that that  is not necessarily true.   The chicken thieves of party B can be about as likely to raid your hen house as the chicken thieves of party A.

In the present controversy, Republican whataboutism  about riots, incitement, big lies,  authoritarian tendencies, divisiveness, and disdain  for constitutional limits and processes in no way exonerates or excuses Trump. He is guilty. But it does show many Democrats’ phoniness and that they too cannot be trusted to govern well.