In Defense of (Some) Whataboutism
The Democrats can scream “whataboutism” -- but this is not the kind of argument that is supposed to lead to the truth.
(Bloomberg View) -- Whataboutism, a supposedly Soviet propaganda tactic, comes up increasingly often in the U.S. political conversation. It's a magic word: Mentioning it tends to kill off an unfolding discussion as effectively as a Nazi analogy used to do.
Perhaps because I'm Russian, I feel whataboutism is unfairly maligned. "What about..." is an important question that should be asked.
Whataboutism is a form of the tu quoque logical fallacy, which is itself a form of the ad hominem attack. When accused of something, a whataboutist doesn't deny the charge but attacks the accuser as a hypocrite.
In the Soviet case, when Moscow was accused of violating human rights, it would respond with references to racism in the U.S.: "Who are you to lecture us?" Russia's propaganda media, of course, still use it. For example, RT's coverage of the riots in Ferguson, Missouri, pushed the idea that blacks are oppressed in the U.S., therefore U.S. politicians have no right to raise human-rights issues with Russia and China.
These days, however, the person most often accused of whataboutism is President Donald Trump. The latest example is his reaction to the Paul Manafort indictment:
But it's not just about Trump. Democratic-leaning commentators -- such as the former ambassador Michael McFaul or the Carnegie Endowment's vice president for studies Andrew Weiss -- have mentioned whataboutism to end a discussion. Weiss, for example, recently applied it to Brexit campaign funder Arron Banks, who had pointed out the U.S. investment banks' anti-Brexit efforts:
The reason whataboutism, and the entire menu of ad hominem varieties, is a fallacy, however, is that in an academic argument, it's not important who's talking. Even if your opponent is a hypocrite, it doesn't matter: You have to answer his or her claim on its own merit. It only matters whether or not the claim is true, because the purpose of the argument is to establish the truth.
In politics, however, who's talking is often as important as what's being said. Here's an example -- a speech about Stalin's ruthless reprisals:
For all of us, for the future generations, it's very important to know and remember about this tragic period of our history, when entire strata and entire ethnic groups were subject to cruel persecution: Workers and peasants, engineers and generals, priests and civil servants, academics and cultural figures. The reprisals made no exceptions for talent, services to the country, sincere loyalty to it -- anybody could be arbitrarily and absurdly charged. Millions were declared "enemies of the people," shot or crippled, forced to suffer in prisons, labor camps and exile.
There's nothing wrong with this passionate condemnation except that it comes from Russian President Vladimir Putin -- the man on whose watch political prisoners and lists of "enemies of the people," albeit unofficial ones so far, reappeared in Russia. Is mentioning that background "whataboutism"? No, it's useful context.
The speaker's personality is also important in highly partisan situations, such as the one evident in U.S. politics today. When a Democrat accuses Trump of colluding with the Kremlin, the accuser's party affiliation is just as important as the message itself; similarly, one expects a Republican to demand that the probe be expanded to cover the Democrats' use of the Steele dossier, compiled by a foreigner and based on information from Moscow sources that was likely divulged with Kremlin permission.
The Democrats can scream "whataboutism" -- but this is not the kind of argument that is supposed to lead to the truth. It's a debate in which both sides are trying to score points.
The truth, meanwhile, would be best served by a thorough, nonpartisan investigation of both campaigns' willingness to accept foreign help with opposition research. Having dug on one side of the dispute, an impartial investigator -- and a conscientious journalist, too -- must ask, "What about the other side?" That's normal, and it has nothing to do with the classic Russian propaganda trick -- something that many U.S. commentators appear to misunderstand.
The essence of that trick is to divert attention from an accusation by mentioning something completely unrelated. The Ferguson riots and their causes have absolutely nothing to do with Putin's efforts to shut down his political rivals. Race relations in the U.S. don't belong in a discussion about internet censorship in China, either.
An appeal for the consideration of a different view of the same dispute is not classic whataboutism. In the case of Andrew Weiss vs. Arron Banks, for example, it's probably useful to discuss various foreign interests' inputs into the pro- and anti-Brexit campaigns. It's not impossible that there were irregularities on both sides, and it would be fair to expose them evenhandedly.
The same applies to Russian influence in the U.S. campaign, which increasingly looks like a wholly nonpartisan effort to play both sides against each other. Sometimes one side's cynicism explains the other's -- even if it doesn't necessarily justify it.
As an appeal to fairness, and to correcting for an opponent's biases, whataboutism is not a distraction tactic but an important weapon against a different propaganda technique, known as framing. In a point-scoring political debate, the side that succeeds in making its description of the situation stick is often the one that wins.
For example, if the Democrats manage to frame Russia's "active measures" as a plot to elect Trump, they have scored an important point. Some "whataboutism" on the Republican side won't end the investigation into that possibility -- but it can help level the playing field.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Leonid Bershidsky is a Bloomberg View columnist. He was the founding editor of the Russian business daily Vedomosti and founded the opinion website Slon.ru.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Katy Roberts at kroberts29@bloomberg.net.
For more columns from Bloomberg View, visit http://www.bloomberg.com/view.
©2017 Bloomberg L.P.