Excerpts from The Propaganda Professor (October 27, 2019). My comments are indented:
One day, I was talking to a [person who argued] the purportedly peerless “greatness” of Western Civilization can be directly attributed to its embrace of “Judeo-Christian” values. When I mentioned that this thesis cannot be supported by the facts, she replied, “name one country that’s greater”. It was a very blatant deflection…[which] is an attempt to divert focus away from one issue and turn it toward something else. In psychology, it’s symptomatic of an abuser. In politics, it really isn’t much different.
In other words…
Person A’s Proposition: Greatness of Western Civilization comes from Judeo-Christian Values
Person B’s Counter: That is not supported by the facts.
Person A’s Response: Provide an example of these facts, specifically a country that is greater.
Person B’s Verdict: That’s a deflection!!! Plus, it’s abusive!!!
How does asking for an example to support a point divert focus away from an issue? If anything, it’s an attempt to dip deeper into the issue of whether Western Civilization is great and why, inviting further questions, such as what does it mean to be great, are countries a useful unit of comparison, what might be a better comparison, what specific values are we talking about, etc.
In many instances, the whataboutism is intended to be not just equivalent to, but actually more important than, the real issue. For example, one ideologue who wants you to believe that racism is a thing of the past, has made a point of saying that the real problem African-Americans face is father absence…[but] that does nothing to diminish instances of blacks being shot by police, yelled at by racists, and stalked by vigilantes.
What is a “real” issue and who determines that? What makes an issue more or less important? How do we know that the disputants are speaking to the same issue? For example, father absence typically addresses the problem of chronic poverty and dysfunction, not the problem of racist maltreatment. And how does one know what “the ideologue wants you to believe”? Why is it that so many accusations of whataboutism rely on mindreading?
Many whataboutisms present a false choice: “Why should we worry about the plight of refugees when we have homeless veterans”? Somehow the person who asks this (and a great many people do) wants you to believe that there must necessarily be a choice between being concerned about, and doing something about, one or the other.
Again with the mindreading! Why not ask the person why they see a choice between doing something about refugees versus homeless vets? Perhaps the conflict reflects an appreciation of scarce resources and the necessity to prioritize? Or an approach to governance of citizens and country first. What makes these concerns a “false choice”? Does “why should we worry” convey an unwillingness to do anything, or is it just a stock phrase to convey that something’s a relatively low-priority concern? How does one know one way or the other? Well, engaging the other person would be a start.
Sometimes there are instances when a whataboutism is perfectly justified, and is not intended as subterfuge… An especially interesting scenario occurred when Bill Clinton was being investigated and impeached for lying about an affair — by several Republicans… Those who pointed out that “everyone does it” generally weren’t trying to excuse or justify his behavior, but were emphasizing the absurdity and inequity of singling out one person to rake over the coals for doing something that so many people do — including many of those condemning him.
So, “emphasizing the absurdity and inequity of singling out a person to rake over the coals” for a common behavior is justified whataboutism? Basically, that’s the defense of pointing out double-standards and hypocrisy, which is usually condemned as just plain ole whataboutism. I guess if the whataboutism favors a fellow partisan, it’s ok. Actually, I think it’s ok most of the time, regardless of who benefits from the comparison.