…That is a pattern I’ve seen for years, both in the debate club and on the internet. Does that mean accusations of whataboutism are mostly attempts to maintain partisan narratives and preempt challenges to those narratives?
Viewing entries tagged
Ideology and Politics
The term "whataboutism" first appeared in print in 1978, but wasn’t much used until 2007-2008, when British journalist Edward Lucas popularized the term in The Economist. The use of whataboutism in American political discourse increased sharply around the 2016 US presidential election…
The whys and what-fors of whataboutism accusations are the two sides of speech motivation: belief and purpose. Behind every utterance is a felt-truth - which may or may not be conscious or expressed - but the reason we actually say something is to achieve a goal. So what felt-truths are behind accusations of whataboutism, and what do the accusers hope to accomplish?
The accusation of whataboutism often stings, because it implies a moral deficiency in the accused. It’s less about logic and evidence than the accuser’s moral convictions.
But how do we know another’s intent? What appears to be an attempt to change the subject may actually be an attempt to improve the quality of a discussion, to add proper context or examine the speaker’s assumptions. Besides, what’s wrong with trying to redirect attention (“distract”) from a topic if one takes issue with how a claim is presented or defended and wants to sort that out first? And what’s wrong with pointing out double standards or hypocrisy?
Apparently, Democrats like socialism almost as much as they like free enterprise. Which is odd, given that free enterprise is a market-driven economic system largely free of government control and socialism is an ideology that wants to increase government control over economic matters and reduce or even eliminate the role of markets. Seems like a contradiction to me.
Then again, this Gallup survey is not asking for thoughtful responses, it’s asking for gut reactions.
“Down with large businesses!” just sounds stupid. I think most people appreciate that large businesses have their advantages and uses. Large businesses contribute to a country’s economic vitality… But “Big Business” brings to mind a history of abysmal wages and working conditions, of riots violently put down, tycoons buying political influence, and governments doing their bidding.
Per Gallup 2025, a large majority of Americans like free enterprise - that is, economic systems in which “private business operates in competition and largely free of state control” (Google Dictionary) and “prices, products, and services are determined by market forces rather than government intervention” (Investopedia). …But while independents and Democrats embrace free enterprise, they’re rather critical of capitalism.
In these surveys, respondents are asked, “Just off the top of your head, would you say you have a positive or negative image of each of the following?” Their views are then solicited on capitalism, free enterprise, socialism, big business and small business. Each post in this series will focus on a subset of the 2025 survey responses. I’ll start with a comparing positive responses to capitalism and socialism. Here’s a summary of those responses, by self-reported party identity…
Notice that Democrats seemed to care much less about the issues that were most important to Republicans. But the reverse was not true.
So people go along to get along and cultures ossify. But every once in a while, alternative perspectives break through and the whole thing crumples, sometimes very quickly. That may be happening now, in America.
Several developed countries have lowered capital gains taxes over the last couple decades, mainly to stimulate economic growth, investment, and global competitiveness, as well as to discourage investors from holding on to their assets simply to avoid taxes. However, some argue that lower capital gains taxes mainly benefit the rich and have little impact on economic growth or investment. The verdict is out on that score.
Before all these intervening factors muddled the causal picture, many (especially partisans) offered confident opinions on the impact of TCJA. For instance…
Well, how the hell can governments do more to protect the environment if their primary funder - tax payers - refuse to pay for the service? Tread lightly and lay off guilt trips to get people to sacrifice their dreams for the greater good of the planet.
In 2004, 31% of American voters self-identified as independents, less than either Democrats or Republicans. Twenty years later, 43% identify as independents, much higher than either Democrats or Republicans, both sinking under the weight of voter dissatisfaction at just 28% each. The trend is obvious…
“The inhabitants of a particular town are much better acquainted with its wants and interests than with those of other places; and are better judges of the capacity of their neighbours than of that of the rest of their countrymen. The members, therefore, of the legislature should not be chosen from the general body of the nation; but it is proper that in every considerable place a representative should be elected by the inhabitants.” (Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws, 1748)
Climate change is mostly about bad weather becoming worse over time, to the detriment of humans and the rest of the biosphere. However, one doesn’t have to believe in climate change to care about bad weather and its impacts. Nor does one need to believe in climate change to want to fix problems associated with today’s bad weather. And since problem-solving capacity builds over time, whatever is learned fixing today’s problems will help us fix similar problems in the future.
The same goes for fossil fuel companies and the meat industry. Yes, these are businesses whose main interest is profit and survival. I don’t expect them to willingly self-destruct. That doesn’t mean they can’t be allies on some environmental issues, eg, reducing methane emissions. But I don’t require that they really care about these issues. Environmental allies don’t need to be pure of motive as long as they contribute…
Granted climate change skeptics are unlikely allies in the fight against climate change, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be allies for other environmental causes. One can doubt the existence or seriousness of climate change and still care about protecting wild habitat and endangered species. Why not?
Some may feel that optimism undermines the spirit of political activism and thus makes people less open to “structural change”. This is not an unreasonable proposition: if optimism is based on positive experiences, why would anyone want to hobble a system that has improved the quality of life for so most of humanity?