I was accused of “whataboutism” a few days back. This, I found after a bit of poking around, is the disreputable tactic of pointing out the faults of an opponent in a debate which are similar to those faults one is accused of having. It was, we are told, a favored gambit of Soviet propagandists in the bad old days of the Cold War, a device of argument very much to be decried and avoided. Which is ironic, coming from those who seem to embrace many of the underlying totalitarian tricks of the former “prison-house of nations.”
It is also utter nonsense. What the Left calls “whataboutism” is nothing more than the uncovering of hypocrisy; this is painful and embarrassing to them because hypocrisy is what allows them to freely criticize in others what they undertake themselves. For example, it allows them to rail against Donald Trump’s “authoritarianism” for resorting to executive orders while praising Barack Obama and Joe Biden for doing the same, or far more. Hypocrisy allows them to find “racism” in demands that voters present ID to identify themselves, while cosying up to unsavory types like newly-minted Senator Raphael Warnock who trace our country’s problems to “the worship of whiteness,” or Kristen Clarke, Biden’s pick to lead the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, who has said that blacks are superior to whites because… well, because they are black. It is hypocrisy to embrace the latter argument as sound while rejecting as racist the ravings of the KKK who only reverse the colors while accepting the logic, twisted as it is.
But people can’t be allowed to hear that. It might confuse them – or given them exactly the right idea about the garbage the Left is spewing. So, “whataboutism.” Because it’s a “discredited form of argument” to point out that one’s opponent is a baldfaced hypocrite.
“Whataboutism” is only the latest is the Left’s long campaign against the English language. They have risen to the challenge of torturing words until they mean exactly what is expedient to the moment, rather than having any permanent or universal meaning. This not only renders discussion impossible – there can be no real discussion, no exchange of ideas among people who do not even share the same meanings for the words they use – it also creates a cloud of uncertainty as to what the Left means when it says things.
Take the standard demand question: “(Do) you support Black Lives Matter?” It’s impossible to answer accurately, because “BLM” has three meanings. The first is unexceptionable: black lives do indeed matter, because all humans are created in the image of God, and therefore have equal intrinsic worth. The second refers to the organization BLM, which is currently engaged in a campaign of riot and destruction across the country in an effort to impose their policies. This is a “Black Lives Matter” which some may support, but such support is far less than universal. And finally, there is the core of the Black Lives Matter organization, which is Marxist and hell-bent on the destruction of this country. Support for these, one hope, is very low.
The Left never stipulates which “Black Lives Matter” is meant in the question, and that’s the point: to create uncertainty and doubt. If one asks for clarification, one is immediately tagged as a “racist” for not immediately embracing the nebulous term. In truth, no one asking the question cares a whit about the answer. They simply seek an opening to berate their fellow citizens – which will continue until they have silenced all who dare disagree.
“Racist,” “racism,” “white supremacy” and all the other ultimate insults of the Left have exactly the same problems and purposes. They are not used to illuminate or inform, but to attack, degrade and suppress. And they are rife with hypocrisy. One does not self-righteously accuse
others of “racism” while endorsing the views of Robin DiAngelo or Frank Joyce. The proper definition of “racism” lies in seeing one’s own group, usually but not always defined by phenotype, as being superior and “the other” as being inferior. It has nothing to do with the phenotype or politics of the person expressing that view. Pretending that the skin color, politics or identity of the speaker makes the difference is hypocrisy. “Whataboutism” is not involved. Poisonous verbal flimflam is.
Period.
