This essay concludes the series on Trump and Tyranny and does so with full confidence that no minds have been changed. I will be discussing Whataboutism and the Two Sides Problem.
The Soviets might not have invented Whataboutism, but they effectively weaponized it. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russians continued to use it effectively. Like other Russian tools, it has now become entrenched in American political discourse. While anyone can use it, it is a favorite of Fox News and Donald Trump. While Whataboutism has many forms, the most common versions used in the defense of Trump has the following general form.
1. Premise 1: Person A of affiliation 1 is accused of X by person B of Affiliation 2.
2. Premise 2: Person C of affiliation 2 is accused of X by person D of affiliation 1.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, A did not do X.
This is a fallacy because whether C did X is irrelevant to whether or not it is true that A did X. One example of this is when Trump and his defenders bring up the alleged misdeeds of Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. The specific flawed logic can be seen as concluding that Trump did not do anything, because “what about Hillary’s emails?”
Alternatively, one could grudgingly admit that Trump did something that might seem wrong, then use Whataboutism to try to “prove” that it is not wrong:
1. Premise 1: Person A of affiliation 1 is accused of X by person B of Affiliation 2.
2. Premise 2: Person C of affiliation 2 is accused of X by person D of affiliation 1.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, it is not wrong that A did X.
Clearly, even if C did X it does not follow that A doing X was not wrong. As noted above, Trump and his defenders try to defend Trump by asserting that Democrats, especially Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, have done bad things. As a specific example, when pressed about Trump trying to exploit his office for personal gain, his defenders will say “what about Joe Biden?” and conclude that Trump did not do anything wrong. But this does not prove that—even if Joe and Hillary did terrible things, this does not prove that Trump did nothing wrong.
It must be noted that if two sides are being compared, it is obviously relevant to consider the flaws of both sides. For example, if the issue is whether to vote for candidate A or B, then it is reasonable to consider the flaws of both A and B in comparison. So, if Biden is up against Trump in 2020, one should consider the flaws of both men.
However, the flaws of Biden do not show that Trump does not have flaws and vice versa. Also, if the issue being discussed is the bad action of Trump, then bringing up Biden’s allegedly bad action does nothing to mitigate the badness of Trump’s action. Unfortunately, Whataboutism is quite effective from a psychological standpoint, despite being logically vacuous. One reason for this is a general problem I have been considering which I call, for obvious reasons, the Two Sides Problem.
Put in broad terms, the Two Sides Problem is that the psychological impact of having two sides with strong emotional influence on their members has a huge impact on people’s willingness to accept empty rhetoric and fallacies that favor their side and harm the other side. As would be expected, this impact is routinely exploited, thus making the problem worse. While the Two Sides impact does affect all fallacies, it can throw gasoline on the illogical fires of many of them. Whataboutism is, quite obviously, one of these.
As noted above, Whataboutism is about defending one’s side by pointing out (or making up) bad things about the other side. This bad reasoning is powered by the target’s positive view of their side and their dislike of the other side. The most obvious effect is that a target accepts a fallacy as good reasoning because of how they feel about the sides. Another effect is that Whataboutism can cause an erosion of principle: For a person to defend bad behavior by “justifying” it with Whataboutisms (or other fallacies) they must be willing to tolerate that bad behavior on the part of their side. If a person has a principle that they stick to consistently, they would condemn bad behavior regardless of whether it was done by their side or the other side. For example, I condemn Trump’s children for cashing in on the family name to secure underserved positions and I condemn Hunter Biden for cashing in on the family name to secure a job he had not earned. I will not defend Hunter Biden by saying “what about the Trump children?” I will be writing more about the two sides problem in the future, but the series on Trump’s tyranny is concluded.
Your logic is fine, your conclusions are right – but who actually comes to those conclusions? You blame Trump and Fox News, but I think you completely misunderstand the situation.
The point is that both sides hate each other, and both sides are guilty, and both sides think that the other side is intolerant of bad behavior only if it doesn’t apply to them.
“Whataboutism” does not try to conclude that “A” did not do “X”. “Whataboutism” just says, “Well, I don’t know who the hell you think you are with all your selective outrage. “B” did “X” and “Y” and “Z”. So stop feigning all that shock, you hypocrites! (And by the way, if you are seeking a real rebuttal to “A” did “X”, there’s plenty of other evidence available).
No, the real conclusion is, “Look, if you want to keep making these accusations, I’ve got a few to make myself. You and I both know the American people are nothing but tribal headline-readers and Facebook posters – but if you want to go down that road, bring it on!”
For the last few essays, you are simply making things up. You are making up ridiculous “conclusions” that you like to pretend Republicans are drawing, when they simply are not true.
It is true that the Republicans are making accusations about Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and the corruption of the Obama administration – and I think that trying to point out that Republicans are actually drawing those conclusions is your way of “inverse whataboutism” –
“D” accuses “R” of “X”
“R” denies guilt, but counters with the accusation that “D” is actually guilty themselves
“D” then accuses “R” of “whataboutism”
Therefore, “D” did not do “X”.
Meanwhile, as I pointed out in my last essay, real evidence is piling up that “D” engaged in a culture of collusion and corruption with “U”, and that the accusations they are making against “R” are specious and contrived.
And while we’re at it, this whole business of “Russia, Russia, Russia” is a little bit laughable. Remember how cozy Hillary was with them with her whole “Reset Button “? Remember Obama on a hot mic whispering to Medvedev, “I’ll have more flexibility after the election” ? Remember Mitt Romney saying that Russia was our largest global threat, and the “D”s mocked him? (“Hey, Mitt – the 1980’s called – they want their foreign policy back!”).
Now, of course, Russia is a pretty major global threat – “HAHAHA – Romney! What a tool! (What was he saying back then? I forget). But the Republicans are in bed with the Russians!!!
And Hillary is actually accusing Jill Stein and Tulsi Gabbard of being Russian assets. (“They know they can’t win on their own, so they just bring in their Russian friends to do their dirty work!”).
Of course, Joy Behar offered some irrefutable proof on her radio show this morning … “Well, I didn’t hear Tulsi Gabbard deny it!.
I studied logic in college – I know when an argument can’t be countered. That’s good enough for me!
Please.
and does so with full confidence that no minds have been changed.
You started this series by positing a definition of tyrant that makes every – or almost every – politician and civil servant a tyrant, the difference being one of degree.
With that definition as premise, there wasn’t much left to say.