whataboutism
- Also called:
- whataboutery
- Related Topics:
- argument
whataboutism, the rhetorical practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation, by asking a different but related question, or by raising a different issue altogether. Whataboutism often serves to reduce the perceived plausibility or seriousness of the original accusation or question by suggesting that the person advancing it is hypocritical or that the responder’s misbehavior is not unique or unprecedented. Acts of whataboutism typically begin with rhetorical questions of the form “What about…?”
Examples of whataboutism
- A wife accuses her husband of drinking too much. He responds, “What about you? You smoke marijuana all the time.”
- A retail business owner asks an employee if she has been taking money from a tip jar. The employee responds, “What about all the charities I support?”
- A father asks his daughter why she was out so late. She responds, “What about that football game?”
Etymology and origin of the term
Whataboutism is a portmanteau of what and about, suffixed with -ism (meaning a distinctive practice). The first known use of the term in a print publication occurred in May 1978, when The Guardian published a reader’s letter accusing the British newspaper of falsely equating the despotism of the Soviet Union with that of military dictatorships allied with the West. “Whataboutism,” as the reader explained, “is a condition of the progressive mind which does not tolerate any criticism of Communist autocracy unless those who criticise wear sackcloth and put ashes on their heads for the sins of all non-Communist dictatorships.” The reader also used the word “whataboutist” to refer to a practitioner of whataboutism, asserting that “the ‘whataboutist’ ignores the fact that the Kremlin is not content to oppress its citizens…but…insists on exporting its way of life.”
Similar terms appeared in print before whataboutism and likely contributed to its derivation. In 1974 The Irish Times published a reader’s letter that referred to defenders of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) as “the Whatabouts”: “These are the people who answer every condemnation of the Provisional I.R.A. with an argument to prove the greater immorality of the ‘enemy’, and therefore the justice of the Provisionals’ cause.” Three days later a journalist for the same newspaper wrote a column on the same topic, coining the term “whataboutery.”
Whataboutism as a logical fallacy
Whataboutism responses of the counteraccusation variety are considered logical fallacies. As a form of tu quoque (Latin: “you also”) argument, they divert attention from the original criticism of a person, country, organization, or idea by returning the same criticism in response, but they have no bearing on the truth value of the original accusation. Tu quoque arguments directed specifically at individuals constitute a species of ad hominem fallacy.
Origin and modern uses of whataboutism
The origin of whataboutism has been traced to the Sophists of pre-Socratic Greece, a group of writers and lecturers who were known for teaching sophisticated rhetorical techniques in return for fees. Many Sophists trained their clients in whataboutism and other argumentative tactics that could be used to win public debates.
During the Cold War of the 20th century, whataboutism became a standard tactic of propagandists for the Soviet Union, who routinely responded to allegations of human rights violations by accusing Western countries of equally reprehensible crimes. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Russian government, particularly under the leadership of Vladimir Putin, continued to rely on whataboutism as a means of deflecting Western criticisms. (In 2014, for example, Putin famously responded to a journalist’s question about Russia’s annexation of Crimea by comparing it to the United States’ annexation of Texas.) Since the 20th century many other countries have defended their violations of international law by rhetorically asking, “What about…?”
Politics and whataboutism
The effectiveness of whataboutism in deflecting criticism, obfuscating issues, and distracting audiences has led to its common use in political debates. Politicians often employ whataboutism to shift the focus of public debates away from issues that reflect badly on them, to undermine the credibility of their opponents, and to confuse people by suggesting false equivalences. In the United States whataboutism has become even more pervasive since the 1990s with the rise of extreme political partisanship—in part because whataboutist responses often appeal to, and in their own way serve to strengthen, the prejudices and biases of partisan audiences.
Many American political leaders of both major parties, including presidents and presidential candidates, have indulged in whataboutism, but none have used it nearly as often as former Republican Pres. Donald Trump. During his 2016 presidential campaign, throughout his presidency (2017–21), and since declaring his candidacy in the presidential election of 2024, Trump has routinely responded to criticisms or allegations of wrongdoing by himself or his supporters with whataboutist and other extreme ad hominem attacks. Frequently cited examples include his 2017 response on Twitter (now X) to accusations that his presidential campaign had colluded with Russia (“What about all of the Clinton ties to Russia, including Podesta Company, Uranium deal, Russian Reset, big dollar speeches etc.[?]”) and his 2017 response at a news conference to criticisms of violence committed by white supremacists at a pro-Trump rally in Virginia earlier that year (“What about the alt-left that came charging at the, as you say, alt-right? Do they have any semblance of guilt?”).
Positive uses of whataboutism
Whataboutism is generally considered a negative practice because of its tendency to erode mutual trust, to polarize discussions, and to trivialize serious issues. Nevertheless, it can have tangible benefits in some circumstances.
For example, whataboutism can help people to recognize inconsistencies in their own arguments or positions when the whataboutist response effectively raises a legitimate counterexample to a critical generalization. It can also reveal common problematic assumptions or approaches on each side of a debate, suggesting larger issues that should be addressed. Finally, it can help people to clarify their own positions on relevant issues, which could lead both sides to revise their stances and come to a shared understanding.