In the labyrinthine world of online debates, one term frequently surfaces: “Whataboutism.”
Here’s the standard definition:
Whataboutism refers to the tactic of countering an accusation with a different accusation, rather than addressing the original claim.
This brings us to two pertinent questions.
First, can whataboutism ever be a legitimate argumentative strategy?
Second, how should one respond when faced with this rhetorical maneuver?
To the first question, the answer is a nuanced yes. Whataboutism can, at times, serve as a valid method of discourse.
As for the second question, let me illustrate with a recent Facebook discussion I participated in.
I had shared my thoughts on Senator Chris Van Hollen, a Democratic Senator from Maryland, praising his efforts in El Salvador in a succinct three-minute video (here’s the extended version). He advocated for the return of Abrego Garcia, one of his constituents, who the Trump administration erroneously detained in a Salvadoran prison. Van Hollen made one slip—he declared Garcia innocent, despite lacking evidence. The vital point is not about innocence but rather the fact that Garcia was denied a hearing. The only way to ascertain his status is through a hearing in the U.S. where he can be represented by legal counsel.
Due to Facebook’s ever-curious algorithms, I stumbled upon a threaded discussion led by my lawyer friend, Matt Gilliland. Matt pointed out that Trump was defying a unanimous Supreme Court ruling directing him to facilitate Garcia’s return.
Then, a friend of Matt’s, named Will, chimed in:
Wow, a president defying the Supreme Court – when’s the last time we saw that? Oh right, JOE BIDEN and his student loan escapades.
Matt countered:
While I believe Biden’s student loan actions occasionally overstepped his authority, he did not outright defy the Supreme Court. When his original approach was deemed unconstitutional, he sought an alternative legal route. That’s not defiance; that’s adherence to judicial rulings. Can you cite an instance where he truly defied their decisions?
The conversation continued to ebb and flow.
Will was engaging in whataboutism. Was this an invalid argumentative approach? I argue that it wasn’t. Matt’s retort highlighted that Biden didn’t defy the Supreme Court. (Interestingly, Biden himself nearly boasted about his actions during an appearance in Los Angeles.)
However, by diverting the discussion to Biden, Will skillfully sidestepped the crux of whether Trump’s actions were legitimate.
So, I posed the straightforward question to Will:
And when Biden did that, you were against it, right?
Will chose not to respond.
I believe my question was a sound approach. If he were to concede that he opposed Biden’s alleged defiance of the Supreme Court (a point he assumed while I, like Matt, disagreed), we could then analyze whether Trump’s actions constituted a similar defiance. Unfortunately, we’ve yet to reach that stage, as Will has remained silent.
Nonetheless, my method of responding is a valid strategy against whataboutism, regardless of whether the tactic is justified, especially when it is.
Lastly, let’s ponder a question about Trump and Biden. The Supreme Court has affirmed a lower court ruling mandating Trump to facilitate Garcia’s return to the U.S. Why, after the Court deemed Biden’s student loan forgiveness unconstitutional, didn’t it compel him to retract that forgiveness? Biden wouldn’t have needed to recover checks sent to individuals; he simply had to inform them that their loans weren’t forgiven.
