The first Bible verse I ever learned as a kid was Ephesians 4:32 – “and be ye kind one to another, tender hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ sake has forgiven you.” In fact, I just wrote that perfectly from memory, in King James Version no less, as it’s still indelibly imprinted on my mind. I’m sure my mother’s goal for this memorization was all about sibling relations. Especially with my sister who would repeatedly remind me that she was 2 years, 6 months and 25 days older than me! Of course, she had to memorize it too as kindness was a first order issue, faithful to the priority of scripture and very much needed between us siblings!
Mom’s priority of character development was ably matched by mom’s rod of correction, one of the many wooden spoons lurking in a kitchen drawer every ready to justify its existence. There were always multiple backups too as redundancy was a critical value in mom’s universe of wooden spoons. Not so much for cooking, as one would surmise, but to ensure ready replacements when the biblically inspired rod broke in half.
Resistance was always futile, a timeless outcome which never changed. Arguments were futile too and likely to make the punishment worse. Character development meant owning the crime, learning to take personal responsibility. Its goal was moral development, transforming self-centered kids into virtuous adults. I learned quickly that the outcome of a “but Sheryl” argument was statistically 2.3 additional swats more. Hence, any whataboutism was shunned, even punished as it was deemed incompatible with Godly moral formation.
The term whataboutism first surfaced in northern Ireland in the 1970s and used by both sides of that sectarian conflict to up the ante of moral indignation when confronted with an accusation. It found a second home during the cold war for a kind of Russian argumentation intended to match “every Soviet crime with a real or imagined western one.” But it wasn’t until the election of 2016 that it became a household term, increasing in use nearly 100-fold by late 2017 through its incorporation into our media discourse and by the call-out culture of social media. And its sustained popularity means that its here to stay as measure to the degree in which American identities have become politically tribalized.
Wide is the Gate…To Hackery
Whataboutism is a logical fallacy (“tu quoque,” Latin for you also) used to avoid the issue while counter-attacking through an accusation of hypocrisy. It acts like a mirror keeping the spotlight on the other while avoiding accountability for one’s beliefs or actions. It amplifies the power of populism by fostering a binary worldview of “we the good” vs “they the enemy.” It’s a force multiplier for echo chambers through its avoidance of any honest engagement with an opposing view. And it’s an effective tool of tribalism because it’s always pointing at the other while being uninterested in the truth.
It simplifies political life because, as Andrew Sullivan once said: “One of the great attractions of tribalism is that you don’t actually have to think very much. All you need to know on any given subject is which side you’re on…When criticized by a member of a rival tribe, a tribalism will not reflect on his/her own actions or assumptions, but instantly point to the same flaw in his enemy”
Alan Dykstra in “The Rhetoric of “Whataboutism” in American Journalism and Political Identity” says: whataboutism rhetoric appears to be truth-seeking under the guise of engaging in a debate. But it is a relatively empty exercise, unmoored from a common understanding of truth. He concludes by saying whataboutism is a sign of “group division, polarization and tribalization of political identity in American Society…In such a mode, insulated knowledge spaces and tribal conceptions of social reality develop.”
I think mom knew instinctively what political scientists have found empirically. Whataboutism incites division, a sin that strikes at the heart of Christianity’s core. It undercuts the formation of character through the avoidance of personal responsibility. It removes the spotlight from right and wrong. It’s a violation of 1 Peter 3:9 who enjoins us to not repay “insult with insult.” And it contaminates our gospel witness through its reliance on tribal sensibilities.
As Jonah Goldberg, the long-time conservative pundit recently tweeted in response to what he said was the “5,000th Trump apologist pundit make the same argument…Conservatism claims to believe in serious notions of right & wrong. We (claim to) champion moral clarity. If your first response to every misdeed of your side is to criticize the other side for condemning it. That’s not principled conservatism, it’s hackery.”
Jonah again: “I’m not an expert on Christianity. But my understanding is that if you sin and are called to account for it, replying “Yeah, but look at what the Muslims do” is not a defense. Again, no expert so I’m open to correction.”
What if we quit worrying about whether people are on the ‘left’ or ‘right’ and just viewed our own actions in the context of right vs. wrong? What if we cared more about the factual basis of an issue, rather than finding refuge in a rhetorical tool meant to deflect? What if we adopted a many-sided perspective, evaluating truth claims according to their individual merits rather than through a false binary responsive to a tribalistic narrative. Then if an appeal to fairness seems meritorious, at least it should follow some form of honest evaluation of the levied charge.
Whataboutism as a Metric of Division
Many drivers of disunity (e.g., populism) are difficult to quantitively pin down. Whataboutism, however, is easy to discern which makes it an ideal candidate to measure. Simply count the number of whataboutisms someone uses when engaging an opposing view. And then normalize it by some standardizing measure (e.g., total number of arguments) and voila, you have a whataboutism indicator of the percentage of arguments one avoids through a whatabout deflection.
It may be simple to measure, but its meaning is a bit more unclear. Does someone’s frequent use of whataboutisms just measure someone’s laziness, an unwillingness to seriously engage? Or does it measure someone’s underlying character, one’s commitment to truth and avoidance of hypocrisy? (I know that mom would surely vote for that.) Yet for many, it’s clearly the argument of choice. An instinctive response centered around the defense of their tribe. Yes, I believe this meaning is most common for that’s how this fallacy is defined. A divisive measure through a “but you” response which is really a measure of one’s fealty to a tribe.
Metanoeo – Changing Our Mind
We are called to citizens of His kingdom, to be agents of reconciliation as the Apostle Paul enjoined. But as Steve Pecota, my former pastor, recently wrote in his excellent blog, “there can be no reconciliation without forgiveness. And forgiveness requires repentance.”
Repentance in scripture (from the Greek word metanoeo) means to have a change of mind. It’s demonstrated by a complete change of direction; a 180 degree turn from the past. But repentance must start with a reckoning, by acknowledging how we have “missed the mark.” And without that initial acknowledging, it’s like sewing up a wound without first cleaning out the debris.
Peter Wehner, the long-time Republican speechwriter, wrote today that “President Biden inherits a nation sicker, weaker, angrier, more divided and more violent than it has been in living memory.” Our nation needs to heal and the renewed cries for unity have never been more important. But unity without repentance leaves the wound within our nation unclean. For you just can’t post an image of Lincoln with the message of “A house divided against itself cannot stand” while continuing to post whataboutisms based on a divisive populist message. Nor will calls for God‘s healing and God’s help, made from evangelical leaders such as Franklin Graham, sooth a nation made more divisive from their endorsements of partisan conspiracy theories. And to quote Steve again in regard to the baseless assertion of election fraud: “Our calls for unity within our nation will ring as hollow as empty soda cans if they are not accompanied by genuine, sorrowful repentance for the harm we have done. We must repent for helping to propagate a lie.”
Isn’t it time we heed Haggai’s admonition to first “consider our ways” as we “leave behind every weight, those sins that so easily beset us?” Then, as a prelude to unity:
• shouldn’t we acknowledge the sin of demonizing the other as we repent of a populistic world view that labels other tribes to be the enemy;
• shouldn’t we acknowledge the sin of a tribalistic identity as we repent of inhabiting echo chambers so that we can be set free from the syncretism (idolatry) those partisan bubbles impose; and
• shouldn’t we acknowledge our sin of hypocrisy as we repent of an instinctive whataboutism mindset thereby canceling one of the most effective partisan tools that divides our nation in half?
Then perhaps with these 180-degree turns, through a repentance based on honest reckonings, together we make some progress towards the much-needed healing our land.
Simply put, when you point the finger, there are four pointing back at you. Time for personal reflection! My grandson says, “mind your own bobber!”
I usually only have three pointing back as I add the thumb to reinforce the pointing. By the way, I looked up bobber in the Greek and it means business. Smart kid!