'Whataboutism' threatens to undermine the very fabric of our Republic, and that isn't hyperbole. In order to explain why, it's important to be on the same page as to the definition of the term. In the context of this post, 'whataboutism' refers to the practice of deflecting from one's own double-standards, in the context of politics, to point out the hypocrisy of another. To give a (rather inconsequential) example, someone who criticized President Obama for excessive golfing, but then defends President Trump's even more excessive golfing by pointing out that the person critiquing Trump did not speak out against Obama when he did it is considered 'whataboutism.' Those who did not criticize Obama for doing so, or those who also critique Trump on this issue, but want to point out the opponent's hypocrisy to either attempt to get them to call out their opponent for making a problem out of something that neither actually considers an issue, or that it should be kept in mind regardless of who's in power, respectfully, is not considered 'whataboutism.'
Whereas those styles of debating serve an important purpose; attempting to get the other person to realize their double standards so that both parties can be on the same page with regards to how to address, or not address, the particular issue at hand whenever it occurs, 'whataboutism' simply excuses away one's refusal to abide by their own principles and values because the other side or participant in the discussion is perceived to have done the same. All of the aforementioned examples assume that there was, in fact, a reluctance on behalf of the other party in the debate to criticize their own perceived side when they had committed similar offenses. However, only 'whataboutism' does so in bad faith, with potentially dangerous consequences. If one's own side does not have to address its issues because the other side is guilty of not addressing their similar issues, these problems will never be addressed at all. After all, there are no statue of limitations in the application of 'whataboutism;' if one points out that Democrats are hypocritical for being frustrated with Trump's apparent obstruction of justice when they didn't speak out about Obama's usage of executive privilege to try to cover up the Fast and Furious scandal, they can simply retort that George Bush had a similar program (that actually attempted to trace the guns and was eventually shut down). Or they can mention how Republicans did not seek to hold Reagan accountable for Iran Contra (whom they give the benefit of the doubt), or go back further to the unwillingness of many Republican politicians and voters to impeach Nixon over Watergate. The entire crux of the issue becomes lost as the discourse shifts to an endless cycle of "they did it first," the kind of retorts one would expect from a child.
With politics devolving into endless accusations of hypocrisy, no political pressure over any scandal or perceived wrongdoing is bipartisan; in fact, it becomes an issue where one side will relentlessly defend the actions of the accused, while the other remains on the offensive. Thus, it becomes in the best interests of Congressmen to protect their own party, no matter what wrongdoing occurs, in order to neither face the retaliation of voters or their own party leadership. This may not hold up for senators in battleground states to the same degree as a representative from a heavily Gerrymandered district, but the threat is persists nonetheless, especially when the wrongdoing is committed by a party with a substantial majority in Congress. Given that 'whataboutism' is frequently used to refer to prior scandals of lesser degree, both the seriousness and the frequency of these scandals will increase as they remain untouchable. Thus, in the long run, a tipping point may be reached where nothing is capable of being criticized without being devolving into partisan mudslinging, in which case even tyranny can be excused. That poses a dire threat to the Republic itself and is why 'whataboutism' must be stopped.
Whereas those styles of debating serve an important purpose; attempting to get the other person to realize their double standards so that both parties can be on the same page with regards to how to address, or not address, the particular issue at hand whenever it occurs, 'whataboutism' simply excuses away one's refusal to abide by their own principles and values because the other side or participant in the discussion is perceived to have done the same. All of the aforementioned examples assume that there was, in fact, a reluctance on behalf of the other party in the debate to criticize their own perceived side when they had committed similar offenses. However, only 'whataboutism' does so in bad faith, with potentially dangerous consequences. If one's own side does not have to address its issues because the other side is guilty of not addressing their similar issues, these problems will never be addressed at all. After all, there are no statue of limitations in the application of 'whataboutism;' if one points out that Democrats are hypocritical for being frustrated with Trump's apparent obstruction of justice when they didn't speak out about Obama's usage of executive privilege to try to cover up the Fast and Furious scandal, they can simply retort that George Bush had a similar program (that actually attempted to trace the guns and was eventually shut down). Or they can mention how Republicans did not seek to hold Reagan accountable for Iran Contra (whom they give the benefit of the doubt), or go back further to the unwillingness of many Republican politicians and voters to impeach Nixon over Watergate. The entire crux of the issue becomes lost as the discourse shifts to an endless cycle of "they did it first," the kind of retorts one would expect from a child.
With politics devolving into endless accusations of hypocrisy, no political pressure over any scandal or perceived wrongdoing is bipartisan; in fact, it becomes an issue where one side will relentlessly defend the actions of the accused, while the other remains on the offensive. Thus, it becomes in the best interests of Congressmen to protect their own party, no matter what wrongdoing occurs, in order to neither face the retaliation of voters or their own party leadership. This may not hold up for senators in battleground states to the same degree as a representative from a heavily Gerrymandered district, but the threat is persists nonetheless, especially when the wrongdoing is committed by a party with a substantial majority in Congress. Given that 'whataboutism' is frequently used to refer to prior scandals of lesser degree, both the seriousness and the frequency of these scandals will increase as they remain untouchable. Thus, in the long run, a tipping point may be reached where nothing is capable of being criticized without being devolving into partisan mudslinging, in which case even tyranny can be excused. That poses a dire threat to the Republic itself and is why 'whataboutism' must be stopped.
