For the past three years, it seems like any political discussion we have most often comes down to two words: “what about.”
If you lean liberal, you are bombarded with, “What about Bernie being a socialist? What about Hillary’s emails? What about her weird pantsuit obsession?”
On the opposite end, if you lean conservative, people might attack you with, “What about Trump’s lack of political experience? What about Trump’s obvious toupee?”
The continued use of those two words together — “what” and “about” — in political conversation denotes a trend that is detrimental for our society to be able to get along. If it is allowed to continue, talking about politics with civility may become a thing of the past.
The term “whataboutism” was first used by the Soviets during the Cold War as a propaganda tool. When someone is criticized for something, they immediately shift the blame to someone else’s perceived wrongdoing.
It forces the conversation away from the original criticism and shifts it to an opponent’s mistakes. In some ways, this diverts the conversation while making the argument doubly effective.
Whataboutism also serves a more nefarious purpose. Whenever it is used, it makes the argument there is no moral hierarchy in the world of politics. It implies all actions, no matter how heinous, have equal moral grounding because all that matters is winning.
That’s the real danger of utilizing whataboutisms. It brings everyone down into the mud and blood where fighting dirty isn’t just expected, it’s applauded.
Hunter Diehl | Argonaut
Whether we realize it or not, there are rules for how political interactions are supposed to happen if we want true educational discussion. It would be great if others were polite, courteous and, above all, tolerant of other views.
They may not like those other views, but in order for society to get along, those views must be tolerated.
Another way to look at it is like this. Think of “Suicide Squad.” It was a dumb movie with dumb characters. One of those characters was Amanda Waller. She is the film’s stand-in for modern Hollywood’s greatest villain: the federal government.
She is proof the movie failed, because she wasn’t really a character. She was a prop used to make the band of hitmen, psychopaths and future Halloween costumes look good. She was put in that movie so whenever the Suicide Squad did something wrong, immoral, or just plain dumb, the screenwriters could look at the audience and say, “What about Amanda Waller?”
She shot those agents in cold blood. She tricked the Suicide Squad and the military into saving her. The bad guys don’t look so bad now, do they?
That is what a lot of political conversations look like now. It is disheartening to say the least.
The issue of today is that people, including elected officials, have no interest in upholding these rules. If the president of the United States is allowed to sling mud and hide behind cheap arguments to justify methods as childish as shifting the blame, then why can’t senators, governors, ambassadors and judges do the same?
This way of thinking will only lead more members of society down the rabbit hole of weak arguments. Before this happens, how about we break the cycle and have fun, stimulating arguments again? How about we share ideas without getting blasted by the two words that are ruining societal interaction one election at a time?
Hunter Diehl can be reached at [email protected]