Hugo Drax to James Bond in “Moonraker”: “You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season.” So do complaints about “whataboutism.”
Drax was frustrated upon yet again encountering Bond after a series of futile attempts to dispatch the British secret agent. Drax could have been speaking of the increasingly tiresome attempts to use “whataboutism” to cut off political debate.
Here’s how “whataboutism” works: A critic of presidential lying says Trump has told lies about Obamacare’s failures. A second person explores the Trump critic’s principles by asking, “What about Barack Obama’s repeated falsehood, ‘You can keep your insurance and your doctor?’ If that didn’t upset you, how can you demand I be upset about Trump?”
The critic says, “That’s ‘whataboutism.’ We’re talking about Trump, not Obama, because he’s not president.” That means the critic had nothing, and has nothing, to say about Obama’s multiple promises he knew weren’t true. Nevertheless, “whataboutism” is invoked to evade that side of discussion and to indict the other participant.
The Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination and its allegations of sexual assault 35 years ago have propelled “whataboutism” into stratospheric use. As social media has become an ever-larger part of life, arguments in that forum are rampant.
What follows is a social media post of mine responding to the “whataboutism” silencing technique and why it’s a bad, and even dangerous, idea to surrender the field to people who plant their flag in that unloved season.
“I’ve done a foolish thing on Facebook far too late into the evening, foolish because it has gone on so long. I’ve been challenging people to explain why they are certain – on the basis of an allegation of a teen-age act – that Brett Kavanaugh is guilty of having committed sexual assault. However, these same people will provide no opinion on:
“* The domestic violence charge by his former live-in girlfriend against Rep. Keith Ellison, deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee
“* Sen. Cory Booker’s column, written years ago, that he as a teen-ager wouldn’t take no for an answer as he groped, and finally reached his “mark.” on a drunken 15-year-old girl, which leaves questions how many other of his victims are out there.
“I’ve also included questions about Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who left a young woman to drown in his submerged car, waiting nine hours to report the accident (after meeting with his advisers) but who served until 2009 idealized as the “Lion of the Senate`; and, of course, how can you talk about politicians and sexual assault without referencing former President Bill Clinton?
“The social media warriors say the subject can’t be broached in terms they don’t like, citing ‘whataboutism.’
“Their general response is either to call me names or claim that the issue is Kavanaugh, not Ellison or Booker, which means they don’t have (or want) to talk about Ellison, Booker, or anyone else.
“I contend the issue is principle: if they are adamant about Kavanaugh it would seem they would be equally or more adamant about Ellison and Booker. One’s more recent with a greater ability to prove, the other is admitted. Instead, these folks want to be careful to not criticize Ellison and Booker; they’re in many cases reluctant to even write their names.
“Here’s something to which I will never bend the knee: it’s the contention that in the court of public opinion an issue like this can only be discussed within the narrow confines demanded by Kavanaugh opponents to avoid revealing their principles, or lack of them.
Yeah, some incidents are too old to bother with while some have no expiration date. Some incidents are “just about sex” while others indicate a visceral hatred of women.
We might also include Bernie’s views that women secretly want and like to be raped. That is yet another topic better left untouched, as far as liberals are concerned.
But, oh golly gee, they sure do care about how women are treated by men.
Careful what you wish for, Mr Korda.
Seems just the other day I was reading that the Dem consensus is to throw Keith Ellison under the bus if it means getting rid of the judge.
NOT if it doesn’t, however.
Would Dems go further and also throw Correy Booker under that same bus?
They threw SENATOR Al Franken under the bus so they could get Judge Moore.
So, I think even Dem senators are not a protected class.
Frankly, I don’t think I’d trade seeing the Dems lose both Booker and Ellison for us losing Judge Kavanaugh.
But Dems are positioning themselves into just such a cheap bargain.
Two Dem dummies who have already proved the Peter Principle is true for one brilliant jurist.
That’s not a good trade, for us.
@Nan G: Democrats were not too upset to throw Franken under the bus; he was a white guy. Booker and Ellison, however, can hide behind their race and say whatever they want, then claim anyone who criticizes their positions as “racists”.
Ellison and Booker won’t fall until it looks like they won’t win reelection and are no longer useful. Then, the Democrats will thump their chests and brag about their commitment to looking out for women’s rights and protection.
@Deplorable me: I’m not as sure as you.
Being a POC seems to be lower on the scale of Lefty victimhood than being of indeterminate sex.
Here’s the article asking:
ARE THE DEMOCRATS THROWING ELLISON UNDER THE BUS?
Pointing in this direction is that small newspaper, Alpha News, is demanding his divorce records be unsealed.
And now BIG newspaper, the Star Tribune is demanding it, too.
Also Dem Senator Mazie Hirono is calling for an investigation of the charges against Ellison!
@Nan G: Ellison gets the benefit of innocence until proven really, really guilty. Republicans don’t get that benefit.
But, they will fight tooth and nail to protect Ellison. He’ll go, but it will be with the greatest reluctance.