by John Green
The Democrats are implying that a whataboutism argument is invalid. But there's something deeper here.
The Democrats like to mock our whataboutism. Every time Donald Trump is attacked, we pull out an ever-growing list of examples illustrating how he's being treated differently from his political opponents. He is charged with illegally having classified documents in his possession. Joe Biden also had classified documents in his possession — illegally — but faces no charges. Hillary Clinton illegally had classified documents in her possession, too. They were stored on a secret email server, in her bathroom, which was almost certainly compromised by foreign actors. James Comey assured us that no reasonable prosecutor would charge Hillary. Apparently, the DOJ found an unreasonable prosecutor on staff to charge Donald Trump.
When we make such comparisons, the Democrats laugh and accuse us of deflecting with whataboutism. They'll make the claim that "no one is above the law" — which is demonstrably false (see Hunter Biden, Eric Holder, Andrew McCabe...). The Democrats, and their propaganda ministry, assert that comparisons do not excuse lawlessness — as if that ends the discussion. It does not, because it misses the point.
Whataboutism is "an argumentative tactic where a person or group responds to an accusation or difficult question by deflection. Instead of addressing the point made, they counter it with 'but what about X?'" The Democrats are implying that a whataboutism argument is invalid.
It is the motorist arguing with a police officer that everyone else was speeding, too. But we're not using it to defend speeding. We're using it to question why one motorist out of many was singled out. In fact, we want to know why the same police officer pulls over the same motorist every day — when hundreds are doing the same thing.
The Dems are deflecting from the real debate we need to have. We aren't using whataboutism as a defense of Trump. His lawyers will use evidence and legal arguments for that. In fact, we are not debating Trump's case at all. We are using Donald Trump's case as evidence of a broken criminal justice system. Whataboutism is an indictment of the system that is targeting Donald Trump. The "whataboutism" argument is about systemic corruption.
Merrick Garland is not the head of the department of law enforcement, the department of criminal prosecution, or the department of political dirty tricks. He is the head of the Department of Justice. He did not swear an oath to enforce the law. His oath is to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same[.]"
However, prosecuting only his preferred offenders is not bearing "true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution. He is sworn to defend justice, not use all legal means to target opponents.
According to the Cornell Law School:
Justice is the ethical, philosophical idea that people are to be treated impartially, fairly, properly, and reasonably by the law and by arbiters of the law[.]
The 5th and 14th amendments to the Constitution provide more direction on the meaning of "impartially, fairly, properly, and reasonably." Their due process requirements are universally interpreted to require equal protection by federal and state governments. Law enforcement applied unequally does not advance justice — regardless of the facts associated with any specific case.
When conservatives make "whataboutism" arguments, we're arguing that the system attacking Trump is not providing equal protection. It is not serving justice. When a justice system fails the "whataboutism" test, it is broken.
Equal protection matters. Without the equal application of the law:
- One mob can be excused for burning buildings to the ground, while another mob faces imprisonment for trespassing.
- One person can be excused for a lethal act of self-defense while another is prosecuted.
- One race can receive preferential treatment while another is penalized.
Without equal protection, law enforcement becomes capricious. When that happens, punishment can be administered based on race, social status, political ideology, religious affiliation, or anything else. Conversely, equal protection is how minorities (ethnic, political, ideological, and otherwise) are protected from the mob.
I used to manage a quality control department at a major defense contractor. My staff included technicians who checked our products to ensure that they met specifications. To do that, they not only had to check our products, but had to validate the instruments used to check the products. The instruments had to be both accurate and repeatable. Our tools had to detect deviations reliably — not just occasionally. An instrument that only sometimes detects a problem is not useable for quality control.
Similarly, a justice department that detects the crimes of only political adversaries is unreliable and not useable for the purposes of justice. It is broken. A broken system cannot provide a just result.
How does our DOJ stand up to the "whataboutism" test? what about
- Hunter Biden being given a diversion program for an illegal gun purchase, while rapper Kodak Black was sentenced to over three years for the same offense?
- trespassing on Capitol grounds receiving a three-year, multimillion-dollar investigation, while cocaine in the White House received a cursory eleven-day investigation?
- Mark Houck prosecuted for shoving a pro-abortion activist who was harassing his son, while over 100 vandalized pregnancy centers go unaddressed?
- Derek Chauvin convicted of violating George Floyd's rights, while the FBI violated our 1st Amendment rights without consequence?
The left continues to scream: No one is above the law — not even Donald Trump. But how can we know if Trump is guilty of anything? Because leftists say so? Is it possible that officials at the DOJ
- fabricated evidence, as FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith did?
- withheld exculpatory evidence, as the lawyers prosecuting Michael Flynn did?
- used witness intimidation, as Andrew Weissmann is alleged to have done?
- lied under oath, as Merrick Garland is accused of?
I don't know if Donald Trump is technically in violation of the law for having documents he was authorized to declassify, in a locked room, under Secret Service protection. I do know that the facts and allegations provided by a broken system are unreliable and unusable. It should take more than the claims of a broken instrument of justice to convince us that another American citizen is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and should forfeit his freedom. That is a much bigger problem for our republic than anything Donald Trump is alleged to have done.
The Dems accuse us of deflection for using whataboutism. However, they are using deflection to distract us from the real problem: weaponization of our criminal justice system. As examples of "whataboutism" continue to amass, public confidence in criminal justice will continue to erode — with disastrous consequences. Unless a system of true justice is restored, only tyranny or anarchy will result. Either the government will crush dissent with force, or the public will cease accepting governmental leadership.
John Green is a political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Idaho. He has written for American Thinker, and American Free News Network. He can be reached at greenjeg@gmail.com.
Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.
John Green
Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/07/are_conservative_defenses_of_trump_just_whataboutism.html
