Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
Following the raid on former president Trump's home, Hillary Clinton was seen sporting a baseball cap with the logo "But her emails."... This so-called argument has come to be called "whataboutism." Its implicit thesis is that every case should be judged on its merits and comparisons to other cases are beside the point. But apt comparisons are the point in a democratic society with a Constitution guaranteeing the equal protection of the laws. [emphasis mine]
This is from the book, Get Trump : , by Alan Dershowitz (2023)
Dershowitz often points out that not only must equal justice be done for both Democrats and Republicans, but it must be seen to be done. It is quite proper and even necessary for that to include some whataboutism.
I have seen no sign that Dershowitz thinks this means that equal injustice must also be done.
Dershowitz is a liberal Democrat who has never voted for Trump and probably never will, especially given the way the former president has been acting lately. But he has defended Trump and his associates and supporters in legal matters, and has been cancelled for it, e.g. by no longer being welcome to speak at his local library. There is no sign that he will stop doing so.
The book is in part a compilation of things that Dershowitz had already written elsewhere. It's something many people would read in a day, with time left over for other reading. My bookmark is currently on a section with the heading, "Garland Memo on Parent Protests May Chill Free Speech." Coming up are "How Social Media Validates Anti-Semitism by Censoring Everything but Anti-Semitism" and "The new McCarthyism Comes to Harvard Law School." (And yes, the fact that there were actual commies in government when McCarthy was at work is beside the point.)
The most disappointing thing about the book is that used copies even exist on the market. There is no good reason for anyone who bought it not to have kept it handy for frequent reference (though it does lack an index and a comprehensive, multi-level table of contents.) I bought my copy from an internet used book seller, and will be keeping it handy for the rest of the year, at least.
Discussion (8)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Thank you for the report.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Dershowitz is a dinosaur: A principled liberal who believes that the law and facts and an innate sense of fairness are more important than the partisan passion of the moment.
Trump, climate, race, COVID "emergency" mandates or whatever are the only contexts that matter to a majority of two generations, people no longer capable of being embarrassed by being conspicuously stupid and rude and oblivious to the fundamentals of western civ.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
It wasn't until I read your comment that I remembered that I used to take pride in the fact that back in earlier days of the internet, when Vbulletin was a common social media platform, that somebody attacked me and Dershowitz in the same sentence. The person wrote "The problem with Gorentz and Dershowitz..." or something like that. Maybe it was harsher language than that, but I was proud to be included in such company. An internet search doesn't bring it up now.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
“Dershowitz often points out that not only must equal justice be done for both Democrats and Republicans, but it must be seen to be done.”
—OP
True.
”It is quite proper and even necessary for that to include some whataboutism.”
—OP
True or false, depending on your definition of “whataboutism”.
By this of very commonly used definition (the only one I am familiar with), it is false…
“Rhetoricians generally consider it to be a form of tu quoque, which means "you too" in Latin and involves charging your accuser with whatever it is you've just been accused of rather than refuting the truth of the accusation made against you. Tu quoque is considered to be a logical fallacy, because whether or not the original accuser is likewise guilty of an offense has no bearing on the truth value of the original accusation.”
—
merriam-webster.com
Open link
According to this definition, to use whataboutism deliberately is necessarily a deceptive rhetorical device. Therefore, it could never be at all proper, let alone “quite” proper, nor “necessary.”
Your assertion is one of those cases where it is necessary for you to explicitly state your definition. Perhaps you are using a different one than the one above, but if you don’t tell the reader, how could he know which one you mean?
You're seeing five of eight comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.