Whataboutism: The Political “Uno Reverse” Card

In a recent article, we dissected the straw man fallacy, where someone misrepresents an opponent’s position to make it easier to attack. Today, let’s explore one of its rhetorical cousins: whataboutism. It’s a tactic that doesn’t refute an argument, but distracts from it.

Whataboutism is closely related to the classic red herring fallacy. It’s a rhetorical sleight of hand; a way to derail a conversation by shifting the focus to someone else’s perceived failings. The goal? To abandon the original issue and lead the discussion down a different road entirely. It’s usually a road that the other person is comfortable taking.

Here’s how it plays out:

Dave: President Trump seems to ramble incoherently. I’m worried he’s not in control of his faculties.

Bob: Well, what about Joe Biden? People have been questioning his mental fitness for years.

See what happened? Bob avoids the concern about Trump by redirecting attention to Biden. To be sure, Biden’s mental state might be worth discussing, but that’s not the topic on the table. The move doesn’t engage with Dave’s argument; it sidesteps it.

This tactic is common in today’s political discourse. And unless you’re prepared, you might find yourself dragged into defending a position you never raised. If Dave takes the bait, for example, the conversation shifts entirely, and Bob wins by default, without ever addressing the original point.

So, how should you respond when faced with a whataboutism? The key is recognizing the diversion and refusing to follow it. Whataboutism is usually easy to spot. When someone says, “Yeah, but what about…”, you can bet a rhetorical trap is being set.

A calm, simple reply can shut it down:

Dave: We’re not talking about Biden, are we? We’re talking about Trump.

And if Bob persists:

Dave: Look, if you don’t want to discuss Trump’s state of mind, just say so. But changing the subject doesn’t make your point any stronger; it just shows you’re avoiding the issue.

Whataboutism isn’t new; it’s as old as dirt, but it gained popularity during the Cold War. When Western leaders criticized the Soviet Union for human rights abuses, Soviet officials routinely responded with deflections like, “Yeah? Well, what about your treatment of Native Americans?” It wasn’t about rebutting the original claim; it was about shifting the topic to something that allowed the Soviets to claim a sense of moral equivalence. The tactic was so routine that it became a defining feature of Soviet propaganda.

So, how do you stay alert and spot the whataboutism argument? Again, listen for that telltale phrase: “Yeah, but what about…” That’s your red flag. Don’t let your opponent change the subject. Stick to the argument you made. If they dodge it, it likely means they can’t defend their position.

In any debate, staying on topic is half the battle. Don’t let a rhetorical escape artist hijack your argument. With a little practice, you’ll not only spot whataboutism from a mile away, you’ll be ready to stop it in its tracks.