The Age of Whataboutism, How American Politics Abandoned Principle for Tribal Warfare

The Age of Whataboutism, How American Politics Abandoned Principle for Tribal Warfare

In the annals of American political discourse, a new and deeply corrosive standard has been set. It is a standard not of integrity, but of absolute, unblinking partisan allegiance—a reality where the only true sin is belonging to the other party, and the only virtue is unwavering tribal loyalty. Two recent, starkly illustrative events have laid bare this disturbing new normal, revealing a political ecosystem that has jettisoned any pretense of self-policing in favor of a relentless, morally bankrupt game of “whataboutism.”

First, former President Donald Trump commuted the seven-year federal prison sentence of George Santos, the disgraced former New York congressman and acknowledged criminal. The justification, delivered via Trump’s Truth Social platform, was not one of mercy, newfound evidence, or rehabilitative progress. Instead, Trump declared that Santos deserved clemency because he “had the Courage, Conviction and Intelligence to Always Vote Republican!” In a single sentence, the foundational principle of blind justice was subordinated to the raw calculus of political tribalism. A criminal was not just forgiven but celebrated for his partisan fealty.

Simultaneously, on the other side of the aisle, Democrats have been confronted with their own test of principle. Their nominee for Virginia attorney general, Jay Jones, was revealed to have sent text messages fantasizing about murdering a Republican lawmaker. Jones didn’t stop there; he expressed hope that harm would come to the lawmaker’s wife and children, coldly rationalizing that “Only when people feel pain personally do they move on policy.” This goes far beyond the pale of harsh political rhetoric; it is a direct invocation of political violence against an opponent and their innocent family. Yet, the Democratic establishment has largely stood by their nominee, refusing to withdraw their support or forcefully condemn his depraved comments.

These parallel scandals are not isolated incidents. They are symptomatic of a terminal disease afflicting the American body politic—a disease where hypocrisy is no longer a liability but a core strategy, and where the parties have become incapable, or wholly unwilling, to police their own ranks.

The Death of Self-Policing: From Principle to Partisan Calculus

As Jim Brulte, a former chair of the California Republican Party, astutely observed, “Irrespective of your political party, your political party does a better job of policing the other side than policing itself.” This statement cuts to the heart of the modern political condition. The primary function of a political party is no longer to steward a set of principles and present candidates who embody them, but to acquire and maintain power by any means necessary. In this ruthless pursuit, holding one’s own side accountable is seen as unilateral disarmament—a foolish concession in a political war where the other side is perceived to operate without any rules at all.

This represents a dramatic departure from a past where, however imperfectly, lines of basic decency and democratic norms were sometimes enforced, even at a political cost. The text provides a powerful historical counterpoint: the 1991 Louisiana gubernatorial race. Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, a notorious white supremacist and antisemite, was the de facto Republican nominee. Despite the high stakes of handing a governor’s mansion to the Democrats just before his own 1992 reelection campaign, President George H.W. Bush did not hesitate. He forcefully repudiated Duke, declaring, “When someone has a long record, an ugly record of racism and of bigotry, that record simply cannot be erased by the glib rhetoric of a political campaign… I believe he should be rejected for what he is and what he stands for.”

Bush’s statement was a clear affirmation that some things are bigger than partisan advantage. It asserted that the health of the republic and the basic tenets of human decency demanded the rejection of a bigot, even if he wore the same party label. This act of self-policing, once a conceivable, if not always consistent, feature of American politics, now feels like a relic from a distant, more principled era.

The Hypocrisy Feedback Loop: A Race to the Bottom

Today, American politics has entered a vicious and self-perpetuating cycle of hypocrisy. Both parties have become masters of “whataboutism”—the practice of responding to an accusation by making a counter-accusation, thereby deflecting criticism without ever addressing the original fault.

Democrats are rightfully quick to condemn Donald Trump and his allies for rhetoric that often veers from provocative to quasi-inciting. They rightly point to the dangers of dehumanizing language and the stoking of political violence, as seen on January 6. However, this moral authority is instantly incinerated when they refuse to take decisive action against one of their own, Jay Jones, whose texts are a literal blueprint for the very political violence they decry. The implicit message is clear: condemning violence is a political weapon to be used against opponents, not a principled stand to be applied to one’s own team.

Republicans, meanwhile, engage in an equally damaging form of selective outrage. They have, in some instances, scoured the internet to find and punish private citizens for social media posts critical of conservative figures, presenting themselves as defenders against harassment. Yet, when Politico uncovered a group chat of young Republicans—some holding prominent posts—filled with virulent antisemitism, homophobia, and racism, the response from the party establishment was a deafening silence or tepid, non-committal statements. The principle of condemning bigotry is abandoned when the bigots are on your side.

This creates a hypocrisy feedback loop. Each side points to the other’s hypocrisy to justify its own, creating a race to the bottom where the only consistent standard is that there are no standards. The political arena becomes a moral vacuum, where voters are not asked to choose between competing visions of good governance, but to decide which tribe’s transgressions they are more willing to tolerate. This erodes public trust not just in individual politicians, but in the very institutions of democracy itself.

The Corrosive Consequences for Democracy

The normalization of this behavior carries profound and dangerous consequences that extend far beyond the day-to-day squabbles of political insiders.

1. The Erosion of Shared Truth and Accountability: When parties refuse to hold their own members accountable, it signals to their supporters that facts, ethics, and the rule of law are secondary to tribal victory. This fosters a political culture where there is no objective reality, only partisan narratives. A crime is not a crime if it is committed by “our guy”; a violent threat is not a threat if it comes from “our side.” This makes constructive debate impossible and governance gridlocked, as compromise is seen as collaboration with an evil, illegitimate enemy.

2. The Empowerment of Extremism: The failure to police one’s own ranks creates a safe harbor for extremists. When a George Santos is celebrated rather than condemned, and a Jay Jones is supported rather than expelled, it sends a clear message to other bad actors: as long as you are a loyal foot soldier, you will be protected. This incentivizes the worst elements in politics, pushing the boundaries of acceptable behavior ever further and crowding out moderate, principled voices within the parties.

3. The Normalization of Political Violence: Perhaps the most dire consequence is the tacit acceptance of violent rhetoric. Jones’s texts are not just “locker-room talk”; they are a direct threat against the life of a political opponent and his family. By standing by him, the Democratic party is normalizing the idea that fantasizing about murdering political opponents is within the bounds of acceptable discourse. This dangerously blurs the line between vigorous political opposition and literal, physical eliminationism, creating a climate where actual violence becomes more likely.

4. Voter Cynicism and Disengagement: When citizens are presented with a choice between two parties that both seem morally bankrupt and incapable of self-correction, the natural response is cynicism and disengagement. Why participate in a system that offers no meaningful ethical choice? This leads to lower voter turnout, a weakened mandate for elected officials, and a democracy that becomes less representative and responsive to the people it is meant to serve.

A Path Forward? Reclaiming the Center by Reclaiming Principle

Breaking this destructive cycle seems a Herculean task, but it is not impossible. It requires a conscious, courageous effort from within the political system and from the electorate.

• For Politicians and Party Leaders: It demands leaders who are willing to risk short-term political pain for the long-term health of the nation. This means publicly condemning and actively working to remove the George Santoses and Jay Joneses of their own parties, even if it costs an election. It requires a return to the George H.W. Bush model of putting country before party in moments of profound moral consequence.

• For the Media: The press must resist the false equivalence that often frames these issues as “both sides” being equally bad in a generic sense. Instead, it must hold each party accountable for its specific failures with clarity and consistency, refusing to let “whataboutism” derail the conversation.

• For the Electorate: Ultimately, the most powerful check on this behavior is the voter. Citizens must reward candidates who demonstrate integrity and punish those who engage in or enable hypocrisy and extremism, regardless of party affiliation. This requires voters to be informed, to look beyond the tribal label, and to demand better from the people who seek to represent them.

The American political system, as the text wryly notes, has always relied on hypocrisy “the way fish rely on water.” But what we are witnessing today is different in kind, not just degree. It is a wholesale abandonment of the foundational idea that a nation must be governed by laws and shared values, not merely by the raw will to power of competing tribes. The age of “whataboutism” is an age of democratic decay. The only way out is a collective, determined return to the simple, yet radical, idea that right and wrong still exist, and that they must apply to everyone, equally—even, and especially, to those on our own side.

Q&A: Deconstructing the ‘Whataboutism’ Crisis in American Politics

Q1: What exactly is ‘whataboutism’ and how does it function in political discourse?

A: ‘Whataboutism’ is a rhetorical tactic used to deflect criticism by immediately pointing out a real or perceived hypocrisy or wrongdoing committed by the other side. It functions as a form of moral and logical equivalence, but its primary goal is not to defend one’s own position but to invalidate the criticism itself. For example, when a Democrat is criticized for a scandal, a defender might respond, “But what about when that Republican did something similar?” This shifts the focus away from addressing the original transgression and into a debate about comparative sin, effectively creating a stalemate where no one is ever held accountable because “everyone does it.” It’s a tool for evading responsibility and preventing any meaningful judgment on ethical conduct.

Q2: The article contrasts the current era with President George H.W. Bush’s condemnation of David Duke. Why was that moment significant, and why is it unlikely to happen today?

A: Bush’s condemnation of David Duke was significant because it was a clear instance of a party leader prioritizing foundational American values—specifically, the rejection of racism and bigotry—over short-term partisan gain. By repudiating Duke, Bush risked alienating a segment of voters and potentially losing a governor’s race for his party. He demonstrated that the integrity of the republic and the moral character of its leaders were more important than a single election. This is unlikely to happen today because the political incentives have radically shifted. The media environment is more fragmented, and party bases are more ideologically pure and powerful. A leader who condemns a member of their own tribe is now more likely to be primaried, attacked by their own base, and labeled a traitor by partisan media, making the political cost of principle prohibitively high.

Q3: How does the failure to police their own ranks ultimately harm the political parties themselves?

A: While it may secure short-term loyalty, the failure to self-police is strategically catastrophic for parties in the long run.

• It Damages Brand Integrity: It erodes the party’s brand as a vehicle for a coherent set of principles, reducing it to a mere vehicle for power. Voters who are motivated by ideas rather than tribalism become disillusioned and may disengage.

• It Empowers the Worst Elements: It creates a culture where the most extreme, unethical, or corrupt individuals are protected and empowered, as long as they are loyal. This crowds out talented, principled candidates who are unwilling to operate in such an environment.

• It Creates Governance Problems: A party filled with individuals who have not been vetted for basic competence or ethics is more likely to be plagued by scandals, incompetence, and infighting, making it difficult to govern effectively even when they win.

Q4: What is the difference between legitimate criticism of an opponent’s policy and engaging in ‘whataboutism’?

A: The key difference lies in relevance and purpose.

• Legitimate Criticism focuses directly on the issue at hand. It addresses the specific policy, statement, or action of an opponent and argues why it is wrong, misguided, or harmful on its own merits.

• ‘Whataboutism’ is a diversionary tactic. It does not engage with the substance of the original criticism. Instead, it changes the subject to a different, often unrelated, fault of the critic or their allies. Its purpose is not to defend or explain, but to nullify the criticism by implying that the critic has no moral standing to make it. For instance, criticizing a healthcare plan is legitimate; responding to that criticism by saying, “But what about your party’s foreign policy mistake?” is whataboutism.

Q5: What can ordinary citizens do to counter this trend and demand more accountability from their leaders?

A: Citizens are not powerless in the face of this trend. They can:

• Vote in Primaries: Primaries are where party orthodoxy is shaped. Supporting candidates who demonstrate integrity and a willingness to condemn wrongdoing within their own party, even in primary elections, can shift the incentive structure.

• Reward Principle, Punish Hypocrisy: Make it clear to elected officials, through letters, calls, and votes, that accountability matters. Support politicians who take tough stands against their own side and withdraw support from those who engage in blatant hypocrisy.

• Be Media-Literate: Recognize and call out ‘whataboutism’ when you see it in political debates, social media, and news commentary. Refuse to let conversations be derailed by false equivalences.

• Engage in Cross-Partisan Dialogue: Have conversations with people from different political backgrounds that focus on shared values—like the importance of integrity and condemnation of violence—rather than just partisan point-scoring. This builds a constituency for principle that transcends tribal lines.