October 6, 2009
The Moral Philosophy of Infants
A small consolation for having to live with the knowledge that David Snooty and Pals will soon be in Downing Street comes from watching the Tories tie themselves in knots over the EU, and in particular the rather unpleasant friends they have made there. It’s always nice to point and laugh…except then we need to have a little cry about how it probably won’t make a blind bit of difference next spring.
But in the meantime, let’s observe a common Tory-apologist strategy for trying to gloss-over the Conservative Party’s anti-semitic, homophobic, Waffen SS-loving friends. It’s a rather weak strategy, and it’s popularly known as “whataboutery”. Which is exactly what it says on the tin: trying to divert attention from the issue at hand by shouting “but what about THAT!”
For example, Soho Politico has another excellent little piece up at Liberal Conspiracy about Cameron’s funny new friends in the EU Parliament. Here are some comments apologising for the Tories’ European alliance:
“I’m just glad the Laboour government never allied itself with reactionary, homophobic arseholes.”*
“[Y]ou’re quite happy when labour politicans support movements with links to the Waffen SS, and unhappy when Tory politicians are allied to other politicians who support movements with links to the Waffen SS.”
(*Which is “Shatterface” being sarcastic, because he likes to make the point that Tony Blair made friends – though note, not formal political alliances in an international Parliament – with the US Republicans, and some of its more nuttier elements).
Now there are several ways to reply to this whataboutery tactic. You could go the cerebral route, as Soho Politico does, attempting to spell-out the (numerous) asymmetries between the Tories and other parties, in order to explode the whataboutery which partly rests upon claiming there’s no difference between what the Tories are doing and what other UK parties do:
“The Lithuanian Liberal Movement are indeed one of four parties in the coalition government. As far as I am aware, not a single one of their 11 MPs in the Seimas voted for the law. But even if they had all voted for it, they are not MEPs, nor therefore sitting side by side in the EP with the Lib Dems.
The facts are these: the Lib Dems sit with a Lithuanian MEP who opposes the law, and sponsored a resolution to condemn it. The Tories sit with a Lithaunian MEP who supports the law, personally voted for it in his national parliament, and then voted repeatedly against a resolution in the EP to condemn it.”
Or you could do what Sunny Hundal does, and point out the sheer hypocrisy of the Tory right on this issue:
“It’s easy to sneer at sally for being slightly hyperbolic Tim J et al, but she’s not the one making excuses for homophobes and the Tories with brilliant arguments such as:
- look you were just as bad! or
- who cares about Europe anyway… *yawn*
- hey this is politics for you! get used to it
when Damian McBride was caught smearing all the same people were pompously proclaiming that the left was so nasty and that there should be no whataboutery on these issues etc etc. And now that’s all I see here. None of you Tory apologists can actually bring yourself to say: this is not a good move and I condemn the Tories for making this alliance”
Both these strategies are perfectly commendable. Personally, however, I prefer a third.
To cry “whatabout!” on this issue has the following logical structure:
1. Yes, the Tories are doing something bad by sitting with racist and homophobic far-right nutters
2. But Labour or [insert party] – or members of Labour or [insert party] – have associated with nasty people too
3. Therefore it doesn’t matter what the Tories do!
The logic of this “argument” (if it merits the name) amounts to a very simple proposition: that two wrongs make a right. Now I’m not sure about Tory apologists, but I was always taught that, in fact, that’s not the case. And in my experience, it’s mainly 5 and 6 year olds that tend to disagree. So there you have it. Conservative apologists: employing the sophisticated moral reasoning of…infants.
Further Reading:
For those who want to equip themselves with arguments as to why there is something deeply suspicious about Latvian MEPs who want to glorify the Latvian Waffen SS – and why this goes way beyond celebrating the war dead – Blood and Treasure is the place to go.
Dan said,
October 6, 2009 at 11:38 am
I think the logical structure of the argument is more like:
1. Yes, the Tories are doing something bad (or, at least, not wholly admirable) by sitting with racist and homophobic far-right nutters
2. But Labour – or members of Labour – have associated with nasty people too
3. Therefore those who support, or at least, do not criticize Labour for associating with nasty people, have no justification for criticizing the Tories for doing so
and I think it actually has something to it. It is ad hominem, in the good sense of the term: it shows that those criticizing the Tories are making a claim which is not in itself contradictory, but which is incompatible with other positions they hold.
The Sunny Hundal bit you quote reminds me of this (excellent) post: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/12/the-hypocrisy-c.html – I think it applies entirely to his position.
Paul said,
October 6, 2009 at 11:52 am
The point is though, Dan, that we’re talking about the Tories, and what they are up to, not what other people have or have not done.
That’s a separate issue, and we can certainly talk about it too. But at the moment, we are talking about the Tories.
The “whataboutery” that is currently going on is an attempt to get people to stop talking about the Tories, by implying that two wrongs make a right. Which they don’t.
David said,
October 6, 2009 at 12:47 pm
It doesn’t always imply that — sometimes it’s just an attempt to get people to see that things are less simplistic than “we should only ever sit with the good guys”. Politics is often about coalitions of convenience — and no party is guiltless of this.
Richard T said,
October 6, 2009 at 2:31 pm
But isn’t the point of the criticism of the Tories that they have combed the EU and the European Parliament to find these associates? They didn’t align themselves by chance, they were recruited (or conscripted) by William Hague and his pals.
Ste For Sure said,
October 6, 2009 at 4:59 pm
im inclined to agree with dan a little bit here.
If a Labour supporter goes round slagging off the tories for something that Labour do, then there is a sense of foul play here. Tory supporters aren’t necessarily saying that two wrongs make a right, but are annoyed about hypocrisy from Labour supporters, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to be annoyed about.
This reminds me of Chomsky in discussions of foreign policy. When someone points out the crimes of US enemies as an argument against Chomsky, he will often reply “yeah but the USA did the same thing (or something very similar) which had just as bad (or worse) consequences”. This line of reasoning doesnt claim that two wrongs make a right but exposes hypocrisy. Chomsky rightly sees it that apologists for US miltary violence are being hypocritical when they condemn others for the same crimes, and rightly points out that they should take efforts to get their own house in order first.
I think the Tories should be criticised for who they are fraternising with in Europe. I also think that if (and I don’t know if its true) the Lib Dems and Labour have similar sorts of friends that they should be criticised on the same grounds. So it is hypocritical for Lib Dem/Labour supporters to go round trying to wreck their opponents reputation and electoral chances by criticising them for something the party they support also does.
Of course I hate the Tories bla blah blah. But i dont think dismissing this line of argument as petty “two wrongs make a right” stuff is constructive.
Grace said,
October 6, 2009 at 5:22 pm
I also think you’re too harsh about their argument. Political parties are (generally) judged by how good they are compared to a restricted no. of other parties, not on some absolute scale. So if people attack the Tories for associating with dodgy people, they’re (more often than not) implying “you don’t want to vote for the tories, vote for labour (or some other party)”. It’s this line of reasoning which the people you criticise are attacking (I think), and this seems reasonable, if voting for labour wouldn’t be any better.
Paul said,
October 6, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Ste,
We’re not, right now, trying to establish whether or not there is hypocrisy in politics. We are talking about the very unseemly behaviour of the Conservative Party.
Also, even if we are going to talk about hypocrisy, then can you please point me towards an example of when the Labour Party has created an international alliance as a breakaway from the main grouping, and then actively sought out, or accepted the applications of, some of the most nuttiest and far-right of candidates? And i’m not talking about individual Labour politicians having dodgy friends or views – i’m talking about the party leadership actively going out of its way to make formal alliances with bigots, racists, anti-semites and homophobes.
Notice, however, that even if you could do this (I doubt you can), my original point would still stand. Even if the Tories do, at some level, have a point about hypocrisy, it doesn’t change the fact that they are associating with far-right nut jobs in Europe. That is still the issue at hand. Pointing out that there is hypocrisy in politics is a different point relating to a different argument. If the “hypocrisy” line is going to be taken with regards to what the Tories are doing in Europe then the only bearing it can have on that issue is to be used as a way of saying “yeah but your side does bad stuff too. Two wrongs make a right”.
Grace,
No. We can criticise political parties in isolation from what the rest do. I can say “the Conservatives are affiliating with rightwing whack-jobs in Europe, don’t vote for them”, and nothing follows about who else to vote for, if at all.
But even granting your argument – as many will wish to as a matter of how politics plays out in the real world – notice that it doesn’t get you away from the “two wrongs make a right” position. The line now appears as: “they say don’t vote for the Tories, cos we associate with rightwing whack jobs, and they want you to vote for X instead. But X did really bad stuff too!! So what the Tories do doesn’t matter, OK!?”
We’re talking about what the Tories are doing. And why it’s wrong. Shouting “other parties do bad stuff too!” is besides the point.
And furthermore, it becomes especially besides the point when we recall that there isn’t really any parallel with what the Cons are doing in the EU and what other parties are done. Again, give me an example of Labour (or any other British Party) actively seeking out neo-Nazi sympathisers and avowed homophobes and asking them to join a new alliance.
Grace said,
October 6, 2009 at 7:11 pm
I think the last sentence in your recontruction of their argument should be:
“So what the Tories do doesn’t matter, in the sense that their actions in this regard shouldn’t be a significant factor in deciding who to vote for”
i think that this is a good argument, if labour/lib dems have done comparable things, which i doubt (i have to say i don’t know enough to make a judgement).
your statement “there isn’t really any parallel with what the Cons are doing in the EU and what other parties are done” doesn’t affect my argument at all, since i’m saying the argument of the tory-defenders is valid – i haven’t said anything about whether its premises are true or not.
“We can criticise political parties in isolation from what the rest do” – of course we could in principle, but if our criticism persuades people that they don’t want to vote for the tories then they will vote for another party (presumably, they could of course not vote at all). it is in one sense irrelevant if this is the purpose of a specific incident of criticism, because the readers/listeners will most likely get the message “don’t vote tory… (therefore, given that you will vote, go for labour/lib dem)” anyway.
Ste For Sure said,
October 6, 2009 at 7:35 pm
“Also, even if we are going to talk about hypocrisy, then can you please point me towards an example of when the Labour Party has created an international alliance as a breakaway from the main grouping, and then actively sought out, or accepted the applications of, some of the most nuttiest and far-right of candidates? And i’m not talking about individual Labour politicians having dodgy friends or views – i’m talking about the party leadership actively going out of its way to make formal alliances with bigots, racists, anti-semites and homophobes.”
well if they havent they havent. to point that out would be the perfectly reasonable reaction to the accusation.
Think of it this way; lets say you were a staunch Labour supporter (for arguments sake). Tory-boy comes up to you and starts having a go at the Labour party for some ill-behaviour that you believe the Tory party also engage in. Wouldn’t your, quite justified, reaction be “well yes, but the party you support does that too? Doesnt that matter to you even more?”
As far as I can see responding in this way isnt childish, but is entirely reasonable. Now, if you’re response to Tory-boy was based on false information, and so tory boy then pointed out that you were wrong about his party – then your point wouldnt stand.
to me that seems like the best way to conduct this discussion, not to try and characterise (even light-heartedly) Tory’s as childish because they try and expose hypocrisy.
Having said all that…if Tory supporters are attempting to expose hypocrisy, but then continue to defend their parties’ actions, rather than admit they are wrong, then that is a different matter.
Peter said,
October 6, 2009 at 11:34 pm
I too dislike whataboutery.
Tories should either (this applies to Labour and other parties when the boot is on the other foot, obviously) accept that their party has done wrong, or defend it (and claim that in fact, it has not done wrong).
Paul said,
October 7, 2009 at 9:49 pm
“Having said all that…if Tory supporters are attempting to expose hypocrisy, but then continue to defend their parties’ actions, rather than admit they are wrong, then that is a different matter.”
Well that’s exactly what they are trying to do!!!!
Anyway, regarding your point about Labour and Tory-boy, why stay in the land of hypotheticals? We have a concrete example: the Derek Draper and Damien McBride smear emails.
Now, when the Tories had a field day on this, I felt inclined to point out the following few facts: that all the “i’m so outraged!!” stuff was all bullshit coming from the Tories, who use Guido Fawkes as a proxy attack dog, and know full well that politics is full of dirty tricks. I’d go further, and say there was symmetrical hypocrisy from the Cons on this one (which there ISN’T in the case of the EU), because Cameron has ANDY COULSON as his press secretary, a man who was editor of the News of the World when its hacks were breaking the law, and some of whom went to jail for it. The Tories know all about the dark arts – it’s just that McBride and Draper got caught (by having their email accounts hacked, note…)
HOWEVER none of this would detract from the fact that WHAT DRAPER AND MCBRIDE WERE PLANNING WAS WRNOG AND INEXCUSABLE. To point out Tory hypocrisy should NOT have been used as a way of saying “so what McB and Draper were doing was therefore OK, or unimportant, or didn’t really matter”. That conclusion simply didn’t follow. The hypocrisy point was SEPARATE from the point about whether McB and Draper had done anything wrong (they clearly had – esp McB; Draper arguably just received emails, though that’s dubious).
Now if you go and read what Tory apologists are up to, they are NOT saying “OK What we are doing in europe is bad and that’s inexcusable, as an important but separate point, our critics are being hypocritical because their parties do bad stuff too”, they are saying “yeah so what if we have rightwing nutters in our alliance that we created, you did X and they did Y! So it doesn’t matter!”
Which is moralising at the level of a 5 year old.
Sheesh, it’s just a simple separation of arguments…
Paul said,
October 7, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Which upon reflection, is a very long-winded version of what Peter said at comment #10.