Whatever They Can Get Away With

I'm not a fan of whataboutism. It's a logical fallacy, it doesn't rebut or refute the actions being discussed, and it reeks of grade-schoolers whining at their mothers.

None of this means it doesn't happen. In fact, whataboutism happens all the time, and nowhere more prominently, of late, than in politics. Donald Trump's recent indictment for mishandling classified documents (and for lying about them) has brought forth a deluge of whataboutist rhetoric. None of that rhetoric absolves Trump of transgression, and from what I've read so far, the evidence appears solid that he did indeed break the law, and not just in a trivial or picayune sense.

There are myriad elements underlying that simple conclusion, however, and they all matter.

First, there's the question of whether the law is a just one. Eli Lake at the Free Press makes an argument against, here.

The gist of the article, which segues into a broader second element, is that the 1917 Espionage Act "does not distinguish between actual spies—people who give or sell state secrets to a foreign power—and those who seek to inform the American people about their government’s excesses and abuses." Nowhere in any of the allegations is there mention or suggestion that Trump sought to do the Republic harm in his retention of classified documents. With Russiagate and other foreign-influence allegations thoroughly debunked, the case against Trump boils down to "he broke some document handling rules, lied about doing so, and sought to interfere with investigation and recovery." Serious business, on a personal level, but is it the stuff of national peril or treason?

This presents the third element - why prosecute at all?

Eight years ago, FBI director James Comey issued this statement regarding Hillary Clinton's breaking of some document handling rules.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before deciding whether to bring charges.

Comey went on to characterize Clinton's actions as "extremely careless." The Trump indictment appears to take great pains to suggest a difference between Clinton and Trump, i.e. one was 'careless' while the other acted deliberately.

In an according-to-Hoyle sense, this distinction may hold water. Or it may not. But, either way, in the court of public opinion, it'll be irrelevant.

This is where the "whataboutism" I dislike rears its head. This prosecution is absolutely, positively, without-a-doubt political in nature, no matter how many times you hear its defenders assert "no one is above the law." Because, with the non-prosecution of Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and too many others to list, the Trump indictment is built on a foundation of political gamesmanship.

Selective prosecution offends us. A ten year old crying "it's not fair that I'm being punished for something that Jimmy also did" is an appeal to equal treatment, not an exculpation for whatever transgression was committed, and we react viscerally when Person A is prosecuted for something that Person B was given a bye.

This is why I can whinge all day about hating whataboutism without having any real effect on its broad embrace. Any individual can override an emotional reaction in favor of rationality and principle, but in the aggregate, the gut will have its say.

The motivations of the prosecutors come into question here, and they coalesce down to two categories. There is the "We’re going to impeach this m*****f*****" sentiment of Squad member and Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, and there is the political-gamesmanship conclusion.

I'm not inclined to concluding deep, covert, coordinated puppet-master scheming behind most things that happen, for myriad reasons. First, managing politicians is like herding cats. Second, three can keep a secret if two are dead. Third, and especially in this case, emotion trumps (pun intended) cold logic. The Trump prosecutions (I haven't forgotten about you, Alvin Bragg) reek of a race to see who gets to nail the orange scalp to his wall, no matter that it be for less-than-spectacular transgressions. Don't forget - no one's accusing Trump (at this point, anyway) of selling secrets to the Russians. That narrative's collapse is too fresh to be reiterated without evidence. I am prompted to recall the television series The Good Fight, a show I gave up on when it went off the rails with a deep dive into Trump Derangement Syndrome: there are people even today who are completely under the thrall of their anti-Trump dyspepsia.

Still, I will allow that the strategists on the Left see perpetual persecution of Trump as a great pathway to retaining control of Washington. Martyr him, and he has a better chance of winning the GOP nomination despite all logic and electoral calculus supporting the nomination of someone like Ron DeSantis. Taint him with a mountain of allegations of law-breaking - actual harm notwithstanding - and his loyalists will see a 2024 Trump victory as the only proper repudiation of what they'll deem (with justification) a witch hunt. Keep haranguing him, and his chances of getting the nomination increase.

Thing is, the taint may harden his devoted fans in his favor, but they are as apt to turn swing voters or the less-dedicated off. Since, as someone recently pointed out, the difference in the last election was 40,000 votes in PA, GA, and AZ, chipping off a meager number of general-election voters from the GOP column by getting Trump nominated is a reasonable strategy for a Biden win.

Is any of this fair, or just, or seemly?

No.

Nevertheless, it's happening. All that's left for us is how we react.

Trump, with his mercurial personality, his increasingly deranged repetitions of "stolen election," his inconsistency, and his utter lack of loyalty to anyone but himself, is not a good choice for the Presidency. But, in terms of policy, he wasn't awful either, and in many ways was a lot better than either his predecessor or his successor.

However any of the other GOP candidates would pursue similar (and likely even better) good policies as Trump, which leaves us with the question "why him?" That is, unfortunately, a rational analysis, and rationality has been relegated to a back seat in this election cycle.

Years back, a friend who was in law school was telling me about the ethics class he was taking at the time. The cynical summary of ethics was "whatever you can get away with." All these prosecutions of Trump are rooted in the pursuit of power, either personal or for the team. Propriety, fairness, and principle usually get in the way of the naked pursuit of power, especially when the nation is so polarized that the other team is not even viewed as human, let alone as fellow citizens. A person of principle doesn't stand a chance of winning high office at the moment, which really sucks because winning is followed by governing, and there's little hope the power hog will find principle once enthroned.

The treatment of Trump is a representation of the ruling elite's attitude toward the American masses as a whole. Trump was a symptom, and like the Tea Party before him, a rejection of the political status quo. That ruling elite was not amused, and tearing him (and by extension the large swathes of the nation that doesn't bend the knee to that status quo) became an obsession.

Were Trump's policies and personality favorable to the Left, were he one of then, none of this would have happened. He’d, instead, have gotten the treatment Clinton got and Biden is now getting. That's all you need to know to understand what's going on.

If your "whataboutism" reflexes kick in, I can't blame you. The Left has indeed exposed its power lust. But, that power lust includes baiting voters on the Right into making irrational decisions. The Left is chumming the electoral waters and roiling everyone, Trump supporter and rejector alike, into an irrational frenzy. Again, it’s up to each of us to decide how we react.

It may seem that the fairest thing to happen is to put Trump back into the White House, to eye-thumb the unprincipled power-fiends on the Left, but the chances of being able to do that must be considered, and from where I sit, he's the worst of a dozen choices to run against Biden if winning the Presidency is indeed the goal. Knocking the authoritarian Left out of power should be more important than DJT himself. Remember, it's often the losing side that makes the "whataboutism" complaints.