Whaddabout?

But Whaddabout…?

       

        A friend, a terrific writer in his own right, has coined a descriptor which precisely describes one of the Far Right’s primary “go to” responses to criticism of bad behaviors by the great Cheetoh. He calls it “but whaddabout?” He actually spells it “what about” but those who use it in conversation usually pronounce it as I spelled it. It smacks of elementary school playground tactics in its simplicity and transparency.

        Examples abound:

        “The national deficit is disturbingly high, and soaring over the last three years, although Trump said he’d eliminate it in 8 years.”  “Oh yeah? Well, whaddabout the low unemployment?”

        A member of a veteran’s discussion group pointed out, recently, that Trump was forced to collapse his “foundation” which was actually a front for spending other people’s money on questionable causes. Another retorted: “Oh yeah? Well, whaddabout the Clinton Foundation?” (I’ll expand on this because it screams for more information)

 Me: “Check Charity Navigator for more data on the Clinton foundation.” 

(Charity Navigator, a non-aligned and long-standing charity rating organization, rates the Clinton Foundation 4 stars out of a possible four.  It is rated 93 (a high rating) for transparency and fiscal accountability. The Donald J. Trump foundation, on the other hand  has a zero rating, having refused to submit financial records, but there is a warning to potential donors of high concern, based on various legal challenges (which it lists) to its legitimacy.    

Him: “Why would I trust any source which would rate the Clinton Foundation highly?”       Whaddabout… (or WTF)?

        In similar manner, mention any allegation of financial impropriety related to Trump’s continued profiteering from businesses from which his corporation was supposed to disengage and…

 “But whaddabout Uranium one?” 

 I won’t even bore you with the reasons why one vote in a 9-person committee, several of whom were Republican appointees, and all of whom voted affirmatively, is exactly that, an 11% share of the responsibility.

        One significant aspect of this phenomenon is that examples of current malfeasance by Trump and his acolytes are consistently met with “whaddabouts” based on events which have passed and are irrelevant.

        On final example from the Obama years:

       A historian reviewing events related to tragedies at US foreign embassies, might well reflect on the Reagan administration’s horrible record. During the entire Benghazi farce, laden with vitriol aimed at SecState Clinton (and still resurrected from time to time as a deflection from current Republican malfeasance) there was no mention of the more than 250 deaths in US embassies at the hands of terrorists. These were during the Reagan administration. After the first, (the infamous Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut) a bipartisan committee convened to discuss measures which should be taken to prevent further such incidents. These recommendations were slow to be instituted and another attack occurred, resulting in the video-taped execution of the ambassador. In all of this, no one blamed either the President or the SecState. In fact, Reagan analogized the lack of proper security implementation as recommended by Congress to delays in remodeling a kitchen.  Yet, even today, we periodically hear “But whaddabout Benghazi?”          

        This childish refusal to engage in real dialogue saddens and frustrates those of us who feel we, as a nation, deserve better.