The agreed-upon “resistance”/Democratic/mainstream media rebuttal of complaints that the Justice Department has fashioned a new set of standards for prosecution in order to neutralized Donald Trump is being met by smug accusations of “Whataboutism.” Whataboutism is one of the Ethics Alarms rationalizations on the list, and high up that list, at #2. Before I wrote this post, I checked what I had written, which was short and to the point:
The mongrel offspring of The Golden Rationalization and the Bible-based dodges a bit farther down the list, the “They’re Just as Bad” Excuse is both a rationalization and a distraction. As a rationalization, it posits the absurd argument that because there is other wrongdoing by others that is similar, as bad or worse than the unethical conduct under examination, the wrongdoer’s conduct shouldn’t be criticized or noticed. As a distraction, the excuse is a pathetic attempt to focus a critic’s attention elsewhere, by shouting, “Never mind me! Why aren’t you going after those guys?”
Moved by the current “Axis of Unethical Conduct’s distortion of the concept, I added the following to avoid future confusion (or corrupt rhetorical misappropriation):
The rationalization is also frequently misapplied to one who legitimately calls out a double standard, as when the same prosecutor or state authority brings charges against one individual when similar or equivalent conduct by others has not been prosecuted in the past. In those instances, calling attention to the inconsistency is not a rationalization attempting to minimize the wrongdoing in question, but to question the integrity, motives. seeming arbitrariness or fairness of the change in attitude regarding appropriate consequences. If the response to that accusation is, “We were wrong then, but now we recognize this is how this conduct should be handled,” that is ethical, if it is meant in good faith. Often, too often, it is not.
Former U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy, hardly a Trump apologist or supporter, neatly explained on Fox News (because none of the media hanging- mob outlets want to give him a platform to make people less biased and more legally literate) why in criminal matters referencing past cases is not just fair and relevant, but crucial. He said,
“When I hear this, ‘what about, what about, what about’ — you know, in the law, that’s what the law is. Whataboutism is what law is. We decide things based on precedent. We make laws, we make statutory law, based on our experience. We gauge whether people are being treated fairly in a due process sense by comparing how they’ve been treated to how other people who’ve done analogous things have been treated,” he explained. “That’s not “whataboutism” like it’s a political hit point. That’s what we do in the law. That’s what it’s about.”
McCarthy pointed to the contrast between the handling of the Hunter Biden investigation and the Trump case as a perfect example of legitimate scrutiny, saying,
Everybody should have in mind October 2023. Hunter Biden made a false statement in a federal gun form in October 2018. You want to talk about like all of these other cases? It would take a competent prosecutor and agent about five days — not five years — five days to put that case together. They have had it for five years. The statute of limitations runs [out] in October. That’s what’s going on here.”
(Excuse me, Frank Drebin has asked for a moment…)
Ethics Alarms 
This sort of thing is a lot like painting yoursedlf into a corner.
To address the issue of We were wrong then, but now we recognize this is how this conduct should be handled”, I have given it some thought. How do we equitably punish this wrongful conduct more harshly in the future, when in the past we have been so lenient?
In this particular context, the only thing I could think of is to blanket pardon all past instances of criminal mishandling (including, but not limited to, unlawful taking or unlawful retention or unlawful sharing of classified information) along with a public pledge to harshly prosecute and punish future criminal mishandling of classified information. In this instance, the Pioneer’s Dilemna would be easily answered.
This is how you use ‘whataboutism’:
It certainly is irritating that that the parking warden used his ‘discretion’ to book me, in my very modest and muddy car, but not the equally offending highly polished Mercedes with personal number plates. I didn’t bother complaining and I paid my fine. What should or could I have done?