Dov Levin, an Associate Professor of International Relations at the University of Hong Kong, dives into the intriguing world of whataboutism and its impact on U.S. foreign policy views. He shares insights from his survey experiments that explore how accusations of hypocrisy shape American opinions. The conversation also touches on the U.S.'s historical election interference and its connection to current debates about whataboutism. Levin emphasizes the complex interplay of naming and shaming within political discourse and considers future research avenues on this provocative topic.
Whataboutism effectively influences American public opinion by highlighting U.S. hypocrisy, thereby reducing support for governmental critiques of other nations.
The historical context of U.S. electoral interventions illustrates the complexity of moral authority, which other nations exploit through whataboutism to counter American criticisms.
Deep dives
Understanding Whataboutism in International Relations
Whataboutism is a rhetorical strategy used by states to counter criticism by highlighting perceived hypocrisy in their accusers. It allows nations to deflect attention from their actions by accusing their critics of similar or worse behavior. This tactic is often employed to address international criticism and appeal to both domestic and foreign audiences. Its significance lies in its ability to reshape narratives and diminish the impact of accountability on the criticized party.
Current Gaps in Literature on Whataboutism
Prior to recent research efforts, there was a notable lack of empirical studies addressing whataboutism specifically within international relations. Most existing literature approached the topic from philosophical or logical perspectives, treating it as a logical fallacy without examining its practical effects in international contexts. The prevailing focus was limited to domestic interactions, leaving a significant gap in understanding how whataboutism affects international critiques and relations. This absence underscored the need for new research that investigates the dynamics of whataboutism on a global scale.
Historical Context of U.S. Foreign Interference
The history of U.S. interference in foreign elections reveals a pattern of intervention strategies employed since World War II, with the United States participating in around 128 electoral interventions compared to Russia's 70. These interventions have included covert operations, campaign financing, and direct threats to sway electoral outcomes in favor of U.S. interests. This historical backdrop sets the stage for understanding how past behaviors are leveraged by other nations to counter American criticisms through whataboutism. The analysis of these patterns highlights the complexities of U.S. moral authority in global politics.
Empirical Findings on the Effectiveness of Whataboutism
Recent surveys conducted among the American public reveal that whataboutism can effectively reduce support for U.S. government critiques against other nations. The study found that when Americans are presented with similar misdeeds committed by the U.S. government, their approval of punitive measures declines. Notably, the more recent and closely related the cited American failings are to the criticized actions, the stronger the effect of whataboutism. These findings provide substantial evidence for the influence of hypocrisy in shaping public opinion regarding U.S. foreign policy.
Dov Levin, Associate Professor of International Relations at the University of Hong Kong, examines the effects of whataboutism - essentially, charges of U.S. hypocrisy - on Americans’ foreign policy views. He explains his survey experiments to test the effectiveness of whatbaoutism on US public opinion and how it might shape policy. He also discusses his work on U.S. foreign election interference, the academic literature on hypocrisy costs, U.S. foreign policy activism, and avenues for future research on whataboutism.