I recently had the privilege of speaking at a webinar on disinformation during the Covid-19 pandemic, especially as carried out by authoritarian governments. A favourite tactic of theirs, I noted, is to deflect criticism from American sources using “whataboutism”. Experience shows that this tactic can be used to counter almost anything – from arbitrary arrests and torture, to mass incarceration of an ethnic minority – by arguing that the United States is not exactly blameless in any of these respects. My point was that this is at best a distraction and at worst, utter hypocrisy. For one, US-based commentators tend to direct criticism at targets criticised widely elsewhere as well. And when North Korean or Chinese state media criticise US police tactics, for instance, they are setting a standard for US police that those countries could never meet, at least not without putting their power at risk. Still, during the question and answer session, someone asked: “Do the critics of the US human rights record have a point?” Not only have US problems with police and race relations boiled over this summer, the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war and the 2008 economic crisis also show that US media are far from blameless in spreading “disinformation”, often with the help of government and elite business interests. For many of us who walk a foreign-policy-centric beat, it is easy to become fixated on other countries’ misdeeds at the expense of our own. We make our living reading reports from Human Rights Watch and Reporters Without Borders (RSF) on the shortcomings of North Korea, Iran, Myanmar, etc. That Human Rights Watch has much to say about the US treatment of migrants and prisoners, and that our RSF rankings have slid substantially after 2013 may escape our notice. Even those aware may have little quality analysis to share of those trends – we simply do not have the professional incentives to comment. But US conduct at home (and abroad) should matter to American policy analysts and academics who specialise in other countries’ affairs. For one, it is a moral stain on our country that black men, for instance, are over-incarcerated and our prison population is disproportionately large. For another, it is not inconceivable that shortcomings at home and abroad are related; the recent outbreak of protest violence and frequently ruthless suppression from law enforcement has prompted more than one commentator to note that the “war on terror” had come home. Also, domestic failures make the job of foreign policy analysts harder. In May, when Beijing moved to institute a national security law for Hong Kong, many of us noted (and amplified) US government voices that eloquently observed how Hong Kong was once prosperous, free and, yes, secure, before people tired of Beijing’s heavy hand. They decried the Communist Party’s refusal to listen to Hongkongers’ cries for democracy and Beijing’s unqualified support for Hong Kong police tactics in suppressing demonstrations. Within days though, the US faced its own protests, and some of those same officials dismissed the concerns that led to them, and even called for the US military to suppress protests that turn violent. In other words, they called for exactly the response that was considered the worst-case scenario for Hong Kong. This is not to say that US and other countries’ problems are equivalent. Those in China attempting what I am doing now – expressing my discontent with specific government policies and shortcomings – have a bad habit of disappearing . The overlapping security services and fear of horrific punishment in gulags keep similar commentary from emerging at all in North Korea. But such distinctions matter little to the citizens of the world not intimately familiar with suppression in those countries but who are aware, thanks to the internet and cable news, that a US policeman knelt on a black man’s neck until he suffocated, ignoring his cries that he could not breathe. American politicians from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama have been fond of invoking the notion of the US as a “city upon a hill” – a beacon for the world. If they are going to insist that the country represents a higher standard, it is certainly a good idea to behave as though it does, and reform it where it does not. Thanks to the miracle of international media, our successes, and our shortcomings, are already visible throughout the world. Rob York is programme director for regional affairs at the Pacific Forum. Twitter: @RobPacForum