Talk:Dog-whistle politics

Origin

Tony Wright from The Age in 2000 reckoned that the term originated from the USA: "The Americans call this “dog-whistle politics.”". Any views on this? Andjam 07:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

When it was discussed over here it was considered Australian, but I suppose that could just have been the proximate cause. If anyone has access to one of the US newspaper databases that'd be able to settle it...

I only have access to the UK ones; the term first shows up here in January 2005, with the exception of two hits on November 10th and 13th 2001. The one is a letter from an Australian:

The election campaign was "dog-whistle politics" at its worst. Howard ran his campaign almost wholly on "border protection"

and the other an article about the Australian election:

Commentators have called Mr Howard's strategy "dog whistle politics" - sending messages to a blue-collar audience that he hopes are too high-pitched to be heard by other voters.

But your citation is an earlier source; hmm hmm. Interesting. There's one Usenet reference from 2000, but it's Australian; it's not until earlier this year that anyone outside Australia uses it there. Which suggests that if it was an American usage, it wasn't a very common one outside certain circles. Shimgray 12:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Early uses noted care of the much-loved Language Log here, if anyone wants to incorporate them. Looks like the Americans may have it. Shimgray | talk | 01:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting link from 'Shimgray' above. I believe that the first Australian use of the full term "dog whistle politics" was by Bob Hawke in 1990, accusing his political opponent Andrew Peacock during the Australian Federal election campaign of that year.Lester 20:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Comparison to Wedge Politics

The dog whistle and the wedge are NOT analogous but quite distinct tactics. Both are used in current Australian Politics.

1. The dog whistle involves saying A, knowing that a subset of your audience will make an association to B, and react in the intended fashion, while the rest of the audience will interpret A differently.

2. The wedge involves finding an issue that can divide your opposition, due to exccessive breadth or internal contradiction in their policy package or media image. The wedging point of view can be expressed directly, unlike a dog whistle.

Corker-Ford

I removed the Corker-Ford election paragraph. It's politically charged, opinionated and it quotes no source for the "critic's" opinions. Any critic can say anything they want, but it doesn't make it valid factual evidence. Quote a source, or leave it out.

Additionally, "critics" of the "critics" frequently made the counter point that the blonde in question was representative of actual events. The woman he was involved with was Caucasian, not African-American.

Australia section

The section on Australia is terribly vague. None of the cited references says anything about what exactly it was that was supposed to be signalled, or through what vehicle. One of the references, to the test itself, was totally irrelevant. Can some who knows this better than I please provide some explanation? Mangoe (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this even real?

I ask because all of the cited examples are allegations from the Left concerning the Right. I don't think there is such a thing as "dog-whistle politics"; I regard the phrase as an argument ad hominem by association. The examples in this article are all allegations without any evidence that the supposed practitioners actually intend their words to be understood this way.

It is clearly an ad hominem tactic: if you are saying "You think he's reasonable, but he's secretly appealing to racists", you are not discussing the substance of what was said; rather, you are discussing the intended audience, an unrelated issue.

A cartoonish example would be "You believe that some things are better left to state governments than to the national government. This is just another name for 'State's Rights', a slogan of the Confederacy. Hence you are trying to appeal to racists; probably you are racist yourself". But this is not very far from what Alan Dershowitz said, in response to Bob Barr ("Real Americans understand the Constitution is there for a reason"):

"Whenever I hear the words 'real Americans', that sounds to me like a code word for racism, a code word for bigotry, a code word for anti-Semitism."

Since they were discussing Clinton's impeachment, what was the point? Clinton was not black or Jewish, and Bob Barr is black (though Dershowitz may not have known it). The point was to discredit Barr's statement without addressing it, by associating him with unnamed bigots who may have used the same phrase in an unrelated context.

There is no one actually practicing "dog-whistle" politics; the accusation is a rhetorical tactic intended to discredit a person's argument without addressing it. If the phenomenon is real, surely it is not practiced only by the political right, and suitable examples can be added to the article. The Right, in America at least, does use the "dog-whistle" accusation as a rhetorical tactic. An example might be when Barack Obama used the phrase "share the wealth", which prompted accusations from the Right of a secret agenda of radical socialism.

Some of the examples used here are just ignorant. George W. Bush's Biblical quotations are not "code words". They are the common heritage of Western culture. Without at least a cursory knowledge of the Bible most of English literature is incomprehensible, and Biblical quotations are no more a code word than Greek mythology or Shakespeare--even though most people nowadays have little familiarity with the Bible or Shakespeare or Classical Greece. Even fifty years ago they were quite common ("rich as Croesus", "painted Jezebel", "the lady doth protest too much, methinks") and even today people may say "good Samaritan" or "turn the other cheek" without being aware of the Biblical origin of these phrases. They're not "codes", they are literary allusions.Shrikeangel (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think we can certainly say the concept exists, though whether any given example of it here actually is someone intentionally doing it is an open question. I would be leery of saying it only exists as a term of abuse, though - I think there's evidence to suggest the idea was, at least originally, used deliberately.
• It's worth noting that when the term first appeared in the UK - during the 2005 campaign - it was frequently attributed to Lynton Crosby, the Australian campaign director the Conservatives had brought in; it'd be interesting to see if we can find any 1990s quotes from him discussing it. (This was in the original version of the article, but has since been cut). Parris (who we cite) notes that he picked it up from two Australian senators, who used it to describe Howard (they were in the same party) in 2003, but they may have been reflecting a common accusation. As you note, it does seem to be almost invariably a left-against-right thing, though Parris there is interesting - he's a former Conservative MP, broadly on the side of the party, and his original article doesn't really treat the concept with disgust.
• What would be useful would be... well, mostly tearing it down and starting again. We'd want a clear indication of a) who coined the term (some Australian newspapers refer to it as being an Americanism); b) anyone using it favourably or self-referentially; c) examples of it from across the political spectrum, and even beyond - I've seen it used in the past for class-specific shibboleths, for example; and d) trying to generalise the American section, or possibly finding examples that aren't quite so contemporary. The Bush section is a bit of a trainwreck. Shimgray | talk | 12:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There was a thing going around the US in the 80s: a belief in secret, multigenerational Satanic cults that were running preschools, sexually abusing children, performing human sacrifice and what-not. Millions of people believed that this was real phenomenon, and there were any number of serious discussions of it in the mass media, but it was not a real phenomenon. There may be millions of people who might believe that John Howard or John McCain have secret code words in their speeches intended to appeal to unnamed racists, but there is no evidence presented here, or anywhere, that any politician intentionally does this as a political tactic. All we have evidence of is that some politicians are accused, without evidence, of doing so. The very kindest that can be said for those making the accusation is that they are committing a fallacy: "A uses the word X, which has a special meaning to a group Y which believes in B, thus A is making a secret appeal to Y, and since you don't believe in B and don't want to be associated with Y, then don't listen to A". When put this way, it is clearly nonsense.

The Parris article introducing "dog-whistling" is in no way complimentary to Howard: "Beneath a serpentine smile and a sinewy charm...I once thought I might leave the Conservative Party if someone like Michael Howard came to lead it. My feelings, along (I think) with those of many on the Centre and Centre Left of my party, have altered and we could now best be described as warily wishing him well." In America we'd call this "holding one's nose to vote". Parris is saying that Howard is sleazy, but not as bad he used to think, and this is the context in which he describes the "dog-whistling". In the second article he describes the Australian senators as in the same party as Howard, but to the left. He then goes on to say that it is obvious that Howard is NOT "dog-whistling".Shrikeangel (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is definately a term that is made by the left to attack the right, as evidenced by the onesided additions to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.98.93 (talk • contribs) 04:29, April 14, 2010

That's a given, since dogwhistling is necessary to avoid political correctness, which the left has more or less imposed on the right over time. It's not okay to be openly racist, so to appeal to those racists you have to use proxy terms like "Welfare Queens" or "States rights" so that the racists, while not getting a cue that you're openly as racist as them, know roughly which side of the fence you're on. Dog-whistling is a very predictable result of political correctness, and just because it generally goes one way does NOT mean it's not a real term. 128.2.51.144 (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

{{weasel}}

This popped up on my watchlist. Please add {{weasel-inline}} tags at the points where problems are perceived. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

removed unexplained tags

I am pulling the tags.

Adding tags seems to be a hobby or maybe a cheap way to build up the number of edits.

I suggest a modification to wiki customs. If tags of this sort are not explained on the talk pages (so someone can actually fix something) then they should be removed.

The article about the term seems to me (who had never heard of the term before today) to be straightforward and not biased.

Keith Henson (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Arrogant" is the new Uppity and also "That One"

Calling Obama "Arrogant" has been a pretty ubiquitous meme amongst the right, since before he even won the election, and a lot of accusations are being levied that it's a new dogwhistle now that "Uppity" is obviously racist. Having essentially identical definitions, and the large frequency of the exact word being tossed around inclines me to agree. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ridley/when-rove-calls-obama-arr_b_109639.html

Also, the article mentions "The One" but I don't think that was the dogwhistle so much as "THAT One" as written here: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/10/mccain_calls_obama_that_one_wh.html 128.2.51.144 (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Taking out the USA section

From what I can see David Greenberg (his university home page here) is a good enough authority that the term is used. The problem issue is whether anyone actually uses the supposed mechanism, but as long as we are clear that this are accusations I do not see the reason to remove the passages. Mangoe (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The source is of high quality with out a doubt, but I can't find "Dog-whistle politics" mentioned anywhere in any of the sources. Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Apolgies missed that one when i was reading through sources and i have learned slate is not a like wordpress.com or www.livejournal.com/ my mistake Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

On the other stuff still shouldnt be there as WP:OR Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't checked them yet but we'll see. Mangoe (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Having checked the others, I agree that their inclusion is questionable. I did find two other good references:

• Waldman, Paul. "Judicial Abstraction". American Prospect. http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=judicial_abstraction. 
• Unger, Craig (2007). "Dog Whistle Politics". The fall of the house of Bush: the untold story of how a band of true believers seized the executive branch, started the Iraq War, and still imperils America's future. New York: Scribners. pp. 159-180. 

No doubt these can be worked into the text. Mangoe (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

By all means include these new sources, I am not opposed to the information being here I just want to be sure of accuracy if we really are going to inlcude criticism of certian groups then we should at least have a RS. Weaponbb7 (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

here an interesting application of the label. the concept comes off as a manulative tactic in the article. I am going to have to look more into this as I keep finding it more and more interesting Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The agonist.org link

This is actually referred to in the Wash. Post article (in the passage beginning "Then Ian Welsh, on his Agonist blog, postulated a theory about the hidden meaning of the comment"). I was dubious about using it, too, but apparently it's important in the history of the phrase. Mangoe (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion

We have had a great deal of trouble with examples in this article largely because (it seems to me) the term is simply a synonym for the use of code words in politics, and it has become fashionable. Therefore there doesn't seem to be any reason to have any separate section in Code word (figure of speech) for its use in politics, because it's exactly the same thing. One could keep them as separate topics, but then I think we will have a constant struggle because people will create a distinction between uses of "code word" (before the later term became popular) and "dog-whistling", even though they are really exactly the same thing. Mangoe (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is a distinct enough application of code words that it deserves its own listing. If nothing else, a listing for this would educate people to the fact that this is happening. As to examples, part of the listing could allow for people to ad examples as they come across them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QueasyGoose (talk • contribs) 22:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this is that as far as I can tell it isn't at all distinct. Mangoe (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I recommend against merging. 'Dog Whistle' is a distinct and widely used concept, and while there is an overlap of meaning withg 'code word', it is nonetheless used differently. Downes —Preceding undated comment added 13:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC).

Used differently how? Mangoe (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Coded words (per its wiki page) have usages in commercial, medical fields, etc. Whereas dog-whistle is limited to the political arena. In fact, the coded words article doesn't even mention politics. That's not to say that the two pages may not be merged with careful editing. But I did add a "See also" link to this article on the coded words article. It may be that dog whistle is a subset of coded words. I would be curious to hear from Mangoe in what ways a dog-whistle is not a coded words, which would argue for a separate page. SmallRepair (talk) 03:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

POV + Palin

Nowadays the term is more in use than ever, with Googling revealing more references to the alleged link between the Arizona shooting and Sarah Palin than not. Perhaps mention should be made of this, since, unlike the anonymous Atwater quote, this is actually an instance of the term being used in U.S. politics. (Atwater died before the term was even coined, so it seems like a rather shoe-horned example, better suited for "code words.")

Also, there does seem to be an assumption through many of the examples that they're true and the dog whistle claim isn't merely a form of unfalsifiable ad hominem attack. It seems to often be used to delegitimize political opponents without having actually caught them saying or doing anything delegitimizing. Merely writing that the accusations are "disputed" is not the same as saying they might be in bad faith. The Arizona situation provides many examples of claims of bad faith on all sides. Calbaer (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Conjecture

This whole article is based on conjecture. There is no real way to determine that someone was using code words unless they actually admit to it. A good example of someone assuming their rival was using "code words" is when Paul Tsongas claimed Bill Clinton used them against him. Here's from The New York Times:

"Mr. Tsongas also lashed out at Mr. Clinton, who on Thursday said in Denver that "We can not put our fairness under the guise of promising growth. It won't work, it's not America." The remark was erroneously quoted in some news accounts as, "It's not American," prompting part of Mr. Tsongas's harsh attack on Mr. Clinton. "To say my economic plan is not American," Mr. Tsongas said. "That's a code word. There's nothing more cynical -- it's the ultimate example of cynicism." He also said that "people who are ethnic will understand what I am talking about." (THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Democrats; Saying Clinton Is Cynical, Tsongas Goes on the Attack By RICHARD L. BERKE Published: March 07, 1992)

I have no idea what Mr. Clinton meant by "it's not America". It could mean what Mr. Tsongas thought or maybe something completely different, or nothing. It sounds like Mr. Clinton was saying that Mr. Tsongas' idea wasn't how America as a whole was, but who really knows by Clinton or his speechwriter? This is a good example of how some can assume that certain words are "code words" erroneously or as mere conjecture. Occidensylvania (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Examples

Jim DeMint's quote in 2009 on Obama's proposed health insurance reform: "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him". The term "break him" has a specific meaning in the South with regard to slavery. Hard to dispute the targeted audience and intended meaning. Of course, we can't be certain unless DeMint admits it. But I can't be certain that it will rain here in Seattle this week until it actually does rain.