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 (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://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/10/07/obama-campaign-takes-issue-with-mccains-that-one-remark/128.2.51.144 (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)