Dog-whistle politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dog-whistle politics is a term used to describe a type of political campaigning or speechmaking using coded language, which appears to mean one thing to the general population but which has a different or more specific meaning for a targeted subgroup of the audience. It is usually used pejoratively by those that do not approve of the tactics. Ian Welsh wrote about it as:

When you speak in code(...), most of the time the only people who hear and understand what you just said are the intended group, who have an understanding of the world and a use of words that is not shared by the majority of the population.

The term is by analogy to dog whistles, built in such a way that humans cannot hear them due to their high frequency, but dogs can. It could be argued that the term is disparaging of those who can hear the dog whistle message.

The term originated in Australian politics in the late 1990s, on occasion used to describe the Howard Government's policy crack down on illegal immigration. The Australian Government took a strong stand against illegal immigration, which was highly popular amongst a segment of voters on both sides of the usual political divide, and which contributed to the winning of the 2001 Australian Federal Election. As a reaction to this political success, some commentators have argued that the stand was playing to 'racist' fears in the community, despite the Government never using overtly racist terminology.

The term is thought to have been introduced to the United Kingdom by Lynton Crosby, where it played a role in the 2005 general election; Michael Howard was often accused of practising "dog-whistle politics" on contentious subjects like immigration, with a campaign slogan that asked "Are you thinking what we're thinking?".

This approach is a separate strategy from the less nuanced approach of wedge politics often employed in the United States. Still, several examples of "dog whistle politics" are thought to exist in American politics.

At the national level, President George W. Bush is said to use coded language in his speeches to send messages to his supporters among the religious right that will be ignored by other parts of the U.S. population. Examples include his frequent use of biblical phrases ("just a comma") and the veiled mention of Dred Scott Supreme Court decision in the 2004 Presidential Debates.

At the state level, the hotly contested 2006 Corker-Ford Senate race featured an attack ad which allegedly contains a coded message about miscegenation. The ad, run on behalf of Bob Corker (who is white) features an attractive blonde asking Ford (who is black) to call her. The literal text of the ad attacks Ford for having attended a party sponsored by Playboy while critics maintain that it is actually a coded message toward voters already attuned to race mixing.