Talk:Dog-whistle politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.