Reader question:

Please explain the term “dog whistle politics”?

My comments:

Great question, as dog whistles are heard everywhere these days, a time when some deep-rooted social problems appear to be coming to a boil.

Income inequality (everywhere), immigration (Europe), race (America) and so forth.

As a result, politicians are becoming more cunning and sophisticated in talk because, let’s face it, theirs is no easy line of trade.

Okay, dog whistle politics essentially refers to a form of politician’s rant that’s aimed at a particular audience.

You should have a general idea of the politician’s rant, their form of speech. Any form of officialese or gobbledygook by the politician counts, generally any speech which is so full of meaningless jargon that whole thing doesn’t sound like making a lot of sense to members of the general public.

Dog whistle is one form of the politician’s rant or talk, referring to a coded message aimed at a particular group in the audience.

Question is, of course, why dog whistle?

Presumably when dogs communicate with each other, some of their guttural wails or squeals are inaudible to the human ear, because we humans can only hear sounds within a certain range of frequency. Hence metaphorically, when people are described as talking “dog whistles”, they are talking to a particular group people, by using words that only they understand. Other people hear the words, but do not get the hidden message.

Being very suspicious of politicians in general and businessman-turned ones in particular, I take a lot of things out of the mouth of Donald Trump as dog whistles. Let me give you an example. I might be accused of being too sensitive but, just the other day, I heard the Republican presidential candidate say that Americans are not safe in their own country.

He was addressing fighting terrorism, of course but what I want to point out is that by “Americans”, he has his own idea of who those Americans are. To him, he was talking about, say, rich, white Americans like himself. When he said the United States is not “safe for Americans”, he did not have, say, Muslims and immigrants from Mexico in mind.

But those Americans whom Trump was aiming at should, I assure you, be able to get his message.

Dog whistle, by the way, is a term coined by Australians in the 1990s. Australians are not known for producing shrewd and Machiavellian politicians, I know, but perhaps they have lately caught up, even to the point of inspiring Brits and Americans in terms of political language.

Anyways, WiseGeek.com explains political dog whistle thus:

Dog-whistle politics is a form of political rhetoric in which coded language is used, thereby ensuring that a message reaches a target audience without making the general public aware of the specific content of the message. Much like a dog whistle, which is only audible to ears which can hear sounds in a certain frequency, dog-whistle politics often slides below the radar of the average citizen, allowing politicians to target certain groups of the electorate with very specific language.

This term originated in Australia in the 1990s, when immigration was a hot-button issue in elections. Several politicians were accused of using coded terms to refer to immigration issues, ensuring that they came across as hard-liners to conservatives without offending people of a more liberal bent. In 2003, the term was used in Britain, and by 2005, it had reached the United States.

One of the most common forms of dog-whistle politics in the United States is the use of religious references by members of the religious right. For Americans who are not familiar with the Bible, these references may pass by entirely unnoticed, while devout Christians pick up on these references and assume that this means the politician supports their values. Bible references have been used to promote crackdowns on illegal immigration, to support wars, and to encourage the pro-life agenda, all without alerting members of the general public.

Now, media examples:

1. I mentioned last night two dog-whistle moments at the latest GOP debate. One was Rick Perry’s saying that the state of South Carolina was “at war with this federal government”; the other was Newt Gingrich’s repeated insistence that Barack Obama was the “food stamp president.”

One reader hotly disagrees:

Many times you present your perspective fairly, but in today’s footnote comments about the South Carolina debate in your Final on Huntsman blog posting, one of two things is apparent. Neither alternative reflects well upon you.

You cited as a “dog whistle” Newt Gingrich’s comment that Obama is “the food stamp President”. By calling that a dog whistle you are dog whistling to your own constituencies about how terrible and racist those evil Republicans are.

...

Here is a third alternative, the one I believe: that Newt Gingrich knows exactly what he is doing when he calls Obama the “food stamp” president, just as Ronald Reagan knew exactly what he was doing when talking about “welfare Cadillacs.” There are lots of other ways to make the point about economic hard times -- entirely apart from which person and which policies are to blame for today's mammoth joblessness, and apart from the fact that Congress sets food stamp policies. You could call him the “pink slip president,” the “foreclosure president,” the “Walmart president,” the “Wall Street president,” the “Citibank president,” the “bailout president,” or any of a dozen other images that convey distress. You decide to go with “the food stamp president,” and you’re doing it on purpose.

If Joe Lieberman had been elected, I would be wary of attacks on his economic policy that called him “the cunning, tight-fisted president.” If Henry Cisneros had or Ken Salazar does, I would notice arguments about ineffectiveness phrased as “the ma?ana administration.” If Gary Locke were in office, then “the Manchurian candidate” jokes that had been used on Jon Huntsman would have a different edge. And so on. This reader may not recognize it as a dog whistle, but I have no doubt that Newt Gingrich knows what it is.

- On Race, Dog Whistles, and the Old Confederacy, by James Fallows, TheAtlantic.com, January 17, 2012.

2. Wisconsin congressman and former GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan has spent much of the past week backtracking after claiming on a right-wing radio show that “culture” was to blame for poverty in America’s “inner cities.” While Ryan’s had his defenders in the media — the usual right-wing suspects, along with Slate’s Dave Weigel — one of America’s most influential liberals, a frequent critic of Paul Ryan, is not one of them.

That’s right: Paul Krugman is going after the GOP’s chief fan of Ayn Rand. Again.

In his latest column for the New York Times, Krugman slams Ryan for his controversial remarks, describing them as a “racial dog-whistle” intended to pander to white voters who think liberals are primarily interested in taking their hard-earned money and giving it to undeserving minorities. Mocking Ryan’s subsequent claim that he was simply “inarticulate,” Krugman sarcastically writes that the House GOPer “even cited the work of serious scholars — people like Charles Murray, most famous for arguing that blacks are genetically inferior to whites.”

“Oh, wait,” Krugman jokes.

Although he gets his shots in at Ryan, Krugman’s column takes a broader view of the relationship between race and redistribution in conservative politics. Calling race the “Rosetta Stone that makes sense of many otherwise incomprehensible aspects of U.S. politics,” Krugman argues that Ryan’s “inarticulate” comments were simply indicative of the whole right-wing worldview.

- Paul Krugman hits Paul Ryan for using a “racial dog-whistle”, Salon.com, March 17, 2014.

3.

At first glance, the ad purports to attack Democratic presidential contender Bernie Sanders: Calling him “too liberal for Iowa,” the ad, first flagged by the New York Times, knocks the Vermont senator’s proposals for free college, Medicare for all, and raising taxes on the wealthy.

“Sen. Bernie Sanders has some very big plans,” the ad intones. Unlike most attack ads, this one substitutes grainy, black-and-white images of the candidate with bright, sunny images of people benefitting from his proposals – students and parents on graduation day, doctors caring for patients – while “Wall Street” money men furtively huddle amid ominous shadows.

The ad, however, is a triple-reverse of sorts: it’s Republican produced and it’s designed to hurt Democrats by promoting Sanders as an unabashed liberal, and the presidential candidate the GOP would rather face on Election Day.

“Bernie wants to provide free college for our young people. No tuition – completely free,” the narrator says. “Now Bernie’s doubling down with Medicare for all, which is basically single-payer, government-sponsored health care: no big insurance companies, just more government spending, paid for by raising taxes on Wall Street, big business and the super rich.”

The ad was produced by ESA Fund, a super PAC founded by major Republican donor and former TD Ameritrade executive Joe Ricketts, and is backed by a $600,000 television buy in the Hawkeye State.

Instead of undercutting Sanders’ support, the ad is actually intended to improve his standing by riling up liberals, for whom free college, a national single-payer insurance system and taxes on Wall Street are key reasons to vote for the 74-year-old Democratic Socialist.

“When it comes to federal spending and piling on our massive debt, Secretary Clinton is a five-car pile-up, but Senator Sanders is a trainwreck,” said Brian Baker, president of the ESA Fund. “Given that Senator Sanders is the leading candidate in Iowa and New Hampshire and way ahead in the general election polls, ESA Fund will work hard to inform voters about his record and future plans.”

But Republicans would love nothing more than for Sanders to win the Democratic nomination.

…

The triple-reverse ad strategy the GOP has deployed against Sanders has worked in the past for Democrats..

In 2012, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., faced a tough reelection campaign in a red state. Although businessman John Brunner was leading in the Republican Senate primary, McCaskill’s team helped boost the prospects of then-Rep. Todd Akin, one of the most conservative members of Congress.

McCaskill and her team put out what she calls a "dog whistle" -- using reverse psychology on Republican voters by calling Akin “too conservative,” a move that helped him win the primary. McCaskill then trounced Akin by 55 percent to 40 percent, outpacing President Barack Obama’s showing in the state by more than 10 points.

Late Monday, McCaskill, a Clinton supporter linked her own tactic and the anti-Sanders ad.

“I see you Joe Ricketts. And I know exactly what you're up to,” she Tweeted, with the hashtag #ToddAkin. "Don't fall for it, Iowa Dems.”

- Republicans Run Ad Against Sanders – Because They Want Him to Win, USNews.com, January 26, 2016.

本文僅代表作者本人觀點(diǎn)，與本網(wǎng)立場(chǎng)無(wú)關(guān)。歡迎大家討論學(xué)術(shù)問(wèn)題，尊重他人，禁止人身攻擊和發(fā)布一切違反國(guó)家現(xiàn)行法律法規(guī)的內(nèi)容。

About the author:

Zhang Xin is Trainer at chinadaily.com.cn. He has been with China Daily since 1988, when he graduated from Beijing Foreign Studies University. Write him at: zhangxin@chinadaily.com.cn, or raise a question for potential use in a future column.

（作者：張欣 編輯：丹妮）