In more recent years, the practice of dog-whistling has evolved and expanded, particularly in discussions around immigration and migrants. Politicians and commentators often use terms like “illegal aliens,” “border security,” and “invasion” to invoke fear and suspicion of immigrants, often implying that migrants pose a threat to national security or cultural identity
Historical and Contemporary Analysis
New York, N.Y. Dog-whistling, a term used to describe the use of coded or suggestive language in political messaging that conveys a specific, often controversial, meaning to a particular group without explicit acknowledgment, has a long history in U.S. politics. This technique allows politicians to communicate with select audiences in a way that may not be apparent to the general public, often skirting more overt and potentially offensive statements.
The term “dog-whistling” is derived from the silent whistles used to train dogs, which emit sounds at a frequency that can be heard by dogs but not humans. In a political context, it refers to messages that resonate with specific groups while remaining ambiguous or innocuous to others. The practice has been used across the political spectrum, although it has been particularly noted in issues relating to race, immigration, and social policy.
Historically, dog-whistling can be traced back to the “Southern Strategy” employed by some Republicans in the 1960s and 1970s. This strategy aimed to gain political support from Southern whites by appealing to racial anxieties without overtly racist statements. Phrases like “states’ rights” and “law and order” were used to signal opposition to civil rights advancements without explicitly endorsing segregationist policies.
A notable example of dog-whistling in U.S. politics was the infamous “Willie Horton” ad used during the 1988 presidential campaign. The ad, which was aired by supporters of Republican candidate George H.W. Bush, highlighted the case of Willie Horton, an African American convicted felon who committed crimes while on furlough from prison. The ad was widely criticized for stoking racial fears and exploiting stereotypes to undermine Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis, who had supported the furlough program as Governor of Massachusetts.
In more recent years, the practice of dog-whistling has evolved and expanded, particularly in discussions around immigration and migrants. Politicians and commentators often use terms like “illegal aliens,” “border security,” and “invasion” to invoke fear and suspicion of immigrants, often implying that migrants pose a threat to national security or cultural identity. This type of rhetoric can mobilize a political base without explicitly stating anti-immigrant sentiments, thereby allowing speakers to deny accusations of prejudice.
Donald Trump’s political career has been marked by frequent accusations of using dog-whistling, particularly concerning his statements on immigration. His calls to “build the wall” along the U.S.-Mexico border and his description of some Mexican immigrants as “rapists” and “criminals” are cited as examples of language that resonates with certain voters while being dismissive or hostile towards immigrants. Such statements can galvanize a segment of the electorate that is concerned about immigration without openly espousing xenophobic views.
Horse-whistling, a term similar to dog-whistling, is often used to describe subtler, less direct messages aimed at a broader audience. This term has been employed to describe political rhetoric that conveys underlying messages about racial, cultural, or socio-economic issues. For instance, discussions about “urban crime” or “welfare reform” can carry connotations about race and class without explicit statements, influencing public perception and policy debates.
The use of dog-whistling and horse-whistling raises significant ethical and democratic concerns.
These practices can obscure the true intentions of political messages, making it difficult for voters to engage in transparent and informed debate. Furthermore, they can perpetuate stereotypes and social divisions by subtly reinforcing prejudiced views.
Understanding the nuances of dog-whistling and horse-whistling is crucial for navigating the complexities of modern political communication. As political discourse continues to evolve, the ability to identify and critically evaluate these subtle forms of messaging remains essential for fostering a more informed and inclusive democratic society.
Decoding Dog-Whistling: Subtle Politics of Hidden Messaging (Aug. 1, 2024)
Discover more from The Stewardship Report
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
