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)

The political landscape is been peppered with figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Joe Manchin, whose actions have raised eyebrows and concerns within the anti-Trump movement. White male rage? These men, operating on the fringes of mainstream politics, have demonstrated a penchant for attention-grabbing maneuvers that seem to stem more from ego than genuine political conviction

New York, N.Y. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., scion of a political dynasty, has launched an independent presidential bid that many view as quixotic at best. His campaign, fueled by conspiracy theories and anti-vaccine rhetoric, appears to be more about personal validation than substantive policy. Similarly, Joe Manchin, the former Democrat turned independent, has repeatedly positioned himself as a political maverick, often at the expense of his former party’s agenda.

While their efforts might seem comical on the surface, the potential for real damage to the anti-Trump movement is significant. By siphoning votes and attention away from more viable candidates, these fringe actors risk fragmenting the opposition to Trump’s potential return to power. Manchin’s recent call for Biden to withdraw from the 2024 race, for instance, has added unnecessary turbulence to an already challenging political climate.

The irony is that these men, in their quest for relevance, may inadvertently bolster the very forces they claim to oppose. Their brittle egos and need for the spotlight could ultimately undermine the cohesion needed to present a united front against Trump’s divisive politics.The political landscape has been peppered with figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Joe Manchin, whose actions have raised eyebrows and concerns within the anti-Trump movement. These men, operating on the fringes of mainstream politics, have demonstrated a penchant for attention-grabbing maneuvers that seem to stem more from ego than genuine political conviction.

Kennedy, scion of a political dynasty, has launched an independent presidential bid that many view as quixotic at best. His campaign, fueled by conspiracy theories and anti-vaccine rhetoric, appears to be more about personal validation than substantive policy. Similarly, Manchin, the former Democrat turned independent, has repeatedly positioned himself as a political maverick, often at the expense of his former party’s agenda.

While their efforts might seem comical on the surface, the potential for real damage to the anti-Trump movement is significant. By siphoning votes and attention away from more viable candidates, these fringe actors risk fragmenting the opposition to Trump’s potential return to power. Manchin’s recent call for Biden to withdraw from the 2024 race, for instance, has added unnecessary turbulence to an already challenging political climate.

The irony is that these men, in their quest for relevance, inadvertently bolster the very forces they claim to oppose. Their brittle egos and need for the spotlight could ultimately undermine the cohesion needed to present a united front against Trump’s divisive politics.

In Quest for Relevance, Kennedy and Manchin Bolster Trump (July 22, 2024)