Does racist dog whistle politics work?
In 1968, when it became clear that American Apartheid no longer existed as a matter of law anywhere in the country, the first president to be elected was Richard ‘Law and Order’ Nixon….
He won reelection in an electoral landslide carrying every state except Massachusetts…
Nixon won the 1972 election taking 60.7% of the popular vote and carrying 49 states while being the first Republican to sweep the South.
No Democratic president has gotten a majority of the white vote since since LBJ ….
Trump has turned Nixon’s ‘silent majority’, ‘law and order’ dog whistle into a bugle…
Don’t underestimate the lingering power and lure of the call to the myth of American normalcy:
The idea that: gays in the closet, women in the kitchen, and blacks in their place will “make America Great Again” resonates with people who won’t openly admit or acknowledge their allegiances to retrogressive positions, policies, and politicians.
Trump is running on white fear, anxiety, and animus…
He knows that he doesn’t have to win…
He knows that all he needs to do is keep the Democratic victory within the 3/5% threshold of the statistical margin of error…
He wants to avoid a crushing defeat that may be seen as an electoral mandate and an outright rejection and repudiation of him and his attempt to destroy our democracy and his intention to ‘deconstruct the administrative state.’
08/31/2020 @ 4:48 pm
Your title is a stupid question. Is there any remote question in your mind whether it works?
You know how conservatives call us “bleeding heart liberals?” Conservatives have an emotional trigger too; they just don’t admit it. Their trigger is anyone getting anything conservatives think they don’t deserve, and they will spend any amount of money to stop that or prevent it. They don’t think anyone deserves special treatment except maybe the disabled. They don’t believe anyone else gets significantly substandard treatment now. They believe they are being taken advantage of by anyone receiving any kind of Affirmative Action, gay people, trans people, and illegal immigrants. They are concerned with what they perceive of injustice in one direction: Theirs. Special action in favor of Black people in any given community is Racism; the police shooting unarmed Black guys disproportionately is mistakes that are part of the cost of having police.
Why they’re wrong, or perhaps how they’re wrong, is a very long conversation. The fact is they feel this way and they’re deeply angry about it, which is why they love Trump, because he’s also angry about it and he legitimizes the public expression of what they view as perfectly valid grievances that shouldn’t be suppressed or censored.
09/01/2020 @ 1:38 am
@Koshersalaami;
In the era of Trump and Trumpism, there are no stupid questions.
There are, however, a host of stupid answers.
That is the nature of rhetorical interrogation in the context of the Socratic Method of analytical inquiry…
The question seems to be absurd on its face because of what we may deem to be the clear and obvious answer until we recognize that the necessary, appropriate, and more important follow-up question is: WHY?
It’s not about what you and I know to be the case. It’s about what those who would deny that they respond to the ‘dog whistle turned clarion call’ believe to be the case…
It’s about those who would deny that they are responding to a racists call to racism….
The Republican Party and Conservative Ideology have parted ways to such an extent that true Conservatives are leaving the Republican party and are openly declaring their intentions to support and vote for Biden….
The Lincoln Project is an example and manifestation of such political shifts and movement…
09/01/2020 @ 9:29 am
The question does seem absurd on its face but I’m realizing there are some ambiguities to it I hadn’t considered. It depends what you mean by “work.” And there is Bitey’s observation that by your own statement the dog whistle is no longer Trump’s tool of choice, so the question may be irrelevant.
That Trump has switched to a bugle is beyond question. He’s doing everything but blatantly say he’s a racist as is seen by his visit to Kenosha and his defense of that murderous seventeen year old kid walking around with an semiautomatic weapon and killing two people.
But I’ll get back to the question of “work.” You could mean either of two things: that the dog whistle works on its intended audience (obviously; if this is your question, the answer would be screamingly obvious to everyone who ever posts or comments here with one exception, and the question with the exception is whether he doesn’t believe it works or whether he wouldn’t admit it works) or whether mobilizing the racists is enough to win a national election. At this point, I’d say that without really, really compromising access to voting, the numbers suggest that racism isn’t enough to win this election. This is not to say that antiracism can beat it by itself, though that’s currently possible in the aftermath of George Floyd. The Kenosha police department will come off looking terrible but not necessarily because of the shooting that started all this but because of their actions in its aftermath. There are a series of other factors against Trump that are not specifically about racism, especially his coronavirus reaction coupled with its awful economic consequences though also his reaction to the Afghanistan bounties, his use of Federal agents against American civilians, and his continuing use of the Constitution as a doormat.
So, what’s the post about? That “Trump is running on White fear, anxiety, and animus”? That statement using a simpler vocabulary might be useful in a fifth grade classroom but is way too obvious to have a place here.
09/01/2020 @ 10:02 am
@Koshersalaami;
“…way too obvious to have a place here.”
Subtlety and nuance don’t work very well here either…
I repeat, “the necessary, appropriate, and more important follow-up question is: WHY?”
Trump entered the political arena as a racist proponent of ‘birtherism’.
His running on racism is not the only campaign strategem, but taking a page from the Nixon 1968 silent majority, law and order playbook is what he and his ‘advisors’ believe, along with suppression and dis enfranchisement, can keep the election tight enough to cry foul and fraud in an effort to challenge the outcome…
09/01/2020 @ 7:57 am
For a message to be a “dog whistle”, it can only be heard by those for whom it is intended. If it can be detected by those for whom it is not intended, it is not a dog whistle. Further, if it is a bugle, it is figuratively, and quite literally not a dog whistle.
If your question must be adjusted with, “well, you know what I mean”, then it is a poor question. The purpose of the Socratic method is to eliminate hypotheses. If your hypothesis relies on allowing definitions which are not strict definitions, then your hypothesis is potentially as flexible as one can find alternate meanings for every word within it. That would render the hypothesis meaningless. If the hypothesis is meaningless, eliminating it is both meaningless and impossible.
A hypothesis must contain concepts which can exist within a line of reasoning. If a premise can not exist, by virtue of the fact that it lacks a definable meaning, then the premise is false, and the argument fails. Therefore an element which lacks definition can not serve as a premise. If it can not serve as a premise, it can not be eliminated by the Socratic method.
The only answer to your question is no. If it is a “dog whistle”, it can only be detected by those for whom it is intended. If that is the critical factor in its efficacy politically, it wont go beyond its captive constituency. If it can be detected, it has lost secrecy, which is the dog whistle’ s purpose. If it is blatant, as a bugle suggests, then it is even less effective.
09/01/2020 @ 9:25 am
@Bitey;
‘Dog whistle’ has become a figure of speech which lacks the exactitude you describe…
For a person who eschews ‘ absolutes’ you demonstrate a proclivity for the rigidity required of thinking/ communicating in absolute terms….
The meanings of terms can change over time and within varying contexts….
The purpose is not always to construct an immutable syllogism to prove a point…
If we insisted on staying stuck on stupid, segregation would still be ‘the law of the land’ and ‘the black man would have no rights the white man is bound to respect’…
BTW
What are you doing here?
09/01/2020 @ 10:40 am
Ron, you said “dog whistle politics.” “Dog whistle” has become idiomatic, but “politics” adds specificity. Do/does dog whistle politics work? No. Like I said before, if it is only detectable by those from whom it is intended, it wont succeed. Does “dog whistle” exist as a definition within rhetoric but not strictly political, yes.
The answer to your question is no. “Politics”is a modifier. “Dog whistle” has that shifting definition on its own. Modified by politics, it doesn’t work.
09/01/2020 @ 10:32 am
Interesting question. Peas succotash, succotash and peas. That’s a perfectly acceptable answer to your question if word meaning need not regulate communication.
For an answer that will satisfy my standards, I am here because you asked a question that presented several problems with its construction. Kosher mentioned one of them already. “What do you mean by work?” Given that, it is a rather sloppy question. In addition to that, the previous answer states its purpose. It answers your question where specific worm meaning is relevant. The answer to your question is no. As Kosher stated, it is a poor question. And finally, the reason I am here has two more parts. First, I suspected that when confronted with a reasoned answer, you would resort directly to ad hominem. You did. The second part is, your preening about the Socratic method was asking for some feathers to be plucked. If your title had an obvious answer, and there is no other hypothesis as Kosher stated, then it is not the Socratic method. If your theory is based upon a false premise, it is not the Socratic method. if you don’t use strict definitions in your premise, your theory is false. And as you stated to me several days ago regarding a conversation stand up in a court room, if you use definitions sloppily, your arguments wont succeed.
Thus I have demonstrated that you have shifting principles depending upon whether the subject is yourself or someone else. You don’t really want intellectual exploration. You only want to say racism exists. So, thanks for the haughty yet clumsy statement of the obvious.
09/01/2020 @ 10:36 am
Sorry…didn’t mean to call you a “worm”.
09/01/2020 @ 11:15 am
@Bitey;
If no one but those for whom it is intended can hear the ‘dog whistle’, how do we know that such a thing exists?
The media has made reference to Trump’s ‘dog whistle politics’ quite often in the past several weeks. How is it possible for them to report on and talk about that which many of them can’t hear?
Faux News notwithstanding….
09/01/2020 @ 11:33 am
I’ll answer your questions, Ron, but you seem to not like having your questions answered.
The answer is quite simple. “The media” is as sloppy use of a term as “work” is ending your original question. Given this amorphous element, who is to say how they do anything. It depends.
Second, play closer attention this time. You asked “does dog whistle politics work”? “Reporting on and talking about” is not a statement about whether or not it “works.” I answered the question as you wrote it. Does it work. “Dog whistle” + “politics” can’t work…politically. Can “dog whistle” be reported on? Of course. Working and reporting on are not the same thing. Can Loch Ness monster be reported on? Yes. Does it exist? No. Can you see the difference in your questions?
Racism can be and is detected in Trump’s politics. Trump’s followers know it, and his opponents know it. For it to be dog whistle, as even your post acknowledges with the “bugle” comment, it would have to go undetected. An example of that might be tax policy. Trump, and many other Republicans have convinced middle class people to vote for tax cuts for the wealthy. If the middle class can not see that the policies that they vote for do not benefit them, or hurt them, that messaging may be a “dog whistle.” Racism has a detectable impact. If Trump and the Postmaster remove mail sorting machines to suppress voting, that can be detected, no matter what the messaging is. If they claim it is for preserving profit for the Post Office, it is obvious what they are attempting. The press may call that “dog whistle” messaging or politics, but it is just a sloppy use of the term.
09/01/2020 @ 3:31 pm
We’re past dog whistles. When an administration hires Steve Bannon, no dog whistles are necessary. When the President talked about “good people on both sides” in regard to Charlottesville where one side was literally Nazis, dog whistles are irrelevant. We get it.
Which leads to loads of questions about the point of the post. Do dog whistles reach their intended audiences? Of course. That is too unambiguous to need a post. Of all the people who ever comment on this site, only one would disagree, and that’s because of his politics.
Yes, the press continues to use the term, but that’s because the press is lazy and not generally to be trusted for analysis. These are the same guys who gave Trump way more of a free pass than they gave Hillary and in doing so handed him the Presidency. These are the same guys who still treat Fox News as their peers.
You say the question is Why. Why what? Why are people responding to dog whistles? For the time being that’s irrelevant, but the answer is because those are posited in their language, in this case meaning encompassing the idioms and implications of their dialect of Political English.
Why do they respond to racism? I think I answered that in an earlier comment.
What are you trying to say here? What conversation are you trying to have? If it’s about voter disenfranchisement, you’ve made it too peripheral to the post. If it’s about “the myth of American normalcy,” again, you’ve made it too peripheral; to the post.
And, maybe, who are you trying to have the conversation with? If you’re trying to have it with us, there’s nothing remotely new here. If you’re trying to have it with racists, you’ll get absolutely nowhere because they won’t admit you’re right and too many of them don’t think their resentment is racist.
I don’t get the post. I don’t understand either what you’re trying to say to whom or what kind of discussion you envision.
09/01/2020 @ 10:48 am
I forgot to address this part.
“…If we insisted on staying stuck on stupid, segregation would still be ‘the law of the land’ and ‘the black man would have no rights the white man is bound to respect’…
BTW
What are you doing here?“
Do you see the humor in tying “stupid” and then “segregation” in succession…and then asking me what I am “doing here?” That’s a good one, Ron. I never would have thought that you liked self deprecating humor. Well done!
09/01/2020 @ 3:38 pm
@Bitey;
serendipitous irony
09/01/2020 @ 4:15 pm
And my irony was intentional. It also gave you an out. Now, you give me no choice but to say that to decry “segregation” next to “what are you doing here”…well, you do the math. Maybe get a little WD40, you know, to get unstuck.
09/01/2020 @ 7:31 pm
@Bitey;
“What are you doing here?”, is a reference to your inviting me to leave your page…
That being the case, why do you feel that it is appropriate to visit mine?
No reference or comment was made to or about you…
Have you rescinded your exclusion of me?
I won’t exclude anyone here…
As long as the debate and discourse remains civil, I’m OK with it.
I have no fear of challenges re being rebuffed, rejected, or repudiated…
As someone once said: “After all, this is just social media.”
09/02/2020 @ 2:40 pm
Well, Ron, you’ll notice that I only ever address the issue. You, on the other hand make statements about me. As long as you do, you’re not making a contribution. I think you should be able to see and understand the difference. When presented with it, you tend to avoid it and change the subject. So, yeah, I am willing to hear your responses that say, “Bitey thinks…”, etc. That’s what I am for. No one needs you for that. Let’s see, that bs about “you just think that being a former cop you know better…”…or whatever you said. Pure bullshit, Ron. If I have such a feeling, you can know that I will express it. I just don’t happen to think like that. if you feel the urge to spew such rubbish, you can just save it. But if you can offer a legitimate perspective without such low tricks…feel free. Oh, let’s see…the “did you ever think that you’re one of the good ones…”. That’s some pretty low shit, Ron, and you know it. That’s just a polite way of saying house N…right? Learn to examine yourself, stick to the issue, and ADMIT when you’re wrong. Don’t you dare reach for that ‘Blacker than you’ trash. I have zero problem banning that. I am also confident that I have the emotional maturity and the requisite respect to not do it to you. We’re not talking about complementary opposites, Ron. I never called you, “one of the good ones.”
“After all, this is just social media…”, can only be said by someone who lacks character. Your principles go with you wherever you are.
09/01/2020 @ 11:14 pm
You need to see this.
It’s a spoken word performance from tonight’s America’s Got Talent and it is the best short encapsulation of what BLM is real;ly about I’ve ever seen.