There are two Bush scenarios, and you quoted both here. I’m not sure what one you’re referring to. One where Bush referred to Dred Scott in a 2004 debate, which was a clear dog whistle. One where he made some comments about Harriet Miers. No one has linked to what those comments were, so I have no idea whether those constituted a dog whistle or not.
I conclude that all dog whistles were fake? Really? I did no such thing. If you think I did, I suggest you reread it.
Yes, but nearly everyone in the U.S. largely has that, so one might suspect that people who call for “freedom of speech” in certain contexts actually mean something else.
Or they’re paranoid themselves.
“Gay agenda” isn’t a dog whistle, or even a code word; it’s pretty much straight-up (so to speak) gay-baiting. Maybe I’m just too young to remember, but I can’t imagine it’s ever been anything else.
Part of the purpose of dog whistles is that they make people who point them out look hypersensitive and paranoid (and indeed, sometimes people point to alleged dog-whistles when in fact those people are hypersensitive and paranoid).
I saw one blogger speculate, years ago, that Republicans at the time were running into trouble with Jewish voters in some areas because they were using phrases that had traditionally been antisemitic dog whistles (praise for farmers and soldiers and condemnation of “academic elites” and “Hollywood values”), but meaning them literally. Similarly, it is my recollection that Mitt Romney in one of the 2012 debates said something about “international bankers,” by which I strongly suspect he meant literal international bankers, but it’s hard to tell.
In trying to find something more reliable than my memory for Romney talking about “international bankers,” I saw mention of the phrase on an Obama-rimming blog, a context in which I have no trouble believing it’s a dog whistle.
Dammit, just missed the edit window looking for the blog post in question. I misremembered it, Yglesias wasn’t saying Republicans were getting in trouble, he was noting the tendency. Still a good illustration, I think.
I’ve read a great many anti-abortion articles, blog posts, and columns in my life. I recall the Dred Scott decision being mentioned in relation to abortion maybe once–my memory’s a little fuzzy about it.
Also, Bush had stated openly to everyone, long before that debate, that he was opposed to abortion. He said it often and clearly. So what benefit would he get from stating that he was opposed to abortion in a way that only a few people would understand?
I’m of the camp that doesn’t take any claim about dog whistles seriously. I’m particularly amused by the notion that “religious freedom” is a dog whistle; who were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison whistling to when they wrote our nation’s founding documents?
It’s like the conspiracy theory that claims, because there is no evidence to support it, that is proof that it’s being suppressed!
No, I think welfare queen is supposed to be a dog whistle. I don’t think Reagan, or those who came after him, ever came out and said what was the skin colour of that mythical lady living the high, steak-and-lobster life on food stamps.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s more of a dog foghorn these days, but still.
Anyway, my contribution : when the adjective is applied to a person, “cosmopolitan” tends to mean “Jew”. “International bankers” is another well-known one.
[QUOTE=ITR champion]
I’m of the camp that doesn’t take any claim about dog whistles seriously. I’m particularly amused by the notion that “religious freedom” is a dog whistle; who were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison whistling to when they wrote our nation’s founding documents?
[/QUOTE]
Did they mean “the freedom to discriminate against and/or bash gays” ? Because that’s pretty much what the word means now. “Religious freedom” in 2015 refers to a very specific subset of a very specific religion.
I may not be stating this well, but I seem to see the term “dog whistle” being used by people who cannot believe that a political opponent may just be saying something reasonable, and that these horrible persons must actually be calling for something horrible in code that the other horribleness-supporters will understand.
It seems as convoluted as any other conspiracy theory.
No, you are not stating that well. Nor could you nor anyone.
I see, “Obama is a Muslim sympathizer” as a dog whistle.
The left disagrees. OK. But the right agrees, AND it’s a secret validation to their belief that he’s actually a Muslim.
Saying “Hollywood elite” is a dog whistle meaning Jews, gays, and liberals.
When the right says race relations have gotten worse during Obama’s presidency.
The message heard is, “This is what happens when a black man is in charge. He’s allowing the blacks to get uppity.”
[QUOTE=rock party]
I see, “Obama is a Muslim sympathizer” as a dog whistle.
[/QUOTE]
That’s not a whistle. That’s not even a dog. That is the entire pack.
Yea, that’s pretty blatant, but many of the criticisms of Obama’s handling of Iraq and the Middle East in general aren’t just that he’s doing a bad job or lacking…there’s also the secret caveat, “BECAUSE HE HIMSELF IS A MUSLIM”
Edit: good grief, was I ever wrong in this post. Never mind, I’ll repost again in a bit.
If you call him a muslim, it’s not a secret that you think he’s a muslim.
A dog whistle is not “something someone says that I don’t like”.
I think that the former chair of the RNC Lee Atwater gives a pretty good description of what a dog whistle is:
A better example: A few months ago when FOX was having panel shows discussing Obama refusing to label ISIS Islamic. They would stress how much indeed it is Islamic, then they’d ask WHY? WHY won’t Obama call a spade an Islamic? Why is he refusing to tell the obvious truth? WHY?
Now FOX has moved beyond the birther crap, but they were definitely sending a message out to those folks who still believe that Obama is really a Muslim.
Yea, I worded that wrong. When they say Obama sympathizes with Muslims.
Bush was known to be pro-life. This was his way of signaling that he would use a pro-life litmus test for Supreme Court justices. But I suppose you believe he was simply indicating that he would only appoint justices that opposed Dred Scott.
No, the founders actually meant religious freedom. Current republicans seem to mean freedom to gay-bash. I hesitate to call this one a dog-whistle, though. The phrase used up-thread, “dog fog-horn”, seems more apt.
Do Democrats ise dog whistles or are all Democrat politicians completely above board at all times,
As mentioned, “diversity” is often a dog whistle.