Republicans and dog whistles
Taegan Goddard on why Republicans are better at getting away with dog whistle campaign tactics, points to a great CQ column. Craig Crawford writes:
Dean and Durbin were trying to rally their faithful with the harsh, red-meat language that partisans enjoy, but they have a lot to learn about how to deploy the stiletto instead of the assault rifle.
One reason Republicans keep Democrats on the defensive is how effectively they speak to their partisan ideologues and still manage to avoid a backlash from moderates. Speaking in words that the faithful understand — while sounding innocuous to the uninitiated — is how the modern game of niche politics is played.
"Dog whistle" tactics are used by campaigners to speak to core constituents in ways not overtly offensive to mainstream voters, while still energizing the party faithful who can decode the message, or "hear" the dog whistle while normal people remain oblivious. Paperwight did a post on this recently. Crawford:
The below- the-radar niche press runs wild with your true meaning, while the conventional media remains clueless, leaving few scars on those who would otherwise take offense.
This is something Dems definitely have to work on, both in actual utilization and recognizing it when used by the right. Bush's mention of Dred Scott during the final debate with Kerry was when it became obvious to the left that something, indeed, was up. It was such a nonsensical claim at the time -- comparing the Scott case to abortion -- that Dems laughed it off at first. The conservative base instantly got the message loud and clear, however.
Posted by: Justin | 27 June 2005 at 12:12 AM
I had the same conversation with people over and over again:
1) That can't be right. The president would never do that. Yes, yes it's right: check the Google search.
2) Well, who would get that? It's so obscure. Everyone who's a hardcore anti-choice activist. And those who don't get it will hear it from their preachers on Sunday.
3) Well, why would he do that? Aren't those people going to vote for him anyway? His openly stated position is more moderate than that. The base is crucial for this election. He needs to get them to the polls rather than staying home.
And now it's pretty much accepted wisdom that Bush did that and continues to do that.
Posted by: paperwight | 27 June 2005 at 09:25 AM
I remember you were one of the first to post on the Dred Scott ref. I did too. I hit me like a truck during the debate. It was so out there it was obviously code-talk, then it occurred to me that Dred Scott was decided on due process grounds -- similar to abortion caselaw. I looked it up and *bingo*. If anything, the Dred Scott reference is an example of failed dog whistling. The forum was too prominent and too many non-constituents heard the tone.
I don't think it's that hard to develop a sixth sense where, even if you don't understand the code-talk, you feel it when it's happening. I used to do a lot of -- mostly amiable -- BBS debates with right-wingers back in the day, and you can recognize their discourse patterns after a while. Reading that stuff is the best way to develop your antenna. SO I hope you keep encouraging your readers to spend time learning how they talk to each other. Subtext is very important.
Posted by: Stygius | 27 June 2005 at 09:33 AM
If anything, the Dred Scott reference is an example of failed dog whistling. The forum was too prominent and too many non-constituents heard the tone.
I think this is one of the few times that the liberal blogs made a big difference in the election coverage. I think without them, the corporate media would have been too polite/cowed to mention anything about it, even had they recognized it. That was a miscalculation by the Bush team.
Posted by: paperwight | 27 June 2005 at 10:28 AM
Why I did not know about existence of this site earlier? The Excellent project! I congratulate
http://cadillac.125mb.com/Cadillac-deville.html>1977 cadillac deville
Posted by: Cadellatorya | 31 May 2007 at 05:07 PM
Why I did not know about existence of this site earlier? The Excellent project! I congratulate
http://cadillac.125mb.com/Cadillac-deville.html>1977 cadillac deville
Posted by: Cadellatorya | 31 May 2007 at 05:07 PM
Why I did not know about existence of this site earlier? The Excellent project! I congratulate
http://cadillac.125mb.com/Cadillac-deville.html>1977 cadillac deville
Posted by: Cadellatorya | 31 May 2007 at 05:07 PM
Why I did not know about existence of this site earlier? The Excellent project! I congratulate
http://cadillac.125mb.com/Cadillac-deville.html>1977 cadillac deville
Posted by: Cadellatorya | 31 May 2007 at 05:07 PM
Why I did not know about existence of this site earlier? The Excellent project! I congratulate
http://cadillac.125mb.com/Cadillac-deville.html>1977 cadillac deville
Posted by: Cadellatorya | 31 May 2007 at 05:07 PM
Why I did not know about existence of this site earlier? The Excellent project! I congratulate
http://cadillac.125mb.com/Cadillac-deville.html>1977 cadillac deville
Posted by: Cadellatorya | 31 May 2007 at 05:08 PM
Why I did not know about existence of this site earlier? The Excellent project! I congratulate
http://cadillac.125mb.com/Cadillac-deville.html>1977 cadillac deville
Posted by: Cadellatorya | 31 May 2007 at 05:08 PM
Hi to all! I really need your help. I want to choose really effective spam filters. Now I use these http://www.tb-mail.com/>spam filters
but I want to make better my spyware- and spam-protection. There is no spam filters for my smartphone here http://www.tb-mail.com/ Please, help me to choose really effective spam filters for my smartphone and PC. Thanks!
Posted by: BloggerSam | 08 September 2007 at 03:21 PM