The “dog whistle” is a language technique mostly used by politicians in their statements that mean one thing on the surface but can also imply something different for a certain group of people. The name comes from the gadget, dog whistle, which is used to call dogs but is not very audible to the human ear. It can be used to influence and trigger the audience to think differently about the topic at hand subconsciously; in fact, left-wing supporters constantly accuse right-wing candidates of indirect discrimination through the use of dog-whistles.

In a democratic society, everybody has free speech but is judged and penalised by their actions and words, in case they are violating the rights of others. This type of communication, where the dog whistle is used, cannot be proven and penalised as it is not a direct threat to or violation of the rights of other people. An infamous example is the usage of criminal Willie Horton in the election against Michael Dukakis by George Bush. An advertisement referring to the criminal’s offences was made and aired on national television in the United States of America during the campaign by not explicitly mentioning William Horton but putting a picture which clearly signifies that he is black, as well as not showing his name but mentioning it as “Willie” which emphasises blackness more than William. It mentioned how Dukakis was not as tough as he should be and if he were to be chosen, black people who were more likely to be criminals would wander around freely in the country.[1] Although this is now seen as a very famous usage of dog whistle politics, it is still one of the reasons why Dukakis lost his lead and Bush went on to be the president of the United States. Thus, dog whistle politics might be a very effective strategy.

It can be argued that dog whistle politics does not exist since there is nothing you can directly accuse the user of. It might be a tactic by the opposition to discredit the arguments of the speaker without addressing the content of their speech. The difference between direct discrimination and dog whistle is the assumption that there is an implication and the user aims to pass the discriminative message onto some parts of the audience. The technique is only based on assumptions and accusations. An example of assumed dog whistle usage is when in 1992, Paul Tsongas accused Bill Clinton, his opponent, as “cynical and unprincipled” for his usage of supposedly coded words - which is a similar concept to dog whistle. He mentioned that it is divisive and not acceptable. Bill Clinton using this shows how easy it is to slip away from accusations of dog whistle politics and argue that it does not exist. As it is very hard to prove something that is indirect and is just implied, one can argue that it is not wrong to use dog whistle politics as a form of political communication in a democratic society.

On a different note, as a form of political communication, dog whistling is not the best way of campaigning. The politicians who use it, when publicised, are degraded and shamed by those who believe that they should not use a technique like this to discriminate against others or disregard the opponent; they should praise and prioritise their own plans and actions instead. Politics of this sort is seen as disrespectful and unethical as it is used to manipulate the audience and may be quite similar to hate speech. A famous example is how the current president of the United States of America, Donald Trump, always mentions the middle name of the previous president, Barack Hussein Obama. According to Vox’s Ian Olasov, “Among people who consume media that mentions Muslims primarily in contexts that stoke fear and distrust, the name 'Hussein' will evoke those attitudes.”[3] Not only does this show the disreputable speech strategy Trump uses, thus causing the voter to degrade Trump, but also that racism in media can cause many problems in society. Therefore, trying to prove the other candidates to be less worthy, instead of arguing one’s own case, through the use of dog whistle politics is the wrong approach towards gaining votes and should not be used as a means of political communication in a democratic society.

On the other hand, if used properly, it might benefit politicians greatly. Since it cannot be proven that dog-whistle exists in a speech or text, supporters can easily ignore the dog whistle even if it intentionally includes messages they disapprove. This way, the dog whistle would not affect the politician negatively but only attract other supporters who may approve the underlying message. This might be an effective way to use the technique and might help politicians gain more votes and get to or remain in the office. This suggests one way in which dog whistle politics can be a handy means of political communication and one of the correct strategies in a democratic society for political candidates.

It is also worth mentioning that dog whistle politics is an expected form of political communication in a democratic society. In democracies, politicians mainly focus on getting votes as the system forces them to have a good public image and be competitive; with charisma and degradation of other candidates being considerable factors in winning an election. It is this desire to be more appealing than the others that forces politicians to work on techniques like dog-whistle politics. This is not an ideal system as the primary job of the politician should be to serve people instead of being “likeable”; the system of democracy allows anyone “suitable” -usually measured by age and only sometimes by the appropriate education- in society to be able to run for office as well as to vote, which is measured by.

However, this gives a chance to candidates like Donald Trump -who arguably does not have the appropriate education, skills and experience- to rule a country. Many philosophers agree with this notion, an example being Plato, who, in Republic, Book VI, discusses that “democracy is inferior to various forms of monarchy, aristocracy and even oligarchy on the grounds that democracy tends to undermine the expertise necessary to properly governed societies.”[4] The ignorance of the electorate and unsatisfactory expertise of the candidates provide us with inadequate governments. In a system where anyone can run for office and everyone can vote, it is and it is not necessarily wrong to pursue the speech technique according to the basic principles of the system.

The usage of dog whistle politics brings other problems with it as well. Since different parts of the audience infer different meanings, neither know what they are exactly voting for. When passed onto the electorate this way, politicians seem to be tricking the people to get more votes and win elections due to the unclear promises of the candidates, and the knowledge gap and ignorance of the electorate. The confusion can be from misunderstandings as well as multiple messages from the candidate using dog whistling. This creates confusion amongst the electorate as well as bringing dissatisfaction once the candidate is in office. They can later accuse the candidate of not doing what they have promised.

When it comes to using dog whistle politics as a means of political communication in democratic societies, it is hard to argue that it is wrong as the system itself allows a lot of ethically and politically incorrect techniques. Even though it can benefit or cost the political figure depending on the situation, its usage can be explained perfectly and defended easily. It can benefit the ones that use it correctly and attract new groups of the electorate to vote for them; on the other hand, it can be seen as unethical and disrespectful, thus degrading the candidate. It can create confusions upon the public and can lead to unfair circumstances. One thing is for sure, it can be a very powerful strategy and can turn elections around.

References

[1] Withers, R. George H.W. Bush’s “Willie Horton” ad will always be the reference point for dog-whistle racism. Vox Media https://www.vox.com/2018/12/1/18121221/george-hw-bush-willie-horton-dog-whistle-politics (2018).

[2] Broder, D. S. Tsongas calls Clinton ‘cynical’, ‘unprincipled’, divisive. The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1992/03/07/tsongas-calls-clinton-cynical-unprincipled-divisive/f8165ebd-aef0-4e14-bd94-8e7dc7d61421/ (1992).

[3] Olasov, I. Offensive political dog whistles: you know them when you hear them. Or do you?. Vox Media https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/7/13549154/dog-whistles-campaign-racism (2016).

[4] Christiano, T. Democracy, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (ed. Zalta, E. N.) https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/democracy/ (2018).

Photo: History in HD, Unsplash.