Last year I called out a "coded" message to anti-choice Republican Fundamentalists that George Bush used in one of the presidential debates. It turns out that there's actually a Made-in-Australia phrase for this sort of thing:
[Dog-Whistle Politics] refers to a campaign message that will not cause general offence, but which contains a coded message to which sympathetic voters will respond, in the same way that a dog will hear an ultrasonic whistle inaudible to the humans around it.
Hat Tip: Iocaste
A lot of people seemed to have difficulty believing this kind of politics exists, but it's a venerable tradition, particularly among people who consider themselves to be persecuted:
Some Christians believe that a second link between their religion and the fish symbol is seen in the Greek word for fish (ichthus, spelled: Iota Chi Theta Upsilon Sigma). That is an acrostic for "Jesus Christ, of God, the Son, the Savior" [Iesous (Jesus) CHristos (Christ) THeou (of God) Uiou (the Son) Soter (the Savior)]. ...
The symbol was simple to draw and was often used among Christians as a type of password during times of persecution by the Roman government. If two strangers met and were unsure whether each other was a Christian, one would draw an arc in the earth like:). If the other were a Christian, they would complete the symbol with a reverse arc: (), forming the outline of a fish.
Using a television program for this thing is not too different from using a stick -- it's just a matter of scale. Bush's use of "coded" messages to to communicate with Republican Fundamentalists has a twofold purpose and result.
First, the dog-whistle politics element communicates to the Republican Fundamentalists a sympathy with their political views (which may or may not exist). Second, and perhaps more important, just the use of coded messages plays to the false Republican Fundamentalist belief in their persecution, and increases their belief that George Bush is really a member of their "persecuted" community and deserving of their support.
That second result is most dangerous over the long term, as the false belief in their own persecution among the Republican Fundamentalists, combined with a sense of "ownership" of this President may have unpredictable and explosive results. The game that Bush and Rove are playing here is not a safe one.






I'm sure that dog whistle politics exist but it's also strikingly similar to a symptom of schizophrenia.
Posted by: eRobin | May 19, 2005 at 08:19 PM
This reminds me of a Mark Schmitt ("Decembrist") post from just after the election ... The Remnant, 11/18/2004 ... about a friend who sports a TGWW -- Thank God Dubya Won -- bumpersticker on his blog, marketed with the message "It's a big 'hell yeah!' that will impress your friends and confound your enemies."
BTW, you might consider Schmitt for your blogroll, maybe under "Democrats," although I don't know where the New America Foundation fits in in that respect. I think he's a good guy.
Posted by: Thomas Nephew | May 20, 2005 at 01:07 PM
Yes, I think that Michael Howard was trying to engage in dog whistle politics with help from Australian Liberals this year, although some of it wasn't entirely inaudible. He was pretty clear on immigration.
To nitpick. It should probably be uios (can't do breathing marks) rather than uiou which would be genitive "of Son". If uios is in apposition with Iesus, it would be nominative too.
Posted by: Abby | May 20, 2005 at 02:15 PM
Abby - The Greek there should be for fish, not Jesus. If it's wrong, I'm happy to change it for the right Greek -- can you give me the html?
Thomas - Schmitt is on my blogroll, under Iv'ry Tower. That may not be perfect, but I think it fits his writing and thinking style pretty well.
Posted by: paperwight | May 20, 2005 at 03:41 PM
pdub--ixthus is fish. You're right. This is what I was referring to:
"[Iesous (Jesus) CHristos (Christ) THeou (of God) Uiou (the Son) Soter (the Savior)]" It should be Uios, not Uiou.
Posted by: Abby | May 20, 2005 at 03:46 PM
Ah. Well as should be clear by now, I have exactly zero classical language skills. You might want to drop the Religious Tolerance folks a line.
Posted by: paperwight | May 20, 2005 at 03:49 PM
Well here's a quick link. I'll pass it on. When you write a word that starts with a vowel, you need to use a breathing mark. Rough or smooth. A rough breathing mark is the equivalent of an h. So uios would be pronounced huios.
Posted by: Abby | May 20, 2005 at 04:43 PM
Though it is a few months late, Uiou is the genitive ending, making the phrase "the Son of God" or "God's Son," therefore it is perfectly acceptable. I have had a difficult time determining whether the original Ichthus was Uiou or Uios (the nominative case ending). Also, though accents and breathing marks are found in our current Greek texts, the New Testament was written in all capitals and no accents or breathing marks or punctuation (or spaces for that matter).
Posted by: sean k higgins | Jul 19, 2005 at 04:43 PM