Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
That wasn’t a whistle (and everyone knows it wasn’t the dog)

That wasn’t a whistle (and everyone knows it wasn’t the dog)

Last updated on: March 10, 2016 at 6:07 pm by Fred Clark

That wasn’t a whistle (and everyone knows it wasn’t the dog) 2016-03-10T18:07:58-05:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Back when Michael Gerson was a speechwriter for President George W. Bush, he used to sprinkle little bits of evangelicalese into the president’s remarks. These mostly went unnoticed by others, but evangelical Christians picked up on the subtle nods in their direction. This strengthened Bush’s appeal with evangelical voters while avoiding more explicitly sectarian language that might have been off-putting to others.

In his 2003 State of the Union address, for example, Bush said: “There is power — wonder-working power — in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people.” Evangelicals recognized that allusion to a favorite gospel hymn* and responded with the same kind of delight comic-book fans have when their subculture is acknowledged with a passing hat-tip or Easter egg in big-budget superhero movie. Fan-service like this makes the fans feel included, and it makes them feel like the speaker is one of them.

This use of subcultural language that might go unnoticed by the rest of the population came to be called “dog-whistling.” It was an apt analogy. Dog whistles produce a high-frequency noise that’s beyond the range of human hearing. We humans can’t hear it, but dogs can. You can blow a dog whistle in a crowded park and none of the humans there will notice a thing, but you’ll have the attention of every dog in the area.

Over time, this “dog-whistling” metaphor came to be applied to any use of coded political language intended to appeal to a particular sub-culture. Thus where Bush’s “wonder-working power” was a form of dog-whistling to evangelical voters, another politician’s references to “states’ rights” or “law and order” was referred to as a form of dog-whistling to white racist voters.

But here the analogy with an actual dog whistle doesn’t work. A dog whistle sends a clear signal to one group — the “dogs” who alone are capable of hearing it — but to everyone else it makes no noise and goes unnoticed. Bush’s dog-whistling to evangelical voters included signals that only they would pick up on, but those little snippets of churchy-talk didn’t change the meaning of what he was otherwise saying. His little allusions gave his words additional resonance for evangelical listeners, but apart from that little pat on the head, they weren’t being told anything different from what the rest of the electorate heard.

But the so-called dog-whistling to white racists doesn’t work like that. This kind of coded language is nothing like a dog whistle, because everyone can hear it and everyone can understand it. Everyone knows exactly what it means. When former Philadelphia Mayor Frank Rizzo appealed to segregationist white voters with talk of “law and order” and getting “tough” on crime, everybody knew he was talking about keeping black people subordinate and marginalized. When President Ronald Reagan spoke of “states’ rights” or railed against “welfare queens” and “strapping young bucks” buying “T-bone steaks” with food stamps, no one was left scratching their heads trying to puzzle out what he meant by that.

These aren’t dog whistles. They’re dog farts. Which is to say they’re attempts to blame a fart on the dog when everyone knows it was you who just broke wind.

That ploy never really fools anybody, but it provides a thin buffer of semi-plausible deniability. We all know it wasn’t the dog, but when you loudly say, “Good Lord, pooch, what did you just do?” and direct everyone’s attention to the innocent creature, the dog will respond in some doggy fashion, doing something with its eyes, ears and tail that might be interpreted as indicating guilt, or relief, or shameless pleasure. (Like the bit with Crab in Two Gentlemen of Verona, it doesn’t really matter what the dog does — the scene works regardless.)

K.T. Vogt as Launce and Picasso as Crab the dog in the Oregon Shakespeare Festival's 2014 production of "The Two Gentlemen of Verona." (Photo by T. Charles Erickson)

K.T. Vogt as Launce and Picasso as Crab the dog in the Oregon Shakespeare Festival’s 2014 production of “The Two Gentlemen of Verona.” (Photo by T. Charles Erickson)

Bush’s evangelical dog whistles were coded language in the sense that his allusions were only perceptible to a particular sectarian audience. But the coded language of racist dog-farting can be heard — and smelled — by everyone alike. It’s “coding” has nothing to do with perceptibility, but with a pretense of deniability.

In other words, unlike dog-whistling, dog-farting is not about signaling only one particular group. It’s about signaling everyone — a promise to some, a threat to others — while still being able to semi-plausibly claim that you’re innocent of saying the awful thing you just deliberately said.

Part of that deniability, oddly, includes an effort to deny the evident meaning of those awful promises and threats even to yourself. This is the really tricky bit, because you know better than anyone else that the dog is not to blame, and so it requires terrific mental gymnastics for part of your brain to semi-convince the rest of it to ignore what it knows with first-person certainty. But this is also the really essential bit — the most important reason that this dog-farting language has to be coded and the slender pretense of innocence needs to be maintained.

John Ehrlichman — the former Eagle Scout who went to prison for Watergate — saw this. He urged President Richard Nixon to adapt the coded dog-farting language of “law and order” because it would appeal to a white racist voter while allowing him to “avoid admitting to himself that he was attracted by a racist appeal.”**

The misapplied “dog-whistling” metaphor has surfaced a lot lately from observers noting that Donald Trump is going beyond the coded language of earlier white conservatives like Rizzo or Reagan or Gingrich. Trump isn’t “dog-whistling,” they say — he’s just explicitly stating the promises and threats that the earlier coded language had conveyed implicitly.

Here I think the more accurate analogy of dog-farting presents a clearer picture. “That wasn’t me, that was the dog,” those earlier politicians said, providing a slippery toehold of deniability that allowed their audience to “avoid admitting to themselves that they were attracted by a racist appeal.” But Trump just proudly lets it rip. “Good one!” he says, smiling. “Pull my finger, let’s do it again!”

Yes, that makes him a repugnant gasbag, but that doesn’t distinguish or separate him from Gingrich, Reagan and the rest. Everybody already knew they were doing the same thing. We all knew it wasn’t the dog.

Trump’s willingness to dispense with polite propriety is part of what makes him appealing to those who find him appealing. He doesn’t much care about deniability, so he’s not as careful about maintaining the false pretenses that preserved it. That seems to work for a big chunk of his supporters, who seem giddily relieved and liberated to at last be able to make their promises and threats openly. This has been disturbing and frightening to behold.

But I think there’s probably another big chunk of white voters who needed that pretense of deniability. I think Ehrlichman was correct. A lot of white voters will happily go along with racist appeals and a racist agenda, but only if they’re allowed to blame it on the dog — only if they’re provided with some fig-leaf that allows them to “avoid admitting to themselves” that that’s what they’re doing. We can see these folks desperately lashing out with invocations of Andrew Johnson or Woodrow Wilson or a pre-Senate Robert Byrd because they need to convince themselves that they’re not doing what they’re doing. (In white evangelical circles, this is the function of all those legends about and misquotations of Margaret Sanger.) These folks are now rallying behind Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio — candidates who will allow them to support all the same policies Trump is advocating, but without disturbing the pretense of dog-farting deniability.

From a certain angle, there’s something hopeful in that. The desperate need for deniability is like the little blip on the cardiac monitor that tells us their conscience isn’t dead. And the more Trump tramples on the old pretense of deniability, the more that conscience will be exposed — leaving it vulnerable and more susceptible to challenge, appeal, pleading, plucking, and persuasion.

The coded language of racist dog-farting has deadlocked our politics for a generation. We’ve been stuck in this perpetual dance of deniability. That deniability has prevented us from having to honestly confront who we are, and thus has prevented us from forthrightly asking who it is that we want to be. Finally being able to ask that question, and to answer it honestly, might allow us to move forward. (Or, of course, to move backward. But I’m trying to be hopeful here.)

– – – – – – – – – – – –

* Some of us heard that and wondered if appropriating that language wasn’t also borderline blasphemy, equating “the goodness of the American people” with “the precious blood of the Lamb.”

If you aren’t familiar with the song, “Power in the Blood” was written by Lewis Edgar Jones in 1899. Here’s Dolly doing it justice. And here’s a nice version by Buddy Greene for a star-studded Nashville audience. (Neither of them does the fun bit where you try to squeeze in extra “pow’rs” with every verse — “There is pow’r, pow’r, pow’r, pow’r, pow’r, pow’r, pow’r, pow’r, wonder-working pow’r …” — which was part of why I loved this song as a kid and maybe still do even though, like most Southern Gospel, it offers a problematic theology.)

OK, a few more. Here’s Andrae Crouch in 1984, with a band that includes Alex Acuña. And here’s Shirley Caesar. And Ashley Cleveland. And hold up, Alexis Spight wanna do somethin’ different.

Since this footnote has already wandered far afield from the main point of this post, I’ll just throw this out there, too: the Statler Brothers start their rendition with a verse that Crouch, Caesar, Parton, et. al., left out, one that begins “Would you be whiter, much whiter than snow.” That’s a reference to Isaiah 1:18, but it takes on a certain … let’s say resonance in their Southern Gospel arrangement. The ancient prophet didn’t have any of the cultural constructs or racial referents for whiteness that we have today, but I think the past five centuries of European and American history may have ruined that once-lovely verse for the foreseeable future.

** That’s from Dan T. Carter’s From George Wallace to New Gingrich, which I have not read. I got it from the first draft of older daughter’s research paper exploring the racial politics of Frank Rizzo and Philadelphia public housing. It’s fascinating, sometimes jaw-droppingly appalling, stuff.

Previous Post

March 9, 2016

I want to take a breath that's true

Next Post

March 11, 2016 Left Behind Classic Fridays, No. 72: 'The rise of the Anti-Huck'

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

How long did Persian empire rule?

Select your answer to see how you score.

200 years 180 years 250 years 150 years