Dog-Whistle Racism is political campaigning or policy-making that uses coded words and themes to appeal to conscious or subconscious racist concepts and frames.
For example, the concepts ‘welfare queen,’ ’states’ rights,’ ‘Islamic terrorist,’ ‘uppity,’ 'thug,' 'tough on crime,' and ‘illegal alien’ all activate racist concepts that that have already been planted in the public consciousness and now are being activated by purposeful or accidental campaign activities, media coverage, public policy and cultural traditions.
So, what’s dog whistle racism? It’s pure political theater to push buttons to win elections and policies. StopDogWhistleRacism.com, a project of the Center for Social Inclusion, is here to identify, expose and help you to track it. Join us.
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go here. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
The racial views of the C.C.C. are repugnant to me, and I would never have spoken to the group had I known beforehand of its stand
~Former U.S. Representative Bob Bar 7th District,Georgia
This is an edited article from an anonymous source who lives in New York City regarding a group called the Council of Conservatives Citizen Council who asked thatHipHopRepublican.compost this
I do not believe that the Republican Party is a racist party despite the partisan attacks by Democrats to further this impression. I believe that the party is predominately white because it is predominately rural. To me these simple demographic realities account for most Republicans of the party’s present platform. If for example lets say you live in Rochester NY and commute long distances to work any talk of higher gas taxes frightens you. However if you like in Brooklyn and take the subway the talk of higher taxes might not seem all that bad. In fact the talk of higher taxes may be viewed by urban folks as a great thing because of possible city improvements. Democrats try to construe such economic divides as an attempt by white Republicans to oppress the urban poor.
Putting that aside I am however convinced there is a group of white supremacist who are in both parties. I am also convinced that the umbrella group for this penetration of both partes but primarly our party is the Council of Conservatives Citizens Council. This group is both racist and anti-Semitic and do have an influence in our party. The Citizen’s Council while racist may actually confuse unsuspecting Republican congressman who is invited to speak.In the past few years they have refferd to themselves as a Free Market institute….here is there views on healthcare..http://www.cchconline.org/
Most of the Republicans who have attend there events in the past claim that they did not know they were a white supremacist group. I suspect that most did not know and wanted to kick themselves for attending once they media found out. However I do believe that there are probably a group of who did know the agenda of CCC particularly politicians from the region. If we Republicans ask Obama to have no relations with Rev.Wright or Black Nationalism we must ask the same of our own party…if you doubt there racist check them out!
Al Gore and John Kerry, both of whom are White, lost the White vote to George Bush. Expecting Obama to win the White vote is just as foolish as expecting Blacks to vote in higher numbers for McCain.
A group that launched a failed attempt to protect affirmative action programs in Colorado will sue Secretary of State Mike Coffman today for throwing away up to 5,300 valid signatures that would have bolstered the initiative’s chances to make it onto the ballot.
The measure, called Initiative 82, sought to preserve affirmative action programs in the face of Amendment 46, a controversial ballot proposal which, if passed, will destroy them.
Colorado University law professor Melissa Hart, who is also spearheading the Vote No on Amendment 46 campaign, claims that the Secretary of State’s Office tossed out signatures that belonged to registered active voters, including the signature of Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey’s son, according to 9News.
On November 4th, we will find out what America really cares about. On the one hand, we have a Black presidential candidate who has a solid economic solution to the financial crisis, and on the other, the white candidate has admitted that he does not understand economics nor does he have a well thought out position on it.
Clearly, the economic crisis has hit communities of color the hardest. However, all of America is now paying the price for the federal government’s refusal to crack down on predatory lending – an issue that some conservatives tried to blame on the “irresponsible borrowing by poor people of color.” Now all of America (I hope) realizes that when economic policies fail to provide justice to the most vulnerable in our society, the end results affect each and everyone one of us – including the wealthy.
…
So, are Americans so uncomfortable with the notion of a president who isn’t white that they would tolerate 4-8 more years of America’s crumbling economy (and other ills) and vote for a man who thought the economy was flourishing the same morning that Wall Street completely tanked? Or will they check their own racism and vote for the candidate who-as surveys suggest-they put more faith in to fix the economy? Put another way, will Americans vote for a white man who they do not trust to handle the economy or will they vote for the man who will help us through this financial crisis, regardless of his race?
For example, how should one understand a prominent Black Republican Secretary of State, Kenneth Blackwell, actively working to disenfranchise and exclude largely poor, largely Black communities from voting in urban precincts of Ohio? Or what about a comparison of Columbus voting areas like Upper Arlington where a majority of affluent white Republicans had no problems or waits to access working voting machines and predominantly Democratic, working class Black areas like Franklinton that had long lines and broken machines? These and similar voting problem stories from Ohio point to a systemic crisis that continues today.
So why are we still talking about voting and race in Ohio? The reason is two-fold. First, there are a number of people who believe the outcome of the 2004 election was directly linked to election manipulation for political purposes. Secondly, there was a clear and troubling pattern of voter disenfranchisement that mirrors racial and economic divides in the state. The major counties where voting problems occurred (Franklin, Hamilton, Montgomery, Lucas, Cuyahoga and Summit) were all urban areas with large communities of color. In other words, when voting problems occurred, they were almost always linked to the voter’s race.
Summary: Conservative radio host Armstrong Williams criticized vice-presidential debate moderator Gwen Ifill over her upcoming book about African-American political leaders, saying she “should have disclosed” it, and that it is “ultimately impossible” for her not to favor Sen. Barack Obama, because she has a “financial stake” in his winning the presidency. However, beginning in 2003, Williams did not disclose that he received $240,000 in Education Department funds to promote No Child Left Behind. The Government Accountability Office found that the Department of Education’s actions constituted “covert propaganda” in violation of the law.
Summary: On his KSFO radio show, Lee Rodgers claimed O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder because of a “racial vote” by the jury and said of polls that show “98 percent of black voters voting for” Sen. Barack Obama: “[A]re we to assume they all agree with him on all his principles? Or could there be a hint of racial brotherhood in that vote? Come on, we know the answer to that.” Rodgers also declared, “If any white person, for whatever reason — because they think he consorts with terrorists or communists, or believes in all the things that black racist preacher said for 20 years votes against him for that reason — no, no, no, no. If you’re a white person voting against Obama, you are a racist.”
I‘ve been beating the drum about examining one the root causes of this financial mess and laying it at the proper doorstep. Russell Roberts does a very good job of that in today’s WSJ. First he lays out the conventional wisdom:
Many believe that wild greed and market failure led us into this sorry mess. According to that narrative, investors in search of higher yields bought novel securities that bundled loans made to high-risk borrowers. Banks issued these loans because they could sell them to hungry investors. It was a giant Ponzi scheme that only worked as long as housing prices were on the rise. But housing prices were the result of a speculative mania. Once the bubble burst, too many borrowers had negative equity, and the system collapsed.
He then notes that while in many cases this is what is being sold as the whole truth, it is, in fact, only part of the story. If this sort of a mess is to be avoided, it is critical the rest of the story be told as well:
The fall in housing prices did lead to a sudden increase in defaults that reduced the value of mortgage-backed securities. What’s missing is the role politicians and policy makers played in creating artificially high housing prices, and artificially reducing the danger of extremely risky assets.
…
The root of it all?
Congress designed Fannie and Freddie to serve both their investors and the political class. Demanding that Fannie and Freddie do more to increase home ownership among poor people allowed Congress and the White House to subsidize low-income housing outside of the budget, at least in the short run. It was a political free lunch.
But it wasn’t so free was it?
And on the banking side, another political culprit is found:
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) did the same thing with traditional banks. It encouraged banks to serve two masters — their bottom line and the so-called common good. First passed in 1977, the CRA was “strengthened” in 1995, causing an increase of 80% in the number of bank loans going to low- and moderate-income families.Fannie and Freddie were part of the CRA story, too. In 1997, Bear Stearns did the first securitization of CRA loans, a $384 million offering guaranteed by Freddie Mac. Over the next 10 months, Bear Stearns issued $1.9 billion of CRA mortgages backed by Fannie or Freddie. Between 2000 and 2002 Fannie Mae securitized $394 billion in CRA loans with $20 billion going to securitized mortgages.
Many liberal bloggers thought that Gwen Ifill did a poor job as moderator, since she allowed Palin to frequently ignore her questions and rarely asked follow-ups:
Yglesias: “I’m not sure if Gwen Ifill was cowed by the rightwing mau-mau brigade or what, but I thought Ifill’s handling of the debate was pretty disappointing. Palin was clearly operating with a game plan that involved simply refusing to answer certain questions in order to drift over to her pre-prepared text, and Ifill didn’t ask any followups or challenge either candidate to address the questions she was asking. Indeed, at times Ifill was barely even asking questions — just suggesting topics.”
Open Left‘s Matt Stoller: “Palin was able to filibuster and repeat talking points without being pressured by Gwen Ifill. I suppose the mau-mauing worked.”
The Atlantic‘s James Fallows: “Ifill [was] terrible. Yes, she was constrained by the agreed debate rules. But she gave not the slightest sign of chafing against them or looking for ways to follow up the many unanswered questions or self-contradictory answers. This was the big news of the evening. Katie Couric, and for that matter Jim Lehrer, have never looked so good.”
AMERICAblog‘s Joe Sudbay: “Gwen Ifill got bought off by McCain before this debate. He played her and she rolled over. What a sad excuse for a reporter. I’ve always liked Ifill in the past, but what has she done tonight that a 5th grader couldn’t do? She’s read questions. That’s it. Palin doesn’t answer them, Ifill moves on to the next question.”
Obsidian Wings‘ publius: “[Ifill]’s been absolutely awful. Her questions are terrible. And more importantly, she’s let Palin ignore every single question. Just flat out ignore them. They got in her head.”
The Atlantic‘s Andrew Sullivan: “There was only one loser: Gwen Ifill. She was intimidated, peripheral, neutered. The rules didn’t help. But Ifill put in a dreadful performance.”
VP DEBATE IV: Fair And Balanced?
After criticizing her ferociously for the past 48 hours, most conservative bloggers thought that Ifill did a reasonably good job as moderator:
Malkin: “As for Gwen ‘Age of Obama’ Ifill, she behaved herself for the most part. She was duly chastened. But the questions and the controversy and the double standards don’t go away. […] As I noted in my liveblog, Gwen Ifill failed to disclose her book and financial conflict of interest at the start of the debate. It’s a travesty.”
Carpenter: “Going into this debate there was concern moderator Gwen Ifill may not treat the candidates fairly because of the financial stake she has in a yet-to-be released book about Obama’s impact on race and politics. I did not detect any outright bias and believe her questions were fair at first blush.”
NRO‘s Stephen Spruiell: “Ifill didn’t ask any obviously loaded, leading or ‘gotcha’ type questions, and all in all she played it pretty fair.”
Other righty bloggers were more critical of Ifill:
Erickson: “Ifill herself did wind up showing her bias. She rarely gave Palin the last word. By the end of the debate it was almost 3 to 1 with Biden getting the last word. She also tried to disrupt Palin’s relationship with evangelicals by framing gay marriage around Alaska, mischaracterizing it too. Likewise with global warming.”
Geraghty: “Gwen Ifill’s questions were not glaringly biased, but it was ridiculous that she didn’t feel the need to acknowledge her book on ‘The Age of Obama’ at the beginning of the debate. It was the third time in this process that she has behaved dishonorably. The first was not disclosing the book to the Commission on Presidential Debates. The second was dismissing the criticism out of hand, and not acknowledging that debate moderators ought to not have a financial incentive to see one side win. And thirdly by refusing to acknowledge these facts during the debate, information that the viewers at home are entitled to take into consideration.”
NRO‘s Andy McCarthy: “I think [Ifill] did an appalling job. The job is about more than the asking of the questions. And the overall context here…is that the media is in the tank for Obama.”
Palin’s debate strategy was dog-whistle white rural populism. Pure and simple Nixon playbook. Worked for him, worked for Reagan (Philadelphia and the welfare queens, set in the context of a long, racist record.) Race is significant but it isn’t everything: Bush Sr. could pull off the racism but couldn’t fake folksy next to Bubba Clinton. It’s a 2-part game essentially:
1) I am like you
2) They are not like us
The first part is the aw-shucks shit-kickin’ Where I’m from stuff. For the second part, they’ve added religion to the Obama equation to create a sort of compound Nation of Islam slash black liberation theology slash atheist character; (no one said it was internally coherent.)
Here’s a clarification: This approach is different from economic populism.Why? Economic populism can be translated directly into policy. Whether you agree or disagree with the arguments, saying CEO’s make too much money or that oil companies don’t need tax cuts is policy-translatable. If you talk about the middle class in your home town in terms of putting pay caps in the bailout or changing the tax structure, you can campaign on those details. And it’s a fair debate as to whether they’re good policies.
StopDogWhistleRacism.com's purpose is to inform and inspire intelligent discussion and debate from individuals from a full spectrum of experiences, ideologies, parties and perspectives.
In order to reduce spam, the first time you leave a comment you will have to sign up for a username. After that you will be able to join the discussion just using your username and password.
Also, please note that all comments should be expressed in a mature and civil tone of voice. Strong debate is fine, vulgarity and personal attacks are not. Individuals posting rude or otherwise inappropriate material will have their comment privileges rescinded.
Stop Dog Whistle Racism! 