SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Trump Has No Use For Dog Whistles
The notoriously Machiavellian Republican operative Lee Atwater once famously revealed his party's strategy to use so-called "dog whistles" to communicate racist sentiments without overtly racist language:
Jun 06, 2016
The notoriously Machiavellian Republican operative Lee Atwater once famously revealed his party's strategy to use so-called "dog whistles" to communicate racist sentiments without overtly racist language:
You start out in 1954 by saying, "N****r, n****r, n****r." By 1968 you can't say "n****r"--that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states' rights, and all that stuff, and you're getting so abstract. Now, you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.... "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N****r, n****r."
Donald Trump doesn't subscribe to the Atwater School of Subtle Racism.
Trump last week declared the Latino judge presiding over the Trump University case unfit strictly because of his ethnic heritage. The Wall Street Journal reported:
In an interview, Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had "an absolute conflict" in presiding over the litigation given that he was "of Mexican heritage" and a member of a Latino lawyers' association. Mr. Trump said the background of the judge, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants, was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border. "I'm building a wall. It's an inherent conflict of interest," Mr. Trump said.
Who needs dog whistles when you can just be overtly racist?
Trump's decision to accuse a Latino of being incapable of performing his job impartially is a strategically suspect one. He regularly brags that he will win the Hispanic vote. He has argued that his support of a border wall wouldn't be a factor, saying "I think I'm going to win the Hispanic vote. And I frankly don't think it matters." His case is that Latinos will vote him "because they know I'm going to bring back jobs from lots of places including India and China and lots of places that are taking our jobs."
But now, he is tacitly conceding - by saying the wall creates "an inherent conflict of interest" with anyone of "Mexican heritage" - that the wall is designed to bring harm to many Latino families. (Note that Mexican-Americans compromise nearly two-thirds of the Latino population.)
Why would he do that? Why would he undercut his own argument that he can win - will win! - Latino votes because bluntly stating his position is diametrically opposed to their interests?
And why would he make an overtly racist argument that people of "Mexican heritage" are not capable of being impartial judges?
There is no political logic to it. There may have been a dark logic to the code words of Atwater's time - appealing to those who harbor racist attitudes without offending moderate sensibilities. But in today's more diverse America, the dog whistle strategy has diminishing appeal. And brazen racism, in addition to being immoral and appalling, is political malpractice.
The inherent illogic leads to only one conclusion: He is so consumed by racism that he can't contain it. He is blinded by it, and is incapable of rational political decision-making.
This is a man who is quite comfortable with political pandering. He regularly and eagerly takes both of sides of issues in hopes of scooping up votes across the political spectrum. But when it comes to race, he can't control himself.
We are in the middle of a year-long spectacle of unfiltered racism on the national stage. No doubt watching it will be deeply unsettling. The hope is that being forced to confront it will make America stronger.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
Bill Scher
Bill Scher is a senior writer at Campaign for America's Future. Follow him on Twitter: @billscher
The notoriously Machiavellian Republican operative Lee Atwater once famously revealed his party's strategy to use so-called "dog whistles" to communicate racist sentiments without overtly racist language:
You start out in 1954 by saying, "N****r, n****r, n****r." By 1968 you can't say "n****r"--that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states' rights, and all that stuff, and you're getting so abstract. Now, you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.... "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N****r, n****r."
Donald Trump doesn't subscribe to the Atwater School of Subtle Racism.
Trump last week declared the Latino judge presiding over the Trump University case unfit strictly because of his ethnic heritage. The Wall Street Journal reported:
In an interview, Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had "an absolute conflict" in presiding over the litigation given that he was "of Mexican heritage" and a member of a Latino lawyers' association. Mr. Trump said the background of the judge, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants, was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border. "I'm building a wall. It's an inherent conflict of interest," Mr. Trump said.
Who needs dog whistles when you can just be overtly racist?
Trump's decision to accuse a Latino of being incapable of performing his job impartially is a strategically suspect one. He regularly brags that he will win the Hispanic vote. He has argued that his support of a border wall wouldn't be a factor, saying "I think I'm going to win the Hispanic vote. And I frankly don't think it matters." His case is that Latinos will vote him "because they know I'm going to bring back jobs from lots of places including India and China and lots of places that are taking our jobs."
But now, he is tacitly conceding - by saying the wall creates "an inherent conflict of interest" with anyone of "Mexican heritage" - that the wall is designed to bring harm to many Latino families. (Note that Mexican-Americans compromise nearly two-thirds of the Latino population.)
Why would he do that? Why would he undercut his own argument that he can win - will win! - Latino votes because bluntly stating his position is diametrically opposed to their interests?
And why would he make an overtly racist argument that people of "Mexican heritage" are not capable of being impartial judges?
There is no political logic to it. There may have been a dark logic to the code words of Atwater's time - appealing to those who harbor racist attitudes without offending moderate sensibilities. But in today's more diverse America, the dog whistle strategy has diminishing appeal. And brazen racism, in addition to being immoral and appalling, is political malpractice.
The inherent illogic leads to only one conclusion: He is so consumed by racism that he can't contain it. He is blinded by it, and is incapable of rational political decision-making.
This is a man who is quite comfortable with political pandering. He regularly and eagerly takes both of sides of issues in hopes of scooping up votes across the political spectrum. But when it comes to race, he can't control himself.
We are in the middle of a year-long spectacle of unfiltered racism on the national stage. No doubt watching it will be deeply unsettling. The hope is that being forced to confront it will make America stronger.
Bill Scher
Bill Scher is a senior writer at Campaign for America's Future. Follow him on Twitter: @billscher
The notoriously Machiavellian Republican operative Lee Atwater once famously revealed his party's strategy to use so-called "dog whistles" to communicate racist sentiments without overtly racist language:
You start out in 1954 by saying, "N****r, n****r, n****r." By 1968 you can't say "n****r"--that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states' rights, and all that stuff, and you're getting so abstract. Now, you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.... "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N****r, n****r."
Donald Trump doesn't subscribe to the Atwater School of Subtle Racism.
Trump last week declared the Latino judge presiding over the Trump University case unfit strictly because of his ethnic heritage. The Wall Street Journal reported:
In an interview, Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had "an absolute conflict" in presiding over the litigation given that he was "of Mexican heritage" and a member of a Latino lawyers' association. Mr. Trump said the background of the judge, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants, was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border. "I'm building a wall. It's an inherent conflict of interest," Mr. Trump said.
Who needs dog whistles when you can just be overtly racist?
Trump's decision to accuse a Latino of being incapable of performing his job impartially is a strategically suspect one. He regularly brags that he will win the Hispanic vote. He has argued that his support of a border wall wouldn't be a factor, saying "I think I'm going to win the Hispanic vote. And I frankly don't think it matters." His case is that Latinos will vote him "because they know I'm going to bring back jobs from lots of places including India and China and lots of places that are taking our jobs."
But now, he is tacitly conceding - by saying the wall creates "an inherent conflict of interest" with anyone of "Mexican heritage" - that the wall is designed to bring harm to many Latino families. (Note that Mexican-Americans compromise nearly two-thirds of the Latino population.)
Why would he do that? Why would he undercut his own argument that he can win - will win! - Latino votes because bluntly stating his position is diametrically opposed to their interests?
And why would he make an overtly racist argument that people of "Mexican heritage" are not capable of being impartial judges?
There is no political logic to it. There may have been a dark logic to the code words of Atwater's time - appealing to those who harbor racist attitudes without offending moderate sensibilities. But in today's more diverse America, the dog whistle strategy has diminishing appeal. And brazen racism, in addition to being immoral and appalling, is political malpractice.
The inherent illogic leads to only one conclusion: He is so consumed by racism that he can't contain it. He is blinded by it, and is incapable of rational political decision-making.
This is a man who is quite comfortable with political pandering. He regularly and eagerly takes both of sides of issues in hopes of scooping up votes across the political spectrum. But when it comes to race, he can't control himself.
We are in the middle of a year-long spectacle of unfiltered racism on the national stage. No doubt watching it will be deeply unsettling. The hope is that being forced to confront it will make America stronger.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.