Thanks Ken. I am glad you drew attention to Fear's claim that dog-whistling is more of the left than of the right: unlike most of his comments, this one was poorly thought through.

Also unconvincing is the assumption that dog-whistling is always malevolent. Note Rudd's 'clanging gong' nod to Christians in his speech of apology to the Stolen Generations (13 February 2008).

BTW, about your view that the term 'dog whistle' starts during the 1996 election campaign: do you have a particular source in mind? I have been trying to track the term's origins myself. Textor was obviously putting the approach to work in the Northern Territory even earlier than that, but of course doing it is not the same as naming it.

Giving people the benefit of any doubt is an important part of being tolerant. If you cannot quote specific comments and explicitly explain why they are racist or otherwise immoral then you cannot make these claims. The whole idea of being so rightous that one cannot detect racism that others pick up on is a complete wank.

The expression “dog whistling” is one of the silliest ones bandied around. I doubt that any of its users could really explain how whistling a dog has anything to do with anything but whistling a dog. It is not “now understood world wide.” It is certainly “covert”; so much so that its meaning is a total mystery. People claiming to know what it means, and how it pertains to politics or political action, are just kidding themselves – they are slaves to nonsensical ‘word fashion’ and fads.

We all understand ‘wedge politics’ and other terms use in an attempt to belittle people we disagree with, but ‘dog whistling’ – no!

This character brands himself politically with: “Following the success of Pauline Hanson and the One Nation Party, the Howard government employed dog-whistling to appeal to voters with racist attitudes while evading criticism from those opposed to prejudice.” Howard might have used Hanson to help appeal to certain voters, but there is no way that Macnab can know whether or not voters took any notice, whether, if they took notice, they were automatically ‘racist’ (that stupid, misused word again) or, in fact, anything about voters other than himself. I don’t even know how my wife votes, and Macnab is unable to read other peoples’ minds or what they do when they go into to a box for a SECRET vote.

As for his bleating about criticism of “chattering classes”, “chardonnay set” etc. it’s quite OK for him to criticise people by calling them ‘racists’. He can give it, but he can’t take it!

As we progress further through Ken Macnab’s article, we find that he believes ‘dog whistling” encapsulates all of the phrases people used to use to criticise others. The loony Left must get worn out with their non-stop criticism of moderates and people they call conservative, so they resort to two words of abuse to cover everything, even if the words are as meaningless and yawn-making as the word ‘racist’.

.....

.......

But, the Left has never been articulate, relying on abuse to attempt intimidation and silencing of views they don’t like. Even Clive Hamilton is used! If Clive has written a book on ‘dog whistling’, it’s not surprising that normal people are not au fait with the term.

Someone called Josh Fear (very appropriate name) is cited as claiming that this ‘dog whistling’ undermines democracy. These people who parade themselves as elite and superior to the ‘ordinary’ folk are the ones undermining democracy by telling you that you don’t have the brains to make up your own minds; that you respond, like a dog, to a politician’s whistle.

You are being insulted by the likes of Clive Hamilton and his sycophantic followers.

Moving along, we see that the wonderful, balanced and understanding character, John Pilger also gets a gurnsey. We know we are la la land when Pilger gets a mention. There is not a thing about the West that Pilger doesn’t hate. Pilger is said to have uttered the incredibly stupid comment that the Australian navy is sent AGAINST illegal boats. What utter rubbish! The navy merely escorts them to Christmas Island for processing and eventually residency in Australia.

This over-long article struggles on to a finish in the same tired old theme: moaning, groaning and criticising Australia, and telling us how dumb and nasty we are

A timely article. I find the unstated appeals to prejudices and fears disturbing and it's not confined to the Right.

Of course the insincere language of inclusivity tends to conceal underlying prejudices; it glosses over and allows to go unchallenged a lot of entrenched bigotry and xenophobia.

... Er, pardon a typo. I should have said Josh Fear claims that dog-whistling is more of the right than of the left. That is what he claims, but without really thinking through the evidence.

Instead, though, I said the opposite. I think that makes him and me both wrong.

Once again, Ken, I would be very grateful for a 1996 source if you know of one.

Excellent article and analysis. Ken Macnab clarifies and extends the same sorts of ideas that I've had about the "dog-whistle" politics that surround the most salient issues that our society faces in the 21st century.

However, given the sometimes quite vicious responses that my comments along these lines tend to elicit at OLO, I expect that Dr Macnab's observations will not be received well by the usual suspects in this forum.

Leigh's comment above is a good example of what to expect - however, one doesn't expect a dog to understand the nature of the whistle to which it so readily responds, does one?

Cheers Ken. I had never really understood the term 'dog-whistle politics' before I read this piece. Now that I do understanding the term, it explains a lot of the reasons I find politicans of both persuasions hard to listen to. I prefer direct honest communication and don't like feeling I'm being hood-winked with double meanings - it all feels rather un-Australian ;)

CJ, Ken,

I largely agree

Chris24,
I tend to have salt on hand for all mass media discussed issues.

The other part of your preference is that people simply want yes or no answers when there are none.
I hold that any simple answer to a complex issue(most are) either means,either it(the answer) or the question is deficient.
The idea that the likes of Abbott or Rudd says anything off the cuff is either naively preposterous or clearly indicative of their lack of ability.

Thank you, thank you and THANK YOU for "The Double Tongued Dictionary".

See:

http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/citations/broccoli_journalism_1/

Leigh - the dog-whistle metaphor is quite clever. A dog whistle is audible to dogs but not to humans, so the analogy implies words or phrases that communicate to, and evoke a response from, a target audience while the rest of the electorate is oblivious.

I think the article mistakes some conventional political metaphor and imagery with dog whistling. Te phrases “thought police” and “black armband view of history” may resonate favourably with people of a particular worldview, but their meaning is equally transparent to those who don’t share that view.

I would also disagree that such use of language is the preserve of the right – work choices, social justice, economic rationalism, the politics of greed, etc – are all phrases used to pretty much the same effect by the left.

An interesting article.

It was illuminating to find out what dog whistling actually means.

From previous posts it is clear that it is news to CJ Morgan and his ilk who have been using the term indiscriminately and incorrectly.

Similar to the double entendre it has been used in politics from all sides for centuries.

Just look at Conroy's web filter which is "to protect the children" but has little to do with this, or Penny Wong who implies that the ETS is essential to saving Australia when without a global agreement it is useless.

I'm not to convinced that the slogans and appealing to secterian interests IS quite so subliminal as 'dog-whistling' (thanks for the definition BTW) because it was rather obvious to everyone- however, what it DOES do is unconditionally cement the loyalty of people who support politically-incorrect ideologies by effectively saying "Worry not poor outspoken voter, for I will secretly support your forbidden desires, just as long as we keep quiet so we don't get into trouble"- it doesn't so much as throw off the other side as make desperate supporters THINK it and they have a 'forbidden' confidant.

As for disingenious sloganeering- it's far wider than the supposed target audience the article implies- this very quote "This stand-off in Indonesia [over Sri Lankans refusing to leave an Australian Customs vessel for Indonesian refugee camps] demeans Australia in the eyes of the world, and diminishes us as a people"- is exactly the same, as it intends to play upon irrational unfounded fears itself.

The massive problem with politics is that (to the mutual benefit of both "sides" of an issue), various topics are social taboo to raise- and as a result politics merely becomes an obscure game of misleading hints to gain votes and support;
Luckily, now the age of political-correctness has ended in the dustbin of history these parties will loose support over time to those who can learn to speak openly.

Ken plays the old left V,s right paradigm.The reality is that the West is controlled by an Oligarchy,ie a combination of Corporate and Govt collusion in which small business and it's workers are nothing more than slaves to a repressive regieme.

Kevin,Obama,Bush and Abbott are controlled by the same puppett masters(ie Wall St & US Federal Reserve) and this is reality is revealled by their impotence in making Australia/USA a truely sovernign states,in which the will and well being of the people are addressed.

We were better off in 1980 with less technology and less Govt to protect us.

That is one thing you could not criticise Pauline Hanson, she was if nothing else, open and honest which ultimately did not score her any points.

The reality was as the author points out, her opponents did the same but more covertly, during incidents such as the Tampa, Children Overboard saga. I remember at that time Alexander Downer making the comment something along the lines of " do we want people like that coming to Australia", all the while knowing that the reports were dubious.

Fear is a powerful tool which led to the mistreatment Jews in Germany, and the discrimination of Japanese and German people living OS before, during and after the war.

Fact is that whether the message is clear, open, honest or overt as opposed to subliminal or hidden in weasel words (gratis Don Watson) ultimately people will vote the same way with the same intention.

Politics is ridden with these sorts of tactics on both the Left and Right. The Rudd Government's use of "working families" is just as heavily loaded and misleading as the Howard Government's "Work Choices".

Ultimately, you have to give the public some credit for distinguishing reality from spin, no matter who is dishing it.

Fear is the most effective form of communication

Other emotions fade (happiness, anger etc); but fear is able to feed on itself

It is an indictment on Australian society that fear and greed have becoming our ultimate motivators

Leigh,

Regarding turning back boats - Under Howard, Navy ships were initially directed to use all means short of sinking boats to force them to turn back.

In the case of SIEV4 (of Children Overboard fame), they used loudhailer warnings, then repeated volleys of cannon and machinegun fire across the bow, then dangerous close-quarters blocking maneouvres, and then aggressive boarding actions by armed assault teams.

Rudd must have stopped this strategy because Abbott wants to reintroduce and expand it to include turning back all seaworthy boats under threat of violence.

Arjay, pity about Obama being in your Oligarchy.

Maybe could say that he has just about lost his personal plot, or rather his plan, which was actually to steer America rather than spout too much about his own wonderful America, when it was not really what was in his heart.

Now could say the poor beggar is trapped, virtually probably by following the Clintons too much, or by trying to express his own love of America too much.

Certainly he must know in his heart, that the US still carries too much of its neo-colonial trappings, which is the real reason for the increase in terrorism since WW2, and of course, 9/11

Wobbles states that under Howard, navy ships were initially directed to use all means short of sinking boats to force them to turn back.

In the case of SIEV4 (of Children Overboard fame), they used loudhailer warnings, then repeated volleys of cannon and machinegun fire across the bow, then dangerous close-quarters blocking maneouvres, and then aggressive boarding actions by armed assault teams.

To obtain an insight of the actual behavior of the asylum seekers refer to the Senate Select Committee investigation entitled A Certain Maritime Incident.

The behavior of asylum seekers is outlined in Appendix 1 entitled The Pattern of Conduct.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/Committee/maritime_incident_ctte/report/f04.htm

An example:

SIEV 12

SIEV 12 was intercepted by HMAS Leeuwin 30nm north-west of Ashmore Island on December 16, and boarded before sunrise on December 17.

The boarding initially proceeded calmly, before a group of young men started ‘yelling and screaming and inciting others to resist us’. According to one of the boarding party,

I saw several of the young males destroy the boom that was being used as a support for a tarpaulin on the foredeck of the SIEV. They then proceeded to tear apart the tarpaulin and they attempted to throw part of it over the side. I saw one of the [unauthorised arrivals] threaten two members of the boarding team with a piece of this boom. At the same time I saw flames coming from the fore part of the vessel. The ship’s boarding party quickly extinguished the fire. I then saw several [unauthorised arrivals] dropping paper, cardboard and other items into the forward hold and noted they were attempting to ignite these items. I also saw several [unauthorised arrivals] freely jumping over the side of the SIEV whilst wearing lifejackets