Donald Trump has discarded the dog whistle, with fascinating consequences. In the language of politics, a dog whistle is a statement that implicitly targets a certain group without being overt enough to qualify as hate speech. It satisfies the politician’s core constituency by pandering to their prejudices, without alienating too many ideologically unaffiliated voters. The most well-known instance of a dog whistle in Indian politics was Narendra Modi’s "Hum paanch, humaare pachees" comment from September 2002.
The man who avoided visiting relief camps in the wake of terrible riots in the state he ruled, spoke of those camps as child producing centres a few months later during a defiant speech in the temple town of Becharaji. Modi contrasted the months of Shravan and Ramzan, and criticised madrasa education, but didn’t use the word "Muslim" even once during his tirade, giving himself plausible deniability if accused of slandering a community. Like other BJP leaders, Modi has always left the explicit verbal targeting of Muslims and Christians to members of the Sangh Parivar outside electoral politics, whether the RSS, VHP, or Bajrang Dal.
Dog whistles are used in democracies across the world, largely but by no means exclusively by right-wing leaders. US Republicans are masters at using words like "immigrant", "ghetto", "thug culture", "family values", "Judeo-Christian", and "Anglo-Saxon" to tap into white voters’ anger against ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities. Using a dog whistle is a delicate act, a bit like sledging in cricket. Australians invented sledging, and are therefore experts at keeping just on the right side of the rules. They manage to be the worst behaved cricketers without getting punished for their verbal aggression. Indians, though far more civil on average, get fined or banned more often because they don’t practice the art of saying enough to get under the opponent’s skin without catching the match referee’s attention.
Ahead of the pack
Donald Trump, an arrogant narcissist, barefaced liar, television entertainer, and billionaire real estate magnate who currently leads the race for the Republican nomination to be President of the United States has, at least temporarily, dismantled the entire elaborate structure of American dog whistling. Rich enough to fund his own campaign, Trump is not beholden to any pressure groups or lobbies. He wears the bad press he gets as a badge of pride, appreciated by constituents whose distrust of the media will be familiar to Indians. He voices explicitly what other Republicans can only say in code, bolstering his reputation as a straight talker, even though he might have expressed contrary views in the past.
In doing away with the dog whistle, Trump has brought to the surface all the resentments and biases of a large section of the American public. His first controversial statement came on the very day he announced he would run for President. His target then was the nation immediately to the south. “When Mexico sends its people”, he thundered, “they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they're telling us what we're getting."
Okay, I thought at the time, he’s just scuppered his campaign even before it’s properly commenced. The next thing I knew, he was topping the polls. Experts, as taken aback as I was, rationalised what was happening by comparing it to past campaigns. An outsider candidate seems fresh, says weird things, has his moment in the spotlight, and then gives way to seasoned politicians. Six months later, after dozens of ever crazier statements, Trump still heads the Republican field, and has scrambled the established pattern.
A couple of weeks ago, he claimed that thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrated on 9 / 11 while watching the twin towers collapse. When this was proven false, he doubled down on his claim, as he always does when his statements are shown to be untrue. “There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey, where you have large Arab populations,” he insisted in a television interview after the fact-checking website Politifact gave his statement its lowest "pants on fire" rating. His allegation was analogous to rants by Shiv Sainiks about Muslims supporting Pakistan in cricket matches, except that top Shiv Sena politicians usually reach for the dog whistle, using Muslim-dominated localities (“They burst crackers in Bhendi Bazaar”) as substitutes for the community.
Ban on Muslims
Now Trump has gone even further, calling for a complete ban on Muslims entering the United States. No country in the world, no matter how bigoted, has instituted a policy of this kind in modern times, and for it even to be discussed in a nation whose politicians like to call it the leader of the free world is to break a decades-old taboo. Trump has not only asked for a ban on Muslim tourists and immigrants, he has done so through a press release uploaded on his campaign website. The only other policy pronouncement he previously publicised in this manner was about US-China relations, so it is presumably a well-thought out position rather than an off-the-cuff remark.
Establishment Republicans now feel about Trump more or less what the Russian ruling class felt about Rasputin a century ago. The demands to do something about this outrageous man are growing louder and louder. Democrats who have thus far watched his antics with glee now fear he could do lasting damage even though he has no chance of becoming President. How can the United States lecture other countries about religious tolerance if a man like Trump remains a serious candidate into the primary season? Commentators who had dismissed him as a clownish blowhard contend his hate-mongering has ceased to be entertaining. I’m of the opposite view. I now see the Trump campaign as a social experiment exploring intriguing questions in the format of a reality show with an entire nation participating. Once traditional rules fall by the wayside, what normative ground can be found to replace them? How far will Trump travel into the heart of darkness? And how many Americans will stay with him on the journey?
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
The man who avoided visiting relief camps in the wake of terrible riots in the state he ruled, spoke of those camps as child producing centres a few months later during a defiant speech in the temple town of Becharaji. Modi contrasted the months of Shravan and Ramzan, and criticised madrasa education, but didn’t use the word "Muslim" even once during his tirade, giving himself plausible deniability if accused of slandering a community. Like other BJP leaders, Modi has always left the explicit verbal targeting of Muslims and Christians to members of the Sangh Parivar outside electoral politics, whether the RSS, VHP, or Bajrang Dal.
Dog whistles are used in democracies across the world, largely but by no means exclusively by right-wing leaders. US Republicans are masters at using words like "immigrant", "ghetto", "thug culture", "family values", "Judeo-Christian", and "Anglo-Saxon" to tap into white voters’ anger against ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities. Using a dog whistle is a delicate act, a bit like sledging in cricket. Australians invented sledging, and are therefore experts at keeping just on the right side of the rules. They manage to be the worst behaved cricketers without getting punished for their verbal aggression. Indians, though far more civil on average, get fined or banned more often because they don’t practice the art of saying enough to get under the opponent’s skin without catching the match referee’s attention.
Ahead of the pack
Donald Trump, an arrogant narcissist, barefaced liar, television entertainer, and billionaire real estate magnate who currently leads the race for the Republican nomination to be President of the United States has, at least temporarily, dismantled the entire elaborate structure of American dog whistling. Rich enough to fund his own campaign, Trump is not beholden to any pressure groups or lobbies. He wears the bad press he gets as a badge of pride, appreciated by constituents whose distrust of the media will be familiar to Indians. He voices explicitly what other Republicans can only say in code, bolstering his reputation as a straight talker, even though he might have expressed contrary views in the past.
In doing away with the dog whistle, Trump has brought to the surface all the resentments and biases of a large section of the American public. His first controversial statement came on the very day he announced he would run for President. His target then was the nation immediately to the south. “When Mexico sends its people”, he thundered, “they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they're telling us what we're getting."
Okay, I thought at the time, he’s just scuppered his campaign even before it’s properly commenced. The next thing I knew, he was topping the polls. Experts, as taken aback as I was, rationalised what was happening by comparing it to past campaigns. An outsider candidate seems fresh, says weird things, has his moment in the spotlight, and then gives way to seasoned politicians. Six months later, after dozens of ever crazier statements, Trump still heads the Republican field, and has scrambled the established pattern.
A couple of weeks ago, he claimed that thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrated on 9 / 11 while watching the twin towers collapse. When this was proven false, he doubled down on his claim, as he always does when his statements are shown to be untrue. “There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey, where you have large Arab populations,” he insisted in a television interview after the fact-checking website Politifact gave his statement its lowest "pants on fire" rating. His allegation was analogous to rants by Shiv Sainiks about Muslims supporting Pakistan in cricket matches, except that top Shiv Sena politicians usually reach for the dog whistle, using Muslim-dominated localities (“They burst crackers in Bhendi Bazaar”) as substitutes for the community.
Ban on Muslims
Now Trump has gone even further, calling for a complete ban on Muslims entering the United States. No country in the world, no matter how bigoted, has instituted a policy of this kind in modern times, and for it even to be discussed in a nation whose politicians like to call it the leader of the free world is to break a decades-old taboo. Trump has not only asked for a ban on Muslim tourists and immigrants, he has done so through a press release uploaded on his campaign website. The only other policy pronouncement he previously publicised in this manner was about US-China relations, so it is presumably a well-thought out position rather than an off-the-cuff remark.
Establishment Republicans now feel about Trump more or less what the Russian ruling class felt about Rasputin a century ago. The demands to do something about this outrageous man are growing louder and louder. Democrats who have thus far watched his antics with glee now fear he could do lasting damage even though he has no chance of becoming President. How can the United States lecture other countries about religious tolerance if a man like Trump remains a serious candidate into the primary season? Commentators who had dismissed him as a clownish blowhard contend his hate-mongering has ceased to be entertaining. I’m of the opposite view. I now see the Trump campaign as a social experiment exploring intriguing questions in the format of a reality show with an entire nation participating. Once traditional rules fall by the wayside, what normative ground can be found to replace them? How far will Trump travel into the heart of darkness? And how many Americans will stay with him on the journey?
