Here are just a few recent leftist headlines featuring the metaphorical term “dog whistles”:
- “White House blames exhaustion for Donald Trump’s ‘Islamic terrorism’ dog whistle in Saudi Arabia” – The Intercept, May 22, 2017
- “Trump’s remark on Andrew Jackson was a dog whistle for white nationalists” – Truthout, May 10, 2017
- “Tories accused of ‘divisive, dog-whistle politics’ over anti-immigration campaign video” – London Independent, May 15, 2017
- “How dog whistle politics is changing under Trump” – North Carolina Public Radio, March 2, 2017
It started in the 2016 presidential campaign.
I don’t know who first coined the wholly inappropriate term “dog whistle” to refer to perfectly clear and unambiguous words spoken and tweeted by Donald Trump – phrases and terms that were not coded, but actually meant just what they said.
Whoever did, it caught on like wildfire – one that is still raging today.
In effect, the term “dog whistle” became a dog whistle of the left. The irony is that the only dogs hearing it were and are leftist dogs.
That’s the funny thing about dog whistles. Only dogs hear them. But you would never know that by the way this phrase is thrown out there continually by the left.
For instance, when Donald Trump talked in the campaign about closing the border, there was no confusion in the minds of Trump supporters about what that meant. It meant closing the border. But that’s not what the left heard: The left heard “racist.” The left heard “jingoist.” The left heard one of the most evil words in the lexicon of the left – “nationalist.”
I don’t know a single person who wants America to regain its assertion of national sovereignty and the rule of law who is motivated by racism.
To suggest Trump talked about the border to create a piercing sound in the ears of racists was never true.
Instead, it created a piercing sound in the ears of leftists – and continues to do so today.
I don’t know, but have you noticed the left loves whistles? Have you seen them used at their protests? They are de rigueur at gatherings of “progressives,” especially when the goal is to drown out the expressions of those who believe in free speech, individual rights and rational dialogue.
But those are not dog whistles. They are people whistles – though, I’m sure dogs can hear them, too.
Does the left understand the difference between the two?
Apparently, the term “dog whistle” actually has two meanings, according to certain dictionaries, such as Dictionary.com, under the control of the left.
One, of course, is: “a high-pitched whistle used to train dogs, typically having a sound inaudible to humans.”
The other is: “a subtly aimed political message which is intended for, and can only be understood by, a particular group, i.e. dog-whistle issues such as immigration and crime.”
No explanation provided as to why crime and immigration are “dog whistle” issues. I guess that is in the ear of the “progressive” beholder, so to speak.
I wonder, though, what the “dog whistle” political issues that make the left froth at the mouth?
From my own experience as a former leftist, they typically revolve around what we once knew as “sin.”
- When you hear a “progressive” use the expression “economic equality,” that’s a “dog whistle” meaning coveting one’s neighbor’s property;
- When you hear a “progressive” use the expression acronym “LGBT,” that’s a “dog whistle” that translates to lusting after some sexual forbidden fruit;
- When you hear a “progressive” use the expression, recently employed by Chelsea Clinton, “Islamophobia is not an opinion,” that means you don’t have the right to disagree with people on the left.
I know this is probably more than you ever wanted to know about dog whistles. But what’s good for the non-leftist goose is good for the leftist gander, to paraphrase an antiquated and “sexist” cliché.
Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact email@example.com.