Racist dog whistles are used to garner support without triggering public scrutiny. Using this strategy allows politicians to speak negatively about a group by appealing to others who share those views while benefiting from plausible deniability. In America, this is illustrated best by the Southern Strategy. As Lee Atwater, a Republican political operative, revealed in a 1981 interview, “You start out in 1954 by saying ‘nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say ‘nigger’ — that hurts you, backfires. So, you say stuff like, uh, forced bussing, 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 bussing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ‘nigger, nigger.” While Atwater revealed a political plan to substitute the racist rhetoric of early American culture with subtle language that would achieve the same goal, his quote also describes the way racist dog whistles function.
While a dog whistle should only be audible to the intended audience, or in this case, perceivable, some are no longer implementing Atwater’s strategy. Indeed, the racist rhetoric is so loud during this election cycle that it’s hard to ignore. For instance, far-right activist Laura Loomer suggested that if V.P. Kamala Harris wins the election, the White House would “smell like curry.” This, of course, was an effort to denigrate her Indian heritage, not to mention assume her culinary preferences. The attack was racially motivated, not subtle. Putting a spotlight on “curry,” a popular Indian dish with vegetables, spices, and fresh herbs, played into the anti-immigrant sentiment within the country. This political jab also built upon past efforts to portray Harris as a foreigner, an extension of the birtherism movement, which initially targeted former president Barack Obama. Sure, no one is dropping explicit slurs here, but as Atwater pointed out in 1981, that is no longer needed. Simply by negatively characterizing cultural differences, dog whistles can trigger support for anti-black and anti-immigrant policies.
On Meet The Press, J.D. Vance told Kristen Welker he disapproved of Loomer’s statement. However, his response raised the volume on the dog whistle, widening the attack to include a dig at Black Americans. Vance claimed, “Kamala Harris is running for president, and whether you’re eating curry at your dinner table or fried chicken, things have gotten more expensive thanks to her policies.” In this case, he cited “curry” and “fried chicken,” slyly referencing Indian and Black people, the two racial groups associated with these meals. Vance’s response broadened the scope of the insult initiated by Laura Loomer’s statement about the White House smelling like curry, as he used the interview as an opportunity to focus negatively on Kamala Harris’s Black heritage. The dog whistles are so loud, at this point, that you no longer need to be on the political right to catch an earshot — it’s out there in the open, like dirty linen on a clothesline. Vance likely emphasized “curry” and “fried chicken” to taunt the Vice President’s mixed-race ancestry. And to emphasize cultural differences negatively to promote stereotype endorsement.
Racist dog whistles aside, Vance suggested that the cost of groceries is higher under the Biden-Harris administration and that this is entirely her fault. While the Vice President does not have the power to control the market, we can assess steps the current administration has taken toward lowering grocery costs. Such as providing low-income families with more funding through the SNAP program and launching a summer EBT program that expanded free food for “nearly 21 million children.” Additionally, President Biden asked grocery stores with high, record sales to lower their prices. Some responded by doing just that, such as Target, Aldi, and Walmart, who’ve slashed the prices on thousands of items. Lastly, the Biden-Harris administration has worked to fix supply chains shattered by the pandemic to lower food costs. While the problem of food insecurity remains vast in America, it’s not a good-faith critique to imply that nothing has been done. This demonstrates that even when we consider Vance’s statement separate from the racist reference to “curry” and “fried chicken,” it includes misinformation and is not a constructive critique that lays out what a Republican administration would do differently.
In the Economist, Claire Schmidt, a scholar at Missouri Valley College, noted that “persistent advertising and pop-culture images of Black Americans voraciously eating fried chicken with their hands reinforced racist stereotypes,” that portrayed them as dirty, lacking manners, and ignorant. Of course, every racial group enjoys eating chicken, but only one group is ridiculed for enjoying the dish — Black people. And mentioning “curry” had the same effect. By associating Indian people with a culturally unique dish in a demeaning manner was a racist dog whistle that sought to broaden negative sentiment toward Indian people and foreigners more broadly. This month, Vance and former president Donald Trump parroted a false report of Haitians kidnapping and eating people’s pets in Springfield, Ohio. These dog whistles are no longer fulfilling their original, Atwater-inspired purpose of obscuring racist attitudes with subtle political messaging — some are more than willing to say the quiet part out loud.
Why are some openly employing racist dog whistles on the campaign trail? Historically, this political strategy helped garner support for anti-Black policies without sparking public outrage regarding racially disparate outcomes. However, it’s clear some no longer feel restricted in their speech. Indeed, the line between a dog whistle and a blatant racist statement now seems thinner than an iced lake in late spring. Perhaps racist dog whistles are growing louder because there is more public support and tolerance for racist attitudes and behaviors among Americans. The backlash of the civil rights era and the racial reckoning that has accumulated in anti-critical race theory, anti-woke, and anti-DEI legislation may indicate broad support for these ideas. Of course, another possibility is that these racist tropes espoused by White politicians represent only a minority view. That more Americans find efforts to ridicule Black, Indian, Haitian, and others in political discourse abhorrent. However, that is something that only an election and perhaps a well-designed political survey could determine. In the meantime, we’re left to wonder why racist dog whistles keep getting louder and what consequences, if any, there will be for raising the volume.
This post originally appeared on Medium and is edited and republished with author's permission. Read more of Allison Gaines' work on Medium.
Comments
Leave a comment