Street Prophets

Huckabee's dog whistle

Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:49:24 AM PDT

An interesting discussion today on language used by Mike Huckabee in his campaign.  He is fond of talking about "vertical" politics rather than "horizontal" politics. Josh Marshall brought this up over at Talking Points Memo, where he includes a video of this Huckabee answer on NBC's Meet the Press last January:

MR. RUSSERT: You said this to the Des Moines Register: "Let’s face it. In our lifetimes, we’ve seen our country go from ‘Leave it to Beaver’ to ‘Beavis and Butt-head,’ from Barney Fife to Barney Frank." Why, why include Barney Frank, a gay congressman, in that reference?

GOV. HUCKABEE: I think it was a matter of a rhetorical device to talk about the different cultural shift that we have, and it wasn’t any particular attempt to be derisive of him. But, but there has been a huge cultural shift in this country, Tim. And I think that’s why many Americans are seeking leadership that has a positive and optimistic spirit, that wants to take this nation—what I call vertical politics rather than horizontal.

I just completed a book in which I talk about the difference between horizontal politics, where everything is left or right, everything is liberal or conservative, everything is Democrat or Republican. I think the American people are hungry for vertical politics, where we have leaders who lift us up rather than those who tear us down.

MR. RUSSERT: But some would suggest by including Barny Frank in that reference you are tearing a gay man down. You’re against gay marriage, you’re against gay civil unions. Is—do you have a problem with gay people?

GOV. HUCKABEE: No. I have a problem with changing institutions that have served us. And I, I think I would rather characterize not what I’m against, but what I’m for. Before we change the definition of marriage to mean something different, I think our real focus ought to be on trying to strengthen heterosexual marriages because half of them are ending in divorce. That’s a real problem in this country. There are a lot of kids who are growing up in a very, very confused and conflicted world because—not because we have same-sex marriage, but because we’re seeing a real failure in the tradition heterosexual marriage. That’s where our focus needs to be. Because if we want to end poverty, get a kid through high school, let him grow up in a stable, two-parent home and make sure that that child doesn’t have a child before he’s 21 and has a full-time job. That’s a 93 percent chance that child will never grow up in a single day of poverty if those are the criteria.

And there's more discussion at The Political Animal.

This is definitely dog-whistle politics -- that is, a message delivered in coded terminology and targeted to a particular subcultural group.  Conservative evangelicals often talk about the need to prioritize their vertical relationships with God first and foremost before worrying about horizontal relationships among people. It's the individualized "get right with God" approach of conservative Protestantism.

In contrast, progressive people of faith reject the vertical-horizontal dichotomy as a false one, saying that in interpersonal relationships one's faith and spiritual teachings are made manifest. Such an outlook is wishy-washy, watered-down liberal theology in the minds of conservative evangelicals. Southern Baptist minister Huckabee knows this, and speaks evangelical-ese with his words. In fact, he's got it up on his website as well.

I know this is so because I've been present a number of times when "vertical" rhetoric -- the exact word -- has been used in evangelical circles. It's indeed a way of speaking one hears in many churches, part of the faith vocabulary of the evangelical and fundamentalist subculture.

The word, of course, comes off as benign (interesting, but benign) to the general public -- that's the whole point. It's a perfect narrowcast message, exactly what Kevin Coe and I talk about in part of our The God Strategy: How Religion Became A Political Weapon in America:

That’s the power of narrowcasting. Targeted, under-the-radar messages denote who is part of the club. It’s like a secret handshake, writ large and electoral: politicians who narrowcast religious cues are assigned considerable credibility by voters in the targeted constituency.

And when you link the dogwhistle directly with a coveted issue position held by the group -- anti-gay marriage -- you've just sealed the dogwhistle. The man is a very, very good politician.

  • ::


Tags: Huckabee, dog whistle, vertical politics (all tags)

Permalink | 26 comments

  • but the number of "dogs" out there (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    lam2b2g, Rain, Quotefiend

    who can hear this are limited--not in Iowa, but in the rest of the country.  It is a very narrow focus--it is not working here in NH--not enough "dogs" here.

    "I love you when you bow in your mosque, kneel in your temple, pray in your church. For you and I are sons of one religion, and it is the spirit."~Gibran

    by PoliSigh on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:05:06 AM PDT

  • Please see Russell King's (4+ / 0-)

    diary on the same topic--Rev. Huck speaking in evangelical code?

    "I love you when you bow in your mosque, kneel in your temple, pray in your church. For you and I are sons of one religion, and it is the spirit."~Gibran

    by PoliSigh on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:21:16 AM PDT

  • I need to get my (4+ / 0-)

    new secret Evangelical decoder ring - and find out why I am off the secret email list.

    I only find out about these dog-whistle code words from liberals - and I am damn tired of being left out of the loop.

    end snark

    This is the same logic anyone organizing a populist grassroots campaign should be using: take a community, break down its divisions, find a common goal, and "rise together", get "above our differences", "rise above adversity", "rise above our circumstances". I used the example of the Portland Trailblazers "Rise With Us" slogan having the same intent of making a community part of the re-birth of a team that had divided itself from its fan base.

    This terminology is the heart and soul of community and populist organizing. Obama is a master at the same thing.

    On a religious level, it is not particularly Evangelical - at least I have never heard it used in my last 5 churches. However, maybe my pastors didn't get their decoder rings either.

    It is Christian in general. The Gospel makes us neither "Jew or Greek, slave or free", it binds us together as the "Body of Christ", and it allows us all to "rise together" to the heavenly places.

    Again, this is Obama's theme as well - and indeed the theme of any good politician. As Huckabee said describing this on his website:

    Everywhere I go on the campaign trail, I meet voters with a real thirst for a healthy discussion of the issues. Ultimately, people don't care whether an issue comes from the left or the right. What they want to talk about are ideas that lift America up and make us better.

    Both Obama and Huckabee did well with the youngest voters because this is the post-modern theme: those definitions, labels, and meta-narratives are meaningless - let's talk about reality, real issues, and real solutions free from sectarian labels and meaningless divisions.

    Sorry, not a dog-whistle for Evangelicals: it may be a dog-whistle for general hope; and a pretty damned good example of how to touch the emotions of voters in a country where Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, have lost anyway of talking to each other - at least other than sitting back at 300 yards and interpreting each others codes.

    SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

    by JCHFleetguy on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 12:26:11 PM PDT

    • Dude! (4+ / 0-)

      I think you just said it wasn't happening:

      I only find out about these dog-whistle code words from liberals - and I am damn tired of being left out of the loop.

      and then told me why it's a useful tactic(and that everyone is using it):

      This is the same logic anyone organizing a populist grassroots campaign should be using:

      But I'm tired, reading quickly, and may misunderstand.

      I might suggest that not all "dog whistles" are viewed as a call by the master in a dog's eyes.  In other words, it might be more a "Pavlovian" response that they were hoping to see. Pavlov's dogs came/salivated when they thought they'd get a seat at the table (eating=necessary to stay alive) not to do tricks.  I might also suggest that a Pavlovian response is what Huckabee is looking for here because the "religious right" has lost patience with being hauled out to jump through hoops every couple of years.

      I may be cynical, but I think he would like for Evangelicals to believe he's secretly (or not so secretly) got their back in the "war" on their "civilization".  The GOP has crafted the message and delivered it over and over..."you, your families and your values are all going to be expunged from this earth if you don't fight them on (fill in the blank)issue; on the battlefield, in the streets, in the churches.  

      Also, is it possible that you don't hear the same call because of the churches you attend?  You seem to me to be more of a "feed the poor" and in-theological agreement kinda Evangelical than a "gays are what's wrong with everything" kinda Evangelical.  Maybe you select churches that reflect that message?  
      Next I'm going to suggest that it is futile to resist and that you get in line and vote with us....

      • Roff! Roff! (4+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        lam2b2g, harpsichord, Quotefiend, MaryKK

        You know us progressives really could learn a thing or two about language from the Right Wing, and their masterful use of language goes way back before Rove. Progressives need to stop allowing the Right to label us and them by picking up on their language. This goes back to the sixties. Take the still popular term "Anti-War" activist; "Anti" itself means negative and by accepting "War" as part of our label we accept the very thing we're opposed to. This term makes us Negative Warriors. What's wrong with defining ourselves using our own terms? Why not call ourselves "Peace-Pros" or "Peace Professors"? Maybe we're just too happy to accept the status of the slave.

        I'm guilty of it myself, but, particularly as a proud progressive social Gospel Evangelical, I hate it when political "progressives" demonize me with the blanket term "evangelical" which now is equated with robotic morons who hate and condemn and rush to war in G-d's name. That ain't me, it ain't my brothers and sisters in my congregation and it sure wasn't Paul, Christ's big Round-One Evangelical.

        I'm OK with conservative evangelical, or Red State evangelical, or some other "evangelical" term which includes more definitive descriptors, but I'm sick of always getting slammed by my progressive brothers and sisters...

        OK, rant over.

        • Don't blame you (3+ / 0-)

          My cousins are in the same boat...it used to be "Southern Baptist" had a bit of a negative connotaion up North (back in the 70's)

          I think all Christians, especially Evangelicals, have had their name 'sullied' by the neocons and theocons who decided to use the people and the name to further a political agenda.  But it's up to Christians to take back the message.  

          I sure didn't mean to "slam" you in my comment.  But it's interesting that the very word "evangelical" now has a negative meaning (kinda like "liberal").  I think if the word has a negative meaning, the GOP is partly to blame.  But Christians (and I speak as one) need to speak up   The biggest rule in politics:
          Define yourself before you get defined

          I believe that Huckabee is using a whistle to call a group of people that his party has taken for granted.  And they define themselves as "evangelicals"

          • It is a shame... (4+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            lam2b2g, harpsichord, Quotefiend, MaryKK

            that we have conceded the term "liberal" to the haters of democracy. In fact every positive movement forward in this country's bloody history has been under the banner of liberalism and every truly great American was a liberal starting with Washington and Jefferson:

            As mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protection of the civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations in examples of justice and liberality. - George Washington

      • I think my point is (4+ / 0-)

        there is no "dog whistle" code language - he said up front what he meant and he has carried it out exactly as explained.

        The means of organizing people haven't changed whether you are talking about the American Revolution, the civil rights struggle, or union organizing.

        The upper level tries to find labels to divide those that need to organize - the organizers find common ground to destroy the labels and paint a better future if people work together and move themselves "up" (it is always a vision of elevation) out of the position so they can go higher.

        It is Obama's message. It is Huckabee's message. It is the one that is working. Neither of them particularly paint some "enemy" that must be defeated - they paint a new vision of the future in which the enemy is irrelevant.

        If you campaign in any other way - against "this", against "them", etc - then you are percieved as someone who attempts to move forward by division.

        In a badly divided country, where nothing useful has been accomplished in a long time because of sectarian divisions, that method is suicide. The message of breaking down the divisions, defining a future together, and moving forward - and up - is going to sell.

        Calling it a dog whistle strategy when Huckabee does it, and inspiring when Obama does it, is just nonsense really

        SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

        by JCHFleetguy on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 06:56:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • Dog whistle (4+ / 0-)

          refers to the fact that some people can't hear it
          It's meant for some to hear. There is a deeper understanding for some.  I don't call it "inspiring" when Obama does it either.  If he's whistling to someone, I can't hear it...but that doesn't mean that he's not out there whistling to someone else.  His message is too vauge for me.  That is why I went looking and asked someone to find some sort of group that he was whistling to...Obama openly courts people of faith.  So does Huckabee. But Huck takes it one further(wasn't Huckabee the floating cross guy?)

          If Obama, or any other candidate, from any other party, started using phrases from (fill in the blank) culture, which are largely understood by that group of people, but not understood by others, I'd call it a dog whistle.
          There is no denying that certain political strategies (like the "Southern Strategy") rely on dog-whistle politics.

          • I was trying to make the suggestion (3+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            JCHFleetguy, harpsichord, Quotefiend

            that maybe you don't hear it because you're not the kinda guy they're whistling for.  I know lots of republicans and lots of evangelicals who wouldn't hear that call.

          • People lay too much stock in that stuff (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Quotefiend, Danish Brethern

            I was around for the civil rights movement - there was nothing subtle about the "southern strategy" on any level. Ever.

            As Joe Carter said, Huckabee in his Christmas commercial mentioned the name Christ - not just Jesus. That is blunt force trama in the world of subtlety. Why, in that case, worry about some subtle floating cross in the background? He, again, mentioned the name of Christ. Subtlety ended there - and everyone heard that message for sure.

            I am deeply, deeply steeped in the language, theology, visuals, mythos, etc of Evangelicalism. I have read Purpose-driven Life, etc etc etc.

            Him talking about vertical politics meant squat to me. I passed it off as some kind of political mumbo-jumbo. I still really pass it off as mumbo jumbo

            Incidentally, while people organize horizonally - the politcal power of that organization is always directed vertically at the top.

            SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

            by JCHFleetguy on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 07:33:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  • Those links (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    lam2b2g, Quotefiend

    on TPM are quite something, especially the last one.  Executing minors for Jesus, now there's a Christian idea.

    Ut in Omnia Glorificatur Dei

    by MaryKK on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 01:00:37 PM PDT

    • You really can't be Old Testament (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Quotefiend, MaryKK, Coleridge Lite

      in your theology with no reference to the New and claim the title "Christian". The good Pastor who wrote this throwback essay found on the link is one of those Old Bible thumpers for whom it doesn't seem to occur that there is a New evolved convenant with all G-d's children (For G-d so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16) These are the Yahweh "Christians". They're still on the road to Jericho and looking for war while justifying murder, not Jerusalem looking for peace and brotherhood.

  • Much ado about nothing (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    lam2b2g, Quotefiend, Danish Brethern

    if you ask me.
    This smells of panic in the liberal/progressive arena.  Are we all so sensitive to literal meaning, innuendo, double-speak, that we can't just let the drivel flow from his or anyone else's mouth?  Leaving it at simply... drivel?

    Really, I don't give a rat's ass who his "whistle" rings for.

    This is nothing more than Biblical proof-texting via the liberal media.

    No can do, guys.  I'm with JCHFleetguy on this one.    

    I don't want to live... I want to love first, and live incidentally. ~Zelda Fitzgerald

    by knucklelady on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:24:56 PM PDT

  • So, let me get this straight (Heh) (4+ / 0-)

    Because heterosexuals fuck up their marriages so successfully, GLBT folk should be punished?

    How's that "personal responsibility" meme working for you, Huckster?

    • Oh!!! I know, I know!!!!!!! (4+ / 0-)

      Let's oulaw marriage for heteros and limit it to GLBT folks who might really appreciate it. In laws will then be Out laws.

      "I love you when you bow in your mosque, kneel in your temple, pray in your church. For you and I are sons of one religion, and it is the spirit."~Gibran

      by PoliSigh on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:15:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    • Surely you've seen this? (5+ / 0-)

      From Bill Maher's New Rules:

      NEW RULE: You can't claim you're the party of smaller government, and then clamor to make laws about love. If there's one area I don't want the US government to add to its list of screw-ups, it's love.
       
      On the occasion of this Valentine's Day, let's stop and ask ourselves: What business is it of the state how consenting adults choose to pair off, share expenses, and eventually stop having sex with each other?

      And why does the Bush administration want a constitutional amendment about weddings? Hey, birthdays are important, too -- why not include them in the great document? Let's make a law that gay people can have birthdays, but straight people get more cake -- you know, to send the right message to kids.

      Republicans are always saying we should privatize things, like schools, prison, Social Security -- OK, so how about we privatize privacy? If the government forbids gay men from tying the knot, what's their alternative? They can't all marry Liza Minnelli.

      Republicans used to be the party that opposed social engineering, but now they push programs to outlaw marriage for some people, and encourage it for others. If you're straight, there's a billion-five in the budget to encourage and promote marriage -- including seed money to pay an old Jewish woman to call up people at random and say "So why aren't you married, Mr. Big Shot?"

      But when it comes to homosexuals, Republicans sing "I Love You Just the Way You Oughta Be." They oppose gay marriage because it threatens or mocks -- or does something -- to the "sanctity of marriage," as if anything you can do drunk out of your mind in front of an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas could be considered sacred. Half the people who pledge eternal love are doing it because one of them is either knocked-up, rich or desperate, but in George Bush's mind, marriage is only a beautiful lifetime bond of love and sharing -- kind of like what his Dad has with the Saudis.

      But at least the right wing aren't hypocrites on this issue -- they really believe that homosexuality, because it says so in the Bible, is an "abomination" and a "dysfunction" that's "curable": they believe that if a gay man just devotes his life to Jesus, he'll stop being gay -- because the theory worked out so well with the Catholic priests.

      But the greater shame in this story goes to the Democrats, because they don't believe homosexuality is an "abomination," and therefore their refusal to endorse gay marriage is a hypocrisy. The right are true believers, but the Democrats are merely pretending that they believe gays are not entitled to the same state-sanctioned misery as the rest of us. The Democrats' position doesn't come from the Bible, it's ripped right from the latest poll, which says that most Americans are against gay marriage.

      Well, you know what: Sometimes "most Americans" are wrong. Where's the Democrat who will stand up and go beyond the half measures of "civil union" and "hate the sin, love the sinner," and say loud and clear: `There IS no sin, and homosexuality is NOT an abomination' -- although that Boy George musical Rosie O'Donnell put on comes close. The only thing abominable about being gay is the amount of time you have to put in at the gym.

      But that aside, the law in this country should reflect that some people are just born 100 percent outrageously, fabulously, undeniably Fire Island gay, and that they don't need re-programming. They need a man with a slow hand.

      Happy Valentine's Day everybody!

Permalink | 26 comments