Dog Whistle Politics, Alternative Facts, and Post-Truth Politics: “Truth” that Precedes Reality
The election cycle that birthed our new presidential administration was an extremely turbulent one, and while I could write an article about all the awful restrictions and orders that have radiated from Washington in the past two weeks, I will instead write an ominous reminder to Her Campus: our most basic access to democracy is still under attack.
In fact, we’ve been losing this fight for years now. In case you were unaware, our representatives have been making significant strides in their quest to restrict voting rights and accessibility. Since the 2008 election, which some consider one of the most divisive in US history, waves of voting restrictions have been implemented, which can take the form of voter ID laws to smaller numbers of active polling locations. Between 2011 and 2012 alone, 27 restrictions were legislated, following a growth in power in the Republican Party. As usual, these restrictions had a disproportionately negative effect on African-Americans, Latinx/Hispanic-Americans, the poor, and the elderly because these voters are less likely to have proper IDs or the money to invest in proper IDs.
It is a well-known fact that voting restrictions help Republican nominees, since the traditional base of their support is largely unaffected. It helped Romney. It helped Trump. And as more and more voting restrictions are placed on voters, creating larger and larger burdens on voting, it will continue assisting this party, despite the absurd and untrue claim that the elections were rigged and that millions voted illegally.
It does not help that in June 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in Shelby County v. Holder that states, even those with a long history of discrimination against minorities, are no longer required to seek approval for changes in their voting procedures by the federal government. By dissolving a vital component of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, we entered this last election without the Act’s full protection, the first in 50 years.
Restrictions are expected to worsen in the upcoming years. Senator Ted Cruz has already proposed legislation mandating proof of citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate, to vote in federal elections. There is also a possibility that the Department of Justice could leave enforcement of voting regulations to the states rather than vigorously enforcing it themselves.
Many justify these increasing regulations as ways to avoid voter fraud, a sentiment backed by the public: in 2008, 44% were concerned with illegal ballot casting; in 2016, 36% were concerned with illegal ballot casting. Yet these concerns typically have no evidence to justify them. Domestic voting fraud, at least by illegal ballot casting, which is what most are concerned with, is incredibly rare. If anything, we need to be more concerned with Russian hacking in our elections, yet we aren’t: only 55% of the US is concerned with Russian hacking in the previous election cycle. There is also a clear political divide: 86% of Democrats are bothered by the hacking, yet only 29% of Republicans, the people most enthusiastic about voting regulations, are.
The hypocrisy is stunning.
It should be obvious that no one is concerned with fraud so long as it supports the elites and outcasts the disenfranchised, yet the language is so shrouded in nationalist ideals that it can be difficult to tangle through what is said. This is where dog whistle politics comes into play. For those of you who are unfamiliar with that term, please check out the Wikipedia series titled “Misinformation and Disinformation.” There you will find an overview of this phenomenon, which provides a concise definition:
“Dog-whistle politics is political messaging employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup.”
Like dog whistles themselves, one party hears what the other cannot. This type of language has been used time and time again. Think to the issue of voter fraud. The general population hears that voter fraud is not only possible, but a very real concern that undermines our basic liberties. Yet subgroups hear a very different message. If you are a racial or ethnic minority, you might recognize that this policy disproportionately affects your group since you are typically seen as the reason behind voting fraud. If you are poor, you might recognize that additional burdens will be added so that it will be nearly impossible for you to vote. If you are a trained and educated student or scholar, you will notice the environment that breeds this type of paranoia, concluding that this is one way elites maintain power and ignore the plea of the people.
You may have heard it on other contexts as well. Think of the association between words like “deviant” and “pedophile” to the image of trans people. Notice how quickly bathroom bills proliferated to defend against the predator myth. Think of the association between words like “criminal” and “thug” to the image of black and brown people. Notice the abhorrent rise of mass incarceration, which continues killing and isolating black and brown communities.
*If you are uneducated about the issue of mass incarceration, please, please, watch Ava DuVernay’s 13th, a documentary hosted on Netflix that carefully details the long and aggravating history between slavery and incarceration against black and brown people. It helps show the effects of dog whistle politics on black folk since the times of slavery.
Dog whistle politics is the older cousin of “alternative facts” and “post-truth politics.”
These are all terms that essentially mark a departure from scientifically supported evidence in favor of sociocultural bias. The Oxford Dictionaries named “post-truth” the word of the year. It defines the word as:
“The dictionary defines “post-truth” as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.””
It seems far-fetched and a little paranoid to say we have entered a post-truth world until you consider that the National Park Service had to fight a gag order placed on them by Trump.
How do we decipher among all the lies being told or find the truth being silenced? How do we dig out the subtext of the reading? Well, take it from an expert who has studied this phenomenon in multiple contexts. Johanna Arendt, a German-born Jewish American political theorist who studied power and authority in various governments, explains many political concepts in her book, The Origins of Totalitarianism. many other political scholars can be featured here, but I want to focus on her because she includes ways in which we can read past propaganda. If you want a more concise summary, look to Elliot Lusztig’s Twitter strand. If you have not already seen this, please so do immediately, and use it every time you read or hear a statement posted by our presidential administration.
The strand points out that truth precedes reality. A “truth” is declared and made a reality. The Nazis declared a “truth”: Jews were the cause of Germany’s woes. They were internal saboteurs that desecrated the land and its people. They needed to be removed. Was there evidence? Absolutely not. But what do our history books tell us about the Holocaust and WWII? Their “truth” became reality, resulting in the victimization of over 6 million Jews. Oddly enough, our current administration will not recognize this reality as truth: while the State Department issued a memorial statement that explicitly acknowledged the genocide against Jews, the White House settled on more ambiguous wording, referencing victims, survivors, and the dead. The controversial rewriting can be viewed in many ways, but Senator Tim Kaine (D-Virgina) sees it as a form of Holocaust denial:
“Millions of other innocent civilians were persecuted and murdered by the Nazis, but the elimination of Jews was central to Nazi policy.”
The Republican Jewish Coalition and the Zionist Organization of America have a similar concern:
“The lack of a direct statement about the suffering of the Jewish people during the Holocaust was an unfortunate omission. History unambiguously shows the purpose of the Nazi’s final solution was the extermination of the Jews of Europe. We hope, going forward, he conveys those feelings when speaking about the Holocaust.”
Despite evidence to support the mass slaughter of Jews, and the policies written to eradicate this group from Germany, the Trump Administration settled on ambiguous wording, rather than explicitly naming the groups that were victimized, the groups that survived, and the groups that died.
If the distinction between truth and reality, and how one can precede the other, confuses you, well it should. There shouldn’t be such a visible divide, which we can see in many political issues.
Voting restrictions: Was the election littered with illegal ballot casting? No. Will Trump’s administration continue pushing for restrictions, using this falsehood to justify is actions? Yes. It is being done as we speak. “Truth” will become reality shortly.
Immigration restrictions: Are immigrants stealing our jobs? No. Logically, they do not even have the power to do so. Are immigrants bringing in terrorists? No, they are already here, and they are overwhelmingly white and male. Will immigrants continue experiencing violence and oppression, domestically and internationally? Yes. It is being done as we speak. “Truth” will become reality shortly.
I do not have the time or energy to list out all the “alternative facts” that will very quickly become an oppressive reality, but I’m sure you can come up with your own examples.
Voting restrictions are just one of the many, many ways that we are constantly being lied to (yes, lied to) so that we delve further and further into confusion, distrust, and apathy. Empathy, alertness, and action are the only methods we can keep up with the sludge spewing from DC since January 20. And the effort works: already 31 states have made online voting, the easiest and most convenient method, an option, up from 6. A small, yet significant victory, made by those who are aware of the dangers of voting restrictions. But like other problems, voting restrictions are embedded in a deep psychological minefield, one ridden with psychological distortions, linguistic manipulation, and silenced opposition.
I do not want to leave on such a hopeless note, so here are ways you can get involved:
Make your voice heard: https://5calls.org/
Make your opinion count: https://www.rockthevote.com/
Organize your community: https://www.womensmarch.com/100/action2
Run for office: http://howtorunforoffice.org/
Stay informed with reliable information: http://imgur.com/gallery/iPLkz (but be critical of all that you consume, including this chart, which can gotten some criticism)
Donate your time and money to organizations in need of assistance: ACLU, Planned Parenthood, Teen Vogue, etc.
These are only a few ways to get organized, something I am becoming more capable of each day. In case you were looking for some good news: already, the activism spurred by Trump’s victory is strengthening liberals in office. Activism is how voting methods have become more flexible, how the National Parks Services went rogue to publish climate change facts, and how Ava DuVernay published 13th so that dog whistle politics could be called out. This is how we work for the next four years.