The art of using dog whistles in political discourse is endlessly fascinating to me. Each ideology has elements so repugnant to people of differing opinions that politicians are desperate to find ways to reassure and inspire followers while keeping off opponents' radar screens. Bush's invocation of the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision in his 2004 debate with Kerry is a famous example of this, signalling to anti-choicers his commitment* to removing federal oversight over the issue of abortion, which would allow states to restrict women's lives to their hearts' content.
Or we could look at Ron Paul's candidacy. Truly here is a master of the dog whistle, as Paul is able to attract the support of many progressives because of his opposition to the Iraq War and, more importantly, his support of the Constitution. To progressives this means that FISA regulations need to be obeyed and even strengthened in favor of privacy. It means no retroactive telecom immunity, it means following the Geneva Conventions. To conservatives, however, it means opposition to Social Security, public schools, Medicare, Medicaid, the federal minimum wage, the EPA, the FDA, and pretty much any other aspect of the federal government that intrudes upon individual rights (for corporations and the investor class).
It's the same on the Democratic side. When Chris Dodd talks about protecting the Constitution, progressives understand that he opposes retroactive telecom immunity, sidestepping FISA regulations and setting aside the Geneva Conventions. Conservatives hear this and think, "LIBERAL!!11!!1!" and oppose him on those grounds.
On Monday we were treated to the most interesting use of the political dog whistle to date. We all know that Mike Huckabee has been overtly courting the Religious Right, and now that Giuliani is no longer appealing to them, Huckabee's rise in the polls has been startling, not least to the powers that be in the GOP. Huckabee has been playing up theology degrees he doesn't have because he knows that the Religious Right sees the world in the context of a theological/military conflict with Islam - as a religion more than as a political force. That Huckabee doesn't have a theology degree at all might have dissuaded him from claiming one, but perhaps the general education courses at Ouachita Baptist College didn't include an ethics requirement.
So, back to Monday's installment of conservative dog whistles. Peter Wehner wrote about Huckabee in the Washington Post, attacking of all things Huckabee's use of religion in his campaign, and contrasting Huckabee's excesses with George W. Bush's restraint. Yes, you read that correctly. What's a bit weird, though, is that Wehner repeats the fallacy of Huckabee's theological education. He states that Huckabee "has a bachelor's degree in religion and has worked on a master's degree in theology." If anything, Wehner goes further than Huckabee in establishing advanced theological bonafides.
Odd, isn't it, that a column written in opposition to Huckabee's candidacy would use one of Huckabee's campaign strategies. Unless, of course, we really are watching the long-awaited splintering of the GOP into Theocratic and Corporate camps, and Wehner's point was to dog whistle frantically to the GOP leadership and money about what a President Huckabee would really mean.
*Hahahaaha. Bush doesn't have any such commitment. He just wanted the "wackos," as GOP leadership affectionately calls them, to vote for him.
