Elaina Church

HONORS 211 C

Katarzyna Dziwirek

March 14, 2017

Term Paper: Coded Language

1. Introduction

Coded language is use of words and key phrases to marginalize entire communities

through careful and disguised attacks. In his book, Dog Whistle Politics, Ian Haney López

delves into the concept of coded language, or proverbial dog whistles, especially in relation to

politics and race. López defines dog whistle politics as “coded racial appeals that carefully

manipulate hostility towards nonwhites… Superficially these provocations have nothing to do

with race, yet they nevertheless powerfully communicate messages about threatening

nonwhites” (iv). Dictionary.com defines a dog whistle as “a political strategy statement, slogan

etc. that conveys a controversial, secondary message understood only by those who support the

message”. In my paper I hope to explore both of these definitions through examples and

analysis as well as expanding this search to included sexist coded language. As “dog whistles”

and coded entreaties take over American politics, it is important to be cognizant of the power

these words yield.

Author and linguist George Lakoff explained the modern shift towards “political

correctness”: “for many years… bigotry has not been publicly acceptable, especially as more

immigrants have arrived, as the country has become less white, as more women have become

educated and moved into the workplace, and as gays have become more visible and gay

marriage acceptable.” But this new culture of “political correctness”, or the increasing
 Church 2

unacceptability of bigoted language, has not eradicated racism; racism has been adapting since

the 1960’s and, although it looks different than it did fifty years ago, is still prevalent today in

the form of microagressions and coded jargon. Politicians and lawmakers use these adapted

dog whistles to communicate their own racist, sexist, homophobic, and/or xenophobic

sympathies to gain public support and further ostracize marginalized groups.

2. Why Are These “Whistles” Used?

In studying dog whistle politics or, more generally, coded language, it is important to

look at why this language is employed. In the personal and professional sphere, coded

language is often employed to undermine an individual or put down someone discretely. These

microagressions can be highly damaging to an individual, and while it is important to study

them and the role they play, I will mostly be focusing on larger scale aggressions and how

coded language can be employed to marginalize entire communities. In the first sentence of

Dog Whistle Politics, López claims that “Republicans rely on racial entreaties to win

elections”, and while this technique is undoubtedly utilized by both parties, it has been

historically exploited to mobilize right wing voters (1). By using racially coded words and

phrases politicians, specifically Republicans, can speak on a subliminal level to people who

will inevitably support the racist, sexist, and overall regressive policies they promote. Former

Governor of Alabama, George Wallace, was one of the forebears of this shorthand racism, and

his use of coded language would define his political career as well as the next 50 years of

American politics:

Wallace realized the need to simultaneously move away from supremacist language

that was increasingly unacceptable, while articulating a new vocabulary that channeled

old, bigoted ideas. He needed a new form of racism that stimulated the intended
 Church 3

audience without overtly transgressing prescribed social limits… Hardcore racism

showed white supremacy in disquieting detail. In contrast the new soft porn racism hid

any direct references to race, even as it continued to trade on racial stimulation. (López

16-17)

This idea makes up the main point of my essay, that racism, sexism, homophobia, and

xenophobia are not gone from American politics, but rather, adapting to fit the social

conventions of the time. Just because people are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with

speaking overtly about racism does not mean that these sentiments are disappearing; instead

these sentiments are being conveyed in hidden intonations to the masses.

3. Richard Nixon and Law and Order

The term “law and order” has been a favorite dog whistle since the 1960’s when Nixon

used it (successfully) to win his 1968 presidential race. “Better than most politicians, Nixon

understood how to tap the resentments of “The Middle Americans” (Zeitz). Politico’s Josh

Zeitz said of Nixon’s push for law and order: “Crime was a convenient proxy for race, but also

for a complex amalgam of social and cultural concerns that troubled the mind of ‘Middle

America.’ If Middle America had trouble articulating its resentments, worries and insecurities,

Richard Nixon didn’t.” Nixon won the presidential race because he was able to enunciate the

resentments and fears of the middle class. As crimes spiked, Nixon scapegoated African-

American citizens through carefully chosen words and policy support. Nixon once viewed one

of his own commercials that “[appealed] to racial fears without overtly mentioning race at all”

and said “yep, this hits it right on the nose… its all about law and order and the damn [n-word]-

Puerto Rican groups out there” (qtd. in López). This disturbing quote reveals Nixon’s

knowledge of his tactics and his endorsement of coded attacks against minorities.
 Church 4

While Nixon’s racist rhetoric was offensive, problematic, and damaging, it was rooted

in actual spikes in crime and civil unrest, however, Trump’s use of the term “law and order” is

arguably more concerning because “today [crime] is at a historic low” (Zeitz). Trump once

said, “I am the law and order candidate”, a line which has come to define his policies on crime

(qtd. in Nunberg). Law and order “was a phrase invoked to condemn the striking auto workers

in Flint in 1936 and the demonstrations organized by Martin Luther King in Birmingham in

1963”; it has a history of being used to target perceived violence within the African-American

community (Nunberg). Trump has used this language to drum up support of his campaign and

policies through fear of supposed “black violence”. He even presented an example of the

effectiveness of law and order by evoking the “success” of stop and frisk. In reality, stop and

frisk was the opposite of successful. In fact, 80 to 90% of people stopped were innocent

African Americans and Latinos and the murder rate has actually decreased since the suspension

of the policy (Dwyer). Trump’s penchant for ignoring facts and creating unrest is disturbing in

its exploitation of past racial tensions. As far as proof of the success of Trump’s rhetoric goes,

the numbers speak for themselves. Trump, and his divisive, sexist, xenophobic, and racist

language (coded and overt), was successful in his collection of white sympathies and

marginalization of people of color, collecting 58% of the white vote but a measly 8% of the

black vote and 29% of the Hispanic/Latino vote in the 2016 election (Huang, Jacoby,

Strickland, & Lai). The voting patterns of minorities is important to analyze as minorities

frequently vote along Democratic lines, rejecting the party that has been historically exclusive

and hostile towards them. Whilst the code words of Republicans are successful in mobilizing

white voters, the exclusiveness of the language Republican’s employ also distances a growing

minority.
 Church 5

4. Coded Language: A Republican Problem

Although coded language is not necessarily partisan, it is a tool highly and historically

employed by the Republican Party. While it is true that Bill Clinton and a handful of other

Democrats employed dog whistles to get elected and push policy, this tactic has been a

cornerstone of right wing politics for at least five decades. The use of these codes is not a

mistake, but highly intentional. Politicians knowingly use these words to communicate their

true feelings and agendas. Lee Atwater, a prominent advisor for both Ronald Reagan and

George H. W. Bush, exposed himself and the politicians he consulted as employing this

language with full knowledge of the message it was sending:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “N----r, n----r, n----r.” By 1968 you can’t say “n----

r”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, 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 busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N----r, n--

--r.” (qtd. in Herbert, “Impossible, Ridiculous, Repugnant”)

In this context, Atwater is trying to convince the interviewer that although these codes do imply

race, they are less offensive and oppressive than outwardly racist statements. Being against

“forced busing” was a not-so-subtle way to oppose integration in schools. Also when

politicians spoke about “states’ rights” they were not referring to “the principles of

constitutional law” but rather allocating rights to states that would give the states the power to

pass discriminatory laws (Willis). The phrase “states’ rights” has a history of being employed

to defend segregationist state laws, but in more modern days is often used to support state laws
 Church 6

that oppose same sex marriage, abortion rights, and LGBTQIA+ inclusion rules (Willis). Last

month, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer was asked by a reporter if the Trump

presidency would continue to allow transgender kids to use the public school bathroom that

corresponds to their gender identity, to which Spicer responded “the president has maintained

for a long time that this is a states' rights issue, and not one for the federal government” (qtd. in

Willis). This response seems innocuous enough at first, but is clearly symbolic of a Republican

tradition of diverting federal power to keep non-inclusion alive in well in the modern USA.

Coded language is not necessarily less problematic than overt racism; if used correctly,

as in the cases of Reagan and Atwater, it can be used to get votes, secure positions of power,

and oppose policies that benefit minorities. Reagan used dog whistles through his campaigns

and presidency and while these words were hurtful, they were also damaging as using them

gave him the power to oppose the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act in the mid 1960’s

(Herbert, “Impossible, Ridiculous, Repugnant”). When utilized in the personal or professional

sphere, coded language can seriously undermine one’s personal agency and power, but when

used on large scales by people like Reagan and Atwater, coded language can unite voters and

be used to justify policy moves that further marginalize minorities. The GOP, which uses these

dog whistles far more often than the Democratic Party, has collected the majority of white

votes for the last few decades (Herbert, “Impossible, Ridiculous, Repugnant”); clearly the

utilization of these terms has been effective and essential to the Republican cause.

5. Ronald Reagan: States Rights and Welfare Queens

Although often hailed as the embodiment of good old-fashioned Republican values, the

GOP’s golden boy, Ronald Reagan, was a champion of dog whistling. Through his presidency

and campaigns Reagan was a tireless user of code words. By declaring “I believe in states’
 Church 7

rights” he could rile an entire crowd and woo white voters nationwide (López 58). New York

Times opinion journalist, Bob Herbert said it best:

Reagan may have been blessed with a Hollywood smile and an avuncular delivery, but

he was elbow deep in the same old race-baiting Southern strategy of Goldwater and

Nixon. Everybody watching the 1980 campaign knew what Reagan was signaling at

the fair. Whites and blacks, Democrats and Republicans — they all knew. The news

media knew. The race haters and the people appalled by racial hatred knew. And

Reagan knew. He was tapping out the code. (“Righting Reagan’s Wrongs?”)

It is easy for modern day historians to gloss over Reagan’s racism. When removed from the

tensions of the day, Reagan’s words about his support of states’ rights seem unimportant and

inoffensive, but when placed in the context of the time, it is evident that Reagan’s words were

meant to enrage white voters and exploit aggressively racist attitudes.

Perhaps one of Reagan’s most offensive anecdotes was that of the “Chicago welfare

queen” (López 58). This character had “eighty names, thirty addresses, [and] twelve Social

Security cards [who] is collecting veteran’s benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands.

She’s got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names.

Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000” (qtd. in López 58). Reagan not only insinuated that

this Cadillac driving woman was ripping off society’s generosity without remorse but he also

shrewdly inserted the white worker as the story’s victim, therefore encouraging racial tensions

(López 58-59). Reagan’s implications were extremely damaging, as he used the discontent

stirred by his own speeches to push equally racist policies. Reagan managed to evade the

consequences of his own racism by never saying words like “black”; he instead let his

descriptions and the minds of the voters do the work for him. Reagan was undoubtedly talking
 Church 8

about race and intentionally spreading unsubstantiated stereotypes of black women and people

on welfare, but he did it so craftily that he never once had to mention race.

6. Hillary Clinton and Sexist Dog Whistles

Coded language is not exclusively used to advance racist agendas and secure the votes

of those who harbor racist sentimentalities, but can also be used to hide any type of prejudiced

and discriminatory message. In the past election season, dog whistles were often used to point

out Hillary Clinton’s gender and convey hidden attitudes that it should somehow disqualify her

from being a serious candidate. The negative press she endured both at the hands of Trump and

the media was overwhelming and often laden with sexist double meanings. These terms vary

from extremely obvious to more covert and include everything from “untrustworthy”, shrill,

and calculating, to “willing to say anything to get elected” (Bush). On a shallow level these

words mean little to nothing, after all every candidate faces negative press and somewhat

offensive adjectives, but Clinton suffered from a higher percentage of negative media attention

than Trump throughout the course of her campaign (Patterson) a fact which no doubt has roots

in gender politics. Words like “shrill”, “calculating”, and “cold” contain a sexist underbelly.

These words would never be utilized to describe a man, in fact, imagining a man being

described as “shrill” errs on the side of ridiculous. A man in a position of similar power with

similar political gravitas would be described as “confident”, “assertive”, and “focused”:

adjectives that are devoid of the negative and gendered implications that the terms “shrill”,

“calculating”, and “cold” possess.

During the first presidential election of the 2016 campaign season, Trump said, about

Clinton, “she doesn’t have the stamina. I said she doesn’t have the stamina. And I don’t believe

she does have the stamina. To be president of this country, you need tremendous stamina” (qtd.
 Church 9

in Hess). A journalist from the New York Times explains Trump’s four-time use of “stamina”:

“the word implies everything Trump has been told he’s no longer allowed to say outright. It

strikes a glancing blow at Clinton’s sex without his ever having to call her an old lady” (Hess).

Hess also says that Trump’s language “pokes at an American subconscious that stereotypes

older women as sick, weak, unattractive, and useless.” Trump’s employ of the word stamina is

interesting because he has not shied away from using overtly sexist descriptions in the past.

Although insults about “stamina” are not as offensive sounding as “pig, dog, slob, [and]

bimbo” (words he’s employed towards women in the past), they still communicate sexist

feelings and appeal to a voting group that agrees: Clinton’s gender renders her unable to carry

out the job of Commander in Chief.

This quote does not stand alone, but rather, is accompanied by a slew of similar

comments by Trump from various interviews and debates including one where he said she

didn’t have the “presidential look” (qtd. in Parker). When the reporter pressed and asked if he

was making an “aesthetic judgment”, Trump deflected and rambled about his own temperament

(Parker). Trump’s avoidance of the question reveals his coded intentions; Trump did not need

to explain why Clinton did not have the “presidential look”, merely suggesting this leaves the

voters to fill in the blanks while he keeps his hands clean. Hedging around sexism still gets the

point across, but leaves room for semantic protection.

7. Urban, Thugs, and Inner Cities

Although usages of code words are most apparent in public or political spheres and can

do extensive damage when employed nationally, these words also pervade media, personal

interactions, and the American subconscious. The words “urban”, “thugs”, and “inner cities”

are used frequently by politicians as code words for “black” but have been especially prevalent
 Church 10

in the midst of the gaining traction of the Black Lives Matter movement. Jolie A. Doggett, a

journalist from Essence, claims that the word “thug” is the new n-word and the term “urban” is

“basically a code word to describe any city that’s filled with people of color”. These words do

not have the same stigma as the n-word, but covey similar sentiments and can be used

interchangeably with other racial slurs.

When the Romney/Ryan ticket lost in the 2012 presidential election to Obama/Biden,

Paul Ryan was quoted saying, “the surprise was some of the turnout, some of the turnout

especially in urban areas, which gave President Obama the big margin to win this race” (qtd. in

Shear). To deconstruct the meanings behind Ryan’s words it is important to examine what

demographics Barack Obama did win over. In 2012 Obama held just 39% of the white vote,

but an unmistakably large 93% of the black vote and 71% of the Hispanic of Latino vote

(“Presidential Election Results”). Ryan “is not the only conservative who has embraced the

notion that a surge of voters in urban America gave Mr. Obama the prize, as many Republicans

try to come to grips with how an election they believed was theirs for the taking instead got

away” (Shear & Steinhauer). Ryan’s words are problematic because they carry a prejudiced

undertone that undermines the validity of the non-white vote. His words seem to profess that

Obama won on some sort of technicality; Ryan blamed “urban” or minority voters for their

assistance in helping Obama win, while minimizing his own ticket’s failures.

8. Conclusion

Coded language continues to be used as an adapted form of exclusive and damaging

language. Coded words hurled against racial minorities, women, the LGBTQIA+ community,

and non-Christian’s continue to be a prevalent issue that is damaging the fabric of the USA.

These words, employed by politicians and others in positions of power, can be used to unjustly
 Church 11

marginalize specific groups as well as collect support of campaigns and policies. These words

and the support they help gain are not harmless, but rather continue to divide the country.

“Racial differences remain and they are imposing. One third of the black children in the United

States live in poverty, more than three times the rate of white children, and… According to

recent figures, the average white household commands more than ten times the financial assets

of the average black household” (Kinder & Dale-Riddle 15). Reagan’s use of stereotypes to

blame African Americans for these systematic issues has done more harm than good, with these

racial divisions lasting today. Dog whistle politics are not harmless, they have real victims; as

(primarily) Republican politicians exploit racist sympathies to cut back on welfare, impose

immigration bans, and slash taxes for the rich, they are perpetuating the historical inequality in

the US. Until coded language is recognized and no longer tolerated, it will continue to be

employed to promote disastrous agendas.

 Church 12

Works Cited
Bush, Daniel. "The Hidden Sexism That Could Sway the Election." PBS. Public Broadcasting
Service, n.d. Web. 11 Mar. 2017.
Davies, Mark. (2008-) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million
words, 1990-present. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.
"Dog-Whistle". Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 2 Mar. 2017.
Doggett, Jolie A. "5 Code Words the Media Needs To Stop Using to Describe Black
People." Essence.com. Essence.com, 30 Apr. 2015. Web. 11 Mar. 2017.
Dwyer, Jim. "What Donald Trump Got Wrong on Stop-and-Frisk." The New York Times. The
New York Times, 27 Sept. 2016. Web. 11 Mar. 2017.
Herbert, Bob. "Impossible, Ridiculous, Repugnant." The New York Times. The New York
Times, 06 Oct. 2005. Web. 10 Mar. 2017.
Herbert, Bob. "Righting Reagan’s Wrongs?" The New York Times. The New York Times, 12
Nov. 2007. Web. 10 Mar. 2017.
Hess, Amanda. "What's Really Behind Trump's Obsession With Clinton's 'Stamina'?" The New
York Times. The New York Times, 11 Oct. 2016. Web. 11 Mar. 2017.
Huang, Jon, Samuel Jacoby, Micheal Strickland, and K.K. Rebecca Lai. "Election 2016: Exit
Polls." The New York Times. The New York Times, 08 Nov. 2016. Web. 11 Mar. 2017.
Kinder, Donald R., and Allison Dale-Riddle. “SOCIAL GROUPS AND THE VOTE.” The End
of Race?, Yale University Press, 2012, pp. 8–25, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1npcz6.5.
Lakoff, George. "Understanding Trump." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 22
July 2016. Web. 11 Mar. 2017.
López, Ian Haney. Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism
and Wrecked the Middle Class. Oxford UP, USA, 2013. Web.
McCutcheon, Chuck, Greenfield, Jeff, and Mark, David. Dog Whistles, Walk-backs, and
Washington Handshakes: Decoding the Jargon, Slang, and Bluster of American
Political Speech. Lebanon, NH: ForeEdge, 2014. Print.
Merica, Dan. "Trump Signs Executive Order to Keep out 'radical Islamic Terrorists'." CNN.
Cable News Network, n.d. Web. 11 Mar. 2017.
Nunberg, Geoff. "Is Trump's Call For 'Law And Order' A Coded Racial Message?" NPR. NPR,
28 July 2016. Web. 11 Mar. 2017.
Parker, Ashley. "Donald Trump Says Hillary Clinton Doesn't Have 'a Presidential Look'." The
New York Times. The New York Times, 06 Sept. 2016. Web. 11 Mar. 2017.
Patterson, Thomas E. "News Coverage of the 2016 General Election: How the Press Failed the
Voters." Shorenstein Center. N.p., 04 Jan. 2017. Web. 11 Mar. 2017.
"Presidential Election Results." NBCNews.com. NBCUniversal News Group, 11 Mar. 2017.
Web. 11 Mar. 2017.
Shear, Michael D., and Jennifer Steinhauer. "Ryan Sees Urban Vote as Reason G.O.P.
Lost." The New York Times. The New York Times, 13 Nov. 2012. Web. 11 Mar. 2017.
Shear, Michael D. "Ryan Surprised by Voters in 'Urban Areas'." The New York Times. The
New York Times, 13 Nov. 2012. Web. 11 Mar. 2017.
Willis, Jay. "The Trump Administration's "States' Rights" Rhetoric Is an Insidious Dog Whistle
For Something Far Worse." GQ. N.p., 09 Mar. 2017. Web. 10 Mar. 2017.
Zeitz, Josh, Jacob Heilbrunn, Annie Karni, and Jennifer Gollan. "How Trump Is Recycling
Nixon’s ‘Law and Order’ Playbook." POLITICO Magazine. N.p., 18 July 2016. Web.
11 Mar. 2017.