Tuesday, September 26, 2006

The Comma: A Dog Whistle

One blog I check every day is Language Log. It's just about language, theories of language, weird ways people butcher their languages, strange interesting facts about language. I'm sure it's not for everybody, but it's something I have an interest in.

OK, back up. Yesterday President Bush said the most bizarre thing in an interview. He said that when the history books are written, the war in Iraq -- which, in case you missed it, is a total failure and a terrible disaster -- will "look just like a comma."

Thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people have been killed in this "comma." A country lies in ruins. America's security is endangered and our international reputation is sunk. So some people, like ... me, for instance ... thought this was a very strange way to put it.

Turns out, as Language Log notes, The comma was really a dog whistle.
That's the theory of Ian Welch at The Agonist. According to him, when President Bush said that the Iraq war would "look just like a comma" to future historians, he wasn't using a creative and unexpected metaphor-- he was evoking a well-known proverb that urges steadfastness, "Never put a period where God has put a comma."

This being Language Log, of course we're going to check the numbers. And there are 440,000 Google hits for {period God comma}, mostly indeed variants of this expression:
Don't put a period where God has put a comma.
Never place a period where God has placed a comma.
If we stop there we are placing a period where God has placed a comma.
Never put a period, where God has put a comma.
Don't put a period where God puts a comma.
Don't put a period where God put a comma.
Don't place a period where God intended a comma.
God’s period is what allows our lives to have commas.
...we must be alert to the caution Gracie Allen left us not to put periods where God has put commas.
Today’s Bible stories are both about God putting a commas where humans might be tempted to put periods

See, you and I wouldn't have known to look for this.

A "dog whistle." It's a concept we've been seeing mentioned more and more. A real dog whistle is something that you blow on and only dogs can hear it. These days it refers to a secret code-phrase that used by a member of a group, especially a particular clique of religous fanatics, to signal secretly to one another in public.

Language Log goes on to quote entire sermons based on this metaphor. They continue:
Anyhow, Ian Welch is obviously right about the source of President Bush's comma, and Ken Layne was wrong. It was religion, not drugs.

But why is this allusion a "dog whistle"? Welch argues that President Bush
is constantly littering his speeches with code words and phrases meant for the religious right. Other people don't hear them, but they do, and most of the time it allows Bush both to say what those who aren't evangelical or born again want to hear, while still reassuring the religious right wants to hear.

For example, one of the most famous episodes of this was Bush's reference in the 2004 debates to the Dred Scott decision. Most people couldn't figure out what the heck he was talking about - it seemed like a non-sequitur. But, as Paperwight pointed out at the time, anti-abortion activists see themselves as similar to anti-slavery activists. And they take heart that eventually Dred Scott v. Sandford was overthrown. [...]

The other name for this is dog whistle politics. When you blow a dog whistle humans can't hear it, but the dogs sure can. It's a pitch higher than humans can hear. When you speak in code like this, most of the time the only people who hear and understand what you just said are the intended group, who have an understanding of the world and a use of words that is not shared by the majority of the population. So it allows you to send out two messages at once - one pitched for the majority of Americans, the other pitched for a subgroup. This goes on all the time, and usually it isn't caught - most people don't hear it, and the media is made up of people who can't make the connections because they don't belong to these subgroups. So they can't point out the subtext either.

It's very effective, and it's one reason why Bush still has his hard core of support - he's constantly reassuring them, at a pitch the rest of us can't hear.

Sometimes politicians say things that us ordinary folks really have no way of understanding. I didn't know what Bush could've meant with this "comma" thing.

Because, really, when the history books are written, this will clearly not be a comma. It is more likely to be a chapter, titled something like, Miserable Failure.

23 Comments:

Blogger andrear said...

Gee, it sounded offensive to me -but I am the religious left. I just thought Bush was being his usual thoughtless self(although I realize so much of what he says is scripted) about the war.

September 27, 2006 9:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey kids:

Just for argument's sake:

What do you think the U.S. should do in Iraq now?

September 27, 2006 10:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I say we suit up all the neocons in the White House, Pentagon, and on Captial Hill and drop them into Iraq so they can finish what they started.

September 27, 2006 11:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hillary tries stand-up comedy:

"Sen. Clinton backs husband in terror hunt row

Senator responds to Rice remarks about handling of al-Qaida terror threat

Updated: 7:56 a.m. ET Sept 27, 2006

WASHINGTON - New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has struck back at Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the escalating political bickering over which president — Bill Clinton or George W. Bush — missed more opportunities to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks.

Clinton, D-N.Y., took aim at President Bush and Rice over their roles in 2001 before the attacks, part of a growing argument that ignited after former President Clinton gave a combative interview on “Fox News Sunday” in which he defended his efforts to kill Osama bin Laden.

“I think my husband did a great job in demonstrating that Democrats are not going to take these attacks,” Hillary Clinton said Tuesday. “I’m certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled ’Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the United States’ he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team.”

The senator was referring to a classified brief given to Bush in August 2001, one that Democrats say showed the Bush administration did not do enough to combat the growing threat from al-Qaida.

When the brief was delivered, Rice was Bush’s national security adviser, and Clinton’s response was clearly designed to implicate her in the same criticisms that have been made of Bush.

Clinton’s response came a day after Rice denied President Clinton’s claim in the television interview that the Bush administration had not aggressively pursued al-Qaida before the attacks of 2001.

“What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years,” Rice said during a meeting with editors and reporters at the New York Post. “The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn’t do that is just flatly false, and I think the 9/11 commission understood that.”

Rice also took exception to President Clinton’s statement that he “left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy” for incoming officials when he left office.

“We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaida,” she told the newspaper.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed."

Note that Hillary didn't repeat Bill's lie about the comprehensive strategy. She has to face an electorate this fall after all.

September 27, 2006 2:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I say we suit up all the neocons in the White House, Pentagon, and on Captial Hill and drop them into Iraq so they can finish what they started."

It's what I thought. Democrats have a secret plan to win the war but will just joke about it til after the election.

NO THEY DON'T.

They have no idea what to do.

September 27, 2006 2:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"but I am the religious left"

Could you elaborate on how you differ from the irreligious left? Just for the sake of confused posterity.

September 27, 2006 2:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It's what I thought. Democrats have a secret plan to win the war but will just joke about it til after the election."

Oh yes, that's right. I'm the Democrat in charge of this secret plan and I blog here just to relax.

Did you think I was joking when I suggested sending in the know-nothings who got us into this mess to clean up after themselves? I wasn't. If Bush can land a plane on an aircraft carrier, I'm sure he can land one full of his cronies at Baghdad International Airport. I'm not so sure that "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner will be waiting for him this time.

My plan sure is better than the "stay the course" plan. What course is that anyway? The find WMDs course or the eliminate nuclear weapons programs course or the remove an evil dictator course or the build a new democratic Iraq course or the split Iraq into pieces course? Once you figure that out, then maybe you can tell us when we can expect all of those sweet Iraqi crude oil revenues will finally start paying for this QUAGMIRE.

September 27, 2006 5:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The point is that Democrats have absolutely no alternative to the Bush strategy. Some Republicans have some ideas but Democrats really hope America loses so they can blame Republicans. They think it might finally make up for their blunders of the last forty years.

Problem is, outside of America, while there are those who do not wish us well, there are few, outside of outright terrorists who desire that we leave Iraq now. That's because of the blow this would represent to civilization everywhere.

Democrats are currently in a frenzy with the media about the mess the administration has made. While mistakes certainly have been made, Democrats don't say what they might have done- even in hindsight. During the 2004 presidential debates, Kerry was asked what he would have done differently. Well, he would have waited a few more months before he invaded. Yet, after waiting over a decade for Saddam to adhere to truce agreements and U.N. resolutions, is there any reason to believe he would have suddenly caved? Is this still what Democrats are saying?

Past, present and future- Democrats are clueless. But they are good at waiting for America to have setbacks and then attacking. But beyond getting themselves elected, they have no ideas.

When was the last time a Democrat from a non-Southern state was elected President? That would be John Kennedy.

This upcoming election is the last time Democrats will be a factor. The liberal blogosphere (thanks, TTF) has pushed them so far into lunatic fringery that the new independents like Lieberman will form a new party. This might be where the next President comes from. Or maybe it will be Jeb Bush.

Have fun while it lasts!

September 28, 2006 5:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Lieberman staying ahead of Lamont in Conn.

Poll shows three-term incumbent with 10-point lead over Democrat

Oct 26 Hillary Clinton’s birthday

Nov 14 Condoleezza Rice’s birthday

Updated: 28 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Democrat Ned Lamont continues to struggle to find support among Republican and unaffiliated voters in his attempt to defeat three-term incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman in November's Connecticut Senate election, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday.

Lieberman maintains a 10-point advantage among likely voters in the poll, leading Lamont 49 percent to 39 percent in a three-way race."

September 28, 2006 9:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Lieberman maintains a 10-point advantage among likely voters in the poll, leading Lamont 49 percent to 39 percent in a three-way race."

...leaving 12 whole percentage points for the GOP and other irrelevant candidates fight over.

September 28, 2006 9:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""Lieberman maintains a 10-point advantage among likely voters in the poll, leading Lamont 49 percent to 39 percent in a three-way race."

...leaving 12 whole percentage points for the GOP and other irrelevant candidates fight over."

Oh, yes. This is true. But from a national perspective, this makes the Democrats losers in one of our bluer states.

You see, when we have a second responsible party, common sense folks we actually have a choice. Lieberman believes in traditional values. Sometimes the Republicans will win, sometimes the alternative common sense party will win. America wins either way and can have a functioning political system again.

A new party's coming!

And when we party, we party hardy.

September 28, 2006 10:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A new party's coming?

Looks like you're late!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States

"Democratic Party, founded circa 1792
Republican Party, founded 1854...


Libertarian Party
Green Party
Constitution Party (formerly the U.S. Taxpayers Party)...


Alaskan Independence Party
Aloha Aina Party
America First Party
American Independent Party
American Heritage Party
American Nazi Party
American Patriot Party
American Reform Party
Charter Party of Cincinnati, Ohio
Communist League (US)
Communist Party USA
Connecticut for Lieberman Party
Conservative Party of New York
Covenant Party (Northern Mariana Islands)
Free People's Movement
Independence Party of Minnesota
Independence Party of New York
Independent American Party
Independent Citizens Movement (US Virgin Islands)
Labor Party
Liberal Party of Minnesota
Liberal Party of New York
Liberty Union Party (Vermont)
Marijuana Party
Marijuana Reform Party (New York)
Moderate Party
Mountain Party (West Virginia)
Natural Law Party
New Party
New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico
New Union Party
New York State Right to Life Party
Peace and Freedom Party
Personal Choice Party
Pirate Party
Popular Democratic Party of Puerto Rico
Populist Party of Maryland (Nader 2004-affiliated, unrelated to earlier so-named parties)
Prohibition Party
Puerto Rican Independence Party
Reform Party of the United States of America
Republican Moderate Party of Alaska
Socialist Action (US)
Socialist Alternative
Socialist Equality Party (US)
Socialist Labor Party
Socialist Party USA
Socialist Workers Party
Southern Party
Southern Independence Party
United Citizens Party
Vermont Progressive Party
Voter Rights Party
Workers World Party
Working Families Party
Workers Party, USA
World Socialist Party of the United States "

September 28, 2006 1:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The new party will have defectors from among elected officials and will immediately replace Democrats as the second most successful party. Scoff if you will- I spoke a couple of years ago to a guy who once ran a presidential campiagn for a Democratic nominee and he predicted this very scenario.

Meanwhile, here's a running mate for Lieberman:

""Every American president I've known would have given his life to prevent an attack like that. That includes President Clinton, President Bush," the former mayor, Rudolf Guliani said. "They did the best they could with the information they had at the time."

Giuliani also said a recently declassified report that said the Iraq war had become a "cause celebre" for Islamic extremists demonstrated the need to continue the fight there.

"The jihadists very much want a victory in Iraq. They feel that if they could defeat us in Iraq they will have a great victory for terrorism," Giuliani said. "What that should do is organize us to say if they want a big victory in Iraq then we have to deprive them of that victory."

Giuliani said he was "very interested in considering" a run for president but would not make a decision until after the November election."

September 28, 2006 2:07 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

"The point is that Democrats have absolutely no alternative to the Bush strategy."

Therein lies the deep tragedy of the Bush II Presidency. President Bush created a situation in which we are damned if we stay and damned if we leave.

If we stay, we continue to provide the atmosphere for increasing anti-American terrorism most likely eventually leading to the Iraqi government asking us to leave or us facing our own Dienbienphu, with the result being an alliance between Shi'a Iraq and Iran.

If we leave, we arguably embolden the terrorists and (not so arguably) leave behind chaos and a mess in which more people will be slaughtered because of the mess we made -- and the outcome of which will most likely be to create an Iranian Shi'ite hegemony in the Middle East, controlling not just Iranian and Iraqi oil, but threatening to control the Arabian peninsula oil, as well. But that is pretty much the same result if we stay.

President Bush got us into an unnecessary war, which served to create a breeding ground for infinitely more terrorists and terrorism than we faced before and which is in the process of giving the Iranian theocracy precisely what they wanted: Saddam out and an Iraq that will become a close ally (if not a satellite) of Iran.

Perhaps the best argument for staying is so our children and grandchildren won't be faced with arguments like the silly (but dangerous)one that people like Dick Cheney have been pressing for years and which helped to lead us into this war: That if we only showed "resolve," we could have won in Viet Nam.

That is pretty sad, isn't it. If the Democrats do not have an effective alternative it is because because Bush created the Hobson's Choice.

Maybe the best we can do is to vote out of office the people whose bad judgment got us into this disaster. Maybe, in 2008, with a clean slate we can begin to repair our standing in the world.

Incidentally, Anon, how would you feel about a successful presidential ticket in 2008 that is pro-choice and pro-gay rights? For all their other faults, that is Lieberman/Giuliani.

September 28, 2006 10:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"President Bush got us into an unnecessary war, which served to create a breeding ground for infinitely more terrorists and terrorism than we faced before and which is in the process of giving the Iranian theocracy precisely what they wanted: Saddam out and an Iraq that will become a close ally (if not a satellite) of Iran."

Whether the war was necessary or not, a breeding ground for terrorists was inevitable. Sooner or later, we'd have to be involved in some way in that part of the world and, since the Bush administration has successfully prevented the terrorists from attacking here, Al Queda would have capitalized on their only opportunities to strike American targets. Currently, it's being suggested that we intervene in Darfur. Bin Laden's forces are sure to come and stir things up. Read the NIE leaked by the NY Times this week. If we stay the course until democracy is established, we have our best outcome.

Until we decisively defeat the terrorists, they will continue to fool the Muslim street into thinking they are winning and their victory is the inevitable will of Allah. This is similar to how we needed an unconditional surrender of the Japanese in WWII. Leaving would embolden the terrorists. Hussein's defiance of treaty obligations and U.N. resolutions with impunity was having a similar effect. If we had given up, he eventually would have returned to the menacing presence he was before Gulf War I. And he would have encouraged other regimes that we will wear down if they just refuse to cooperate.

I wouldn't worry about Iran too much. A poll out today shows most Iraqis, including Shiites, deeply distrust Iran. Iran has enough problems internally with a population that is more sophisticated than most Middle Eastern countries. The theocracy's days are numbered.

September 28, 2006 10:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon,, the problem is that the phrase "decisively defeat the terrorists" is meaningless. They are not a unified body, so if you beat one group, say dispossessed Baathists, another group, say locals whose sisters have been raped, will not recognize the loss. They can't surrender, because there is no one to represent them. You can't kill them all, because at this time "the terrorists," as you so insightfully call them, are more than half the population of the country.

September 28, 2006 11:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Incidentally, Anon, how would you feel about a successful presidential ticket in 2008 that is pro-choice and pro-gay rights? For all their other faults, that is Lieberman/Giuliani."

I wouldn't vote for them if that's what you mean. Still, I could see them winning.

BTW, I'm pro- gays having the same rights as everyone else. No less, no more.

September 28, 2006 11:01 PM  
Anonymous Nag said...

Oh, good, so you think they should be allowed to marry the person they fall in love with?

September 28, 2006 11:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon,, the problem is that the phrase "decisively defeat the terrorists" is meaningless."

This is oft-repeated but not true. We win when countries are stabilized and populations dismiss the radicals and refuse to tolerate them.

We won a major battle when Iraqis defied the terrorists and elected their leaders. These leaders want us to stay. We'll have more victories but we must persevere. We will prevail if the Democrats don't mess things up by convincing America to quit. I don't think they will- and even if they win the elections in November, they won't do much different. Maybe escalate. Remember when Nixon won in '68 by saying he was going to end the war in Vietnam?

September 28, 2006 11:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Oh, good, so you think they should be allowed to marry the person they fall in love with?"

Like everyone else, they can choose any one of the opposite gender to marry.

September 28, 2006 11:52 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Anon said:

"Whether the war was necessary or not, a breeding ground for terrorists was inevitable."

But not in Iraq. We may have had them on the run in Afghanistan and in the border areas of Pakistan. But we took our eye off the ball, and, as a very likely consequence, we have created a new breeding ground in Iraq and failed to drain the swamp in fghanistan/Pakistan with what may be dire consequences. Our ability to deal with the terrorist menace -- and to create conditions in which more terrorists will not be bred -- has been severely damaged by this Administration's errors. And it will take decades to remedy the problems Bush & Co. have created. I would like to be wrong on this, but I fear I am not.

September 29, 2006 10:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"But not in Iraq. We may have had them on the run in Afghanistan and in the border areas of Pakistan. But we took our eye off the ball, and, as a very likely consequence, we have created a new breeding ground in Iraq and failed to drain the swamp in fghanistan/Pakistan with what may be dire consequences. Our ability to deal with the terrorist menace -- and to create conditions in which more terrorists will not be bred -- has been severely damaged by this Administration's errors. And it will take decades to remedy the problems Bush & Co. have created. I would like to be wrong on this, but I fear I am not."

Have no fear, David. You are wrong. Read the NIE leaked this week by the NY Times. At the same time we were in Iraq, we have seriously hampered al Quaeda's ability to function.

Our defense preparedness plan calls for the ability to fight two major wars simultaneously (it used to be three before Clinton's military cuts.) Neither Iraq or Ahghanistan would be defined as "major". The idea that we can't fight an fascist insurgency in a backward country and still track terrorists is ridiculous.

Al quaeda's leader of Iraq operations conceded yesterday that 4,000 foreign terrorists have been killed by U.S. forces. Not a bad phase of the terrorist war for us.

September 29, 2006 11:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon said,Like everyone else, they can choose any one of the opposite gender to marry.


Sure anon...how stupid of you to propose.

Ted

September 30, 2006 12:35 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home