Unmasking the Code: Unraveling the Origins and Impact of Right-Wing Dog Whistles
A Deep Dive into the Deceptive Language of Politics | Investigative Series by Jonathan Mukes
In the realm of political rhetoric, certain terms hold real deceptive power, subtly conveying coded messages that resonate with a specific audience. These deceptive terms are known as “dog whistles.” The concept of “dog whistles” in politics dates back to the 19th century when dog trainers discovered that certain high-pitched whistles could be heard by dogs but not by humans. Translating this concept into political language, dog whistles refer to words and phrases that carry thinly veiled meanings aimed at specific groups, while remaining unnoticed or misunderstood by the general public. While seemingly innocent on the surface, these words and phrases carry hidden meanings, which often promote exclusionary ideologies and advancing specific agendas. This article is a part of a larger series that delves into the origins of right-wing dog whistles, shedding light on the people behind their creation and exploring the far-reaching consequences of these linguistic devices.
Family Values
“Family values” emerged as a tool for perpetuating conservative ideologies and imposing strict, traditional, hierarchical beliefs in the United States during the late 20th century. Although its precise origins are difficult to pinpoint, the phrase gained early traction in the 1970s, as social conservatives, primarily within the Republican Party, harnessed it to advance their reactionary agenda. During the 1970s, a conservative backlash against the societal changes of the previous decade fueled the rise of “Family values” as a prominent catchphrase. In reaction to the growing labor, feminist, and civil rights movements, these social conservatives sought to uphold what they perceived as the sanctity of the nuclear family, comprising a heterosexual couple bound by religious morality and conservative social norms. Their aim was to reinforce traditional gender roles, with women confined to domestic responsibilities and men as the breadwinners.
The term gained even greater prominence during the tumultuous period of the 1980s and 1990s, known as the Culture Wars. These were intense societal debates over issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, sex education, and gender roles. By framing their positions under the banner of “Family values,” conservatives sought to legitimize their stances and rally their base. “Family values” became a rallying cry for those opposing abortion rights, advocating for the restriction of reproductive rights under the guise of protecting the traditional family structure. It was also used to vehemently oppose the recognition of same-sex marriages, portraying such unions as a threat to the family’s very foundation. In the realm of sex education, the term was used to advocate for abstinence-only programs, condemning comprehensive sex education that addressed contraception and LGBTQ+ issues. By doing so, proponents of “Family values’’ sought to control and suppress discussions on sexuality and reproductive health, denying young people access to essential information. Moreover, the phrase served as a weapon in the battle over gender roles, with conservatives arguing against progressive views on gender equality and women’s empowerment. They used “Family values’’ to discourage women from pursuing careers outside the home and to uphold traditional patriarchal norms. The popularization of the term marked a deliberate strategy by social conservatives to push back against the changing social landscape and to maintain a status quo that favored their ideological beliefs. However, it also served to deepen societal divisions and exacerbate culture wars, contributing to a polarized and contentious political environment.
Moral Majority and other religious groups
Religious institutions, especially conservative Christian groups, played a vital role in popularizing the term “Family values’’ and using it as a weapon to impose their beliefs on the broader population. They sought to wield their influence to shape policies and legislation that aligned with their oppressive ideology. By doing so, they aimed to impose their moral standards on others, disregarding the principles of secularism and denying individual freedoms. The purported goal of promoting “strong families’’ was merely a facade for exerting control over personal choices and stifling progress. By enforcing their narrow definition of family values, they propagated a biased and exclusionary worldview that marginalized LGBTQ+ individuals and non-conforming families, denying them the same rights and recognition as others.
This exploitation of “Family values’’ by conservative groups has profound consequences for the LGBTQ+ community. It reinforces regressive beliefs that seek to limit the rights and freedoms of individuals whose relationships and families defy the narrow constraints of hetero-normative norms. Rather than embracing the diversity of families and relationships, these right-wing factions persistently perpetuate an exclusionary vision of society. They cling to antiquated notions of “traditional” families, which serve as a thinly veiled attempt to protect the interests of the ruling elite and maintain the status quo. This usage of “Family values’’ by conservative forces aligns with their broader agenda to preserve social hierarchies and reinforce class divisions. By suppressing the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals and families, they prevent solidarity and collective struggle against the oppressive system.
During the 1980s, the rise of the “Moral Majority” significantly bolstered the prominence of “Family values’ ‘ in the mainstream political discourse. The Moral Majority was a prominent political organization founded by Jerry Falwell, a religious conservative leader and televangelist alongside Paul Weyrich, co-founder of the Heritage Foundation. With a mission to mobilize conservative Christians and promote socially conservative values, the Moral Majority became a force to be reckoned with in American politics. Under Falwell’s leadership, the Moral Majority played an influential role in shaping the Republican Party’s platform and rhetoric. They are often credited with giving two thirds of the white, evangelical vote to Ronald Regan. They advocated for a return to what they perceived as traditional family values, anchored in a narrow and strictly fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity. Their efforts revolved around issues like opposition to abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, and comprehensive sex education, while simultaneously advocating for school prayer and the display of religious symbols in public spaces.
The Moral Majority actively engaged in politics and public advocacy, endorsing and supporting conservative candidates who aligned with their agenda. Their involvement in electoral campaigns helped establish “Family values” as a critical buzzword for politicians seeking to appeal to a conservative voting base. Political candidates, especially within the Republican Party, frequently employed the term “Family values” as a means to signal their support for socially conservative policies and differentiate themselves from their more progressive opponents. By touting their commitment to “Family values,” these candidates sought to tap into the moral concerns of conservative voters, positioning themselves as champions of traditional values and defenders of the nuclear family, while also demonizing their progressive opponents, as the more neutral and even left leaning voters assumed that the term showed support for working class families, and thus the creation of this dog whistle.
During their political campaigns, the phrase “Family values’’ became a powerful catchphrase, capable of rallying like-minded voters and energizing the conservative base. It effectively encapsulated a wide array of issues, from opposing abortion and same-sex marriage to advocating for a return to traditional gender roles. The term became a symbolic representation of a broader conservative agenda that sought to uphold a specific set of beliefs and principles surrounding family, morality, and society. However, the usage of “Family values’’ was not without criticism. Critics argued that the phrase was often deployed selectively to advance certain political agendas, while ignoring other pressing issues affecting families, such as economic hardships, healthcare access, and racial disparities. Moreover, opponents asserted that the term was used to perpetuate discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals and non-normative family structures, further marginalizing already vulnerable communities.
Anti LGBT and Anti Women
In the subsequent decades, the term continued to be employed in various political contexts, both in support of conservative causes and as a way to criticize or debate progressive social policies. The term re-surged to prominence in the 1990s, thanks to the paleo-conservative commentator and politician, Pat Buchanan. At the Republican National Convention, Buchanan strategically wielded this phrase as a weapon to undermine LGBTQ+ rights. From that point on, various conservative groups and religious leaders eagerly adopted “Family values’’ to advance their anti-LGBTQ+ agenda. This cunning manipulation of “Family values” served as a smokescreen to justify their opposition to same-sex marriage, adoption by same-sex couples, and broader LGBTQ+ rights. Under the guise of preserving traditional family structures, these reactionary forces sought to deny LGBTQ+ individuals and families their rightful place in society. By selectively applying “Family values’’ in this manner, these right-wing actors perpetuated a system of marginalization and discrimination against LGBTQ+ communities. This insidious strategy hindered the progress toward achieving true equality and social acceptance for all individuals, irrespective of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
This new adaptation extends to the contentious arena of women’s reproductive choices and abortion. Over the decades, figures like Phyllis Schlafly in the 1970s and 1980s have weaponized this phrase to vehemently oppose abortion, using it as a means to attack the rights of women and control their bodies. Phyllis Schlafly was a prominent conservative figure and political activist in the United States. She played a significant role in opposing feminist movements and advocating for traditional gender roles, using the term “Family values” as a key weapon in her efforts to limit equality for women.In the 1970s, during the height of the feminist movement, Schlafly emerged as a leading voice against the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which sought to give equal rights for women in the U.S. Constitution. She argued that the ERA would be detrimental to traditional family values and, as a result, she mobilized a grassroots movement to defeat its ratification.
Schlafly framed her opposition to the ERA as a defense of the family unit, presenting the amendment as a threat to the stability of traditional families. In one of her speeches, she stated, “ERA means abortion funding, means homosexual privileges, means whatever else in the feminists’ wish list” at Rockford, Illinois in 1975. She linked the ERA with issues like abortion and LGBTQ+ rights, using fear-mongering tactics to appeal to her conservative base. Furthermore, Schlafly’s opposition to the ERA was underpinned by a belief in the inherent differences between men and women and the importance of traditional gender roles. She once famously said, “Women should be satisfied with their lives as wives, mothers, and homemakers”. This view perpetuated the idea that a woman’s place was solely within the confines of the family, thereby limiting opportunities for women in education, career advancement, and public life. She also targeted the feminist movement’s call for increased access to birth control and reproductive rights. She saw these as threats to the traditional family structure and accused feminists of promoting promiscuity and undermining the sanctity of marriage. Throughout her career, Schlafly consistently used the term “Family values” as a rallying cry to push back against feminist advancements and to limit equality for women. By framing her opposition to women’s rights as a defense of the family, she effectively appealed to conservative voters and entrenched traditional gender norms.. Her strategic use of “Family values” as a means to limit equality for women resonated with a segment of the population and continues to influence conservative discourse surrounding gender and family issues to this day.
The notion of “Family values” has also been strategically employed to reinforce traditional gender roles, perpetuating the outdated stereotype of women primarily as caregivers within the family. Phyllis Schlafly and other proponents have adamantly opposed feminist movements, falsely claiming that such movements undermine family stability and social order. However, this regressive approach has faced rightful contention, as it hinders women’s empowerment, restricts their opportunities, and perpetuates harmful gender stereotypes, obstructing the path towards genuine gender equality.
In discussions of gender roles, it has been used to preserve the patriarchal status quo by placing women in rigid and subservient roles within the family structure. This approach conveniently ignores the diversity of women’s aspirations and contributions outside the domestic sphere. By emphasizing caregiving as the primary role for women, it reinforces the archaic belief that their place is confined to the private sphere, diminishing their agency and potential. Phyllis Schlafly and like-minded figures’ opposition to feminist movements underscores their resistance to the progress of gender equality. They wrongfully assert that advocating for women’s rights and empowerment threatens the very fabric of the family and societal order. In reality, the feminist movement seeks to dismantle oppressive systems and create opportunities for women to thrive in all aspects of life, while also recognizing and celebrating the importance of care-giving and nurturing roles. This approach to “Family values” has severe consequences for women’s empowerment. By perpetuating traditional gender roles, it stifles women’s ambitions, limiting their access to education, career opportunities, and leadership roles. It hampers progress towards gender equality, depriving society of the full potential and talents of half of its population.
These reactionary forces, like Schlafly, falsely position abortion as an assault on the traditional family unit and moral values, cloaking their regressive beliefs under the guise of preserving so-called family values. By framing their anti-abortion stance as a defense of the sanctity of life and family, they seek to impose their narrow religious and patriarchal views on women’s bodies and reproductive health. In this divisive narrative, women’s autonomy and their right to make informed decisions about their own bodies and reproductive choices are callously disregarded. The very essence of bodily agency is undermined, as these conservative forces prioritize their own moralistic agenda over the rights and well-being of women. This selective application of “Family values” perpetuates a dangerous narrative that undermines reproductive rights and bodily autonomy. By using this phrase to suppress access to safe and legal abortion, they impose a patriarchal control mechanism that disregards women’s right to decide what is best for their own lives and bodies.
Immigration Policies
In recent years, the term “Family values” has been cynically weaponized by conservative Republicans to further their oppressive immigration policies, particularly in the U.S.-Mexico border. These right-wing lawmakers and media figures shamelessly argue that draconian immigration measures, such as family separations, are essential to safeguard so-called American values and maintain the integrity of the family unit. However, these hollow justifications are unmasked by critics who rightly expose the blatant disregard for the well-being and emotional toll on innocent children and families, raising urgent ethical and humanitarian concerns. The use of “Family values” in the context of immigration exposes the hypocrisy of conservative Republicans. By employing this phrase to defend their policies, they seek to deceive the public and project a facade of moral righteousness. In reality, these measures serve as instruments of oppression, targeting vulnerable immigrant families fleeing desperate circumstances and seeking a better life.
The enforcement of family separations reflects the true face of these so-called family values. Instead of prioritizing the unity and well-being of families, these policies inflict unimaginable pain on children and parents alike. The trauma and emotional devastation caused by such cruel tactics lay bare the insincerity of conservative claims to champion family values. The left opposes these policies, shedding light on the ethical and humanitarian consequences. They rightfully condemn the blatant disregard for the fundamental rights and dignity of those seeking refuge and safety. The ruthless enforcement of strict immigration measures, justified under the guise of protecting family values, betrays the absence of genuine compassion and empathy. The use of “Family values” aligns with a broader agenda of the ruling elite. These oppressive policies serve the interests of the wealthy ruling class, aiming to create a vulnerable and exploitable workforce. By dividing and stigmatizing immigrant families, conservatives seek to distract from the real issues, perpetuating a system of economic exploitation. This also conveniently sidesteps the structural factors that force many families to migrate in the first place. These policies fail to address the impact of imperialism, economic exploitation, and geopolitical instability that drive people from their homelands. Instead, they exacerbate the hardships faced by vulnerable populations, perpetuating a cycle of suffering and marginalization.
Racism and Structural Violence
The “Family values” has been co-opted by certain policymakers and “intellectuals” as a means to emphasize individual responsibility in tackling socioeconomic inequities. Figures like “Scientific Racist” Charles Murray in the 1980s and 1990s have advanced the notion that strong families are the linchpin to overcoming poverty and achieving overall societal well-being. Charles Murray is a political scientist and author known for his controversial views on socioeconomic inequalities and the “welfare state”. He has used the term “Family values” as part of his argument for limited government intervention and his apathetic stance towards addressing socioeconomic disparities. In the 1980s and 1990s, Murray gained prominence with his book “Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950–1980,” where he criticized the effectiveness of social welfare programs and argued that they were exacerbating poverty rather than alleviating it. He claimed that these programs discouraged personal responsibility and undermined the traditional family structure, which, according to him, was a critical pillar of societal stability. Murray’s concept of “Family values” aligns with a conservative perspective that attributes poverty to personal failings rather than structural factors. He argues that the breakdown of the traditional family unit is at the root of socioeconomic problems and that government assistance and social programs only perpetuate dependency.
In his book “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960–2010,” published in 2012, Murray continued to emphasize the significance of family structure and “virtues” such as industriousness and personal responsibility in addressing inequality. He claimed that the decline of these “virtues” among the working class was responsible for the widening income gap. Murray’s arguments have been met with sharp criticism from various quarters, including scholars and social activists. Most people can see that his views ignore the profound impact of structural factors such as economic policies, systemic racism, and lack of educational opportunities on socioeconomic inequalities. His emphasis on “Family values” as a solution to inequality overlooks the realities of economic hardships and the limitations that individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds face in pursuing upward mobility. It fails to acknowledge the unequal distribution of resources and opportunities in society, which significantly affect people’s life outcomes. Murray’s use of “Family values” to downplay socioeconomic inequalities and advocate for limited government intervention is contentious and deeply flawed. While personal responsibility and strong families may be important factors in individual success, they do not address the systemic barriers that perpetuate poverty and inequality. Ignoring the role of structural factors in perpetuating disparities can lead to policies that fail to address the root causes of social and economic problems and perpetuate an unequal society.
Charles Murray and others who champion this narrow interpretation of “Family values” disregard the profound influence of social and economic structures in shaping family well-being. Their focus on individual responsibility fails to account for the interplay of broader factors that contribute to poverty and its inter-generational transmission. Such an approach betrays a lack of understanding and empathy for the challenges faced by disadvantaged families and communities. People who oppose this view, rightly argue that the overemphasis on “Family values” detracts from the need for government intervention and support. While strong families can indeed have a positive impact on individual outcomes, they cannot address the deep-rooted inequities that require systemic solutions. Government policies that invest in education, affordable housing, healthcare, and social safety nets play a crucial role in uplifting struggling families and breaking the cycle of poverty.
Moving Forward
The proponents of “Family Values” staunchly advocated for the preservation of an archaic and oppressive traditional family structure. This regressive ideology revolved around a narrow vision of marriage, strictly limited to a heterosexual, monogamous union between a man and a woman. Their archaic beliefs sought to confine women to subservient roles as caregivers and homemakers, perpetuating patriarchal norms and stifling gender equality. Under the pretext of conservative and religious values, these advocates glorified the traditional family as the cornerstone of a stable society. They propagated the idea that this rigid family structure would serve as a fortress against their imagined moral decay and perceived cultural decline. They conveniently ignored the diverse and evolving nature of modern families, dismissing alternative family arrangements and the invaluable contributions they make to society. The term “Family values” served as a deceptive tool used by these groups to push their regressive agenda. Their belief in an antiquated and rigid family structure showed a blatant disregard for the diversity of human experiences and aspirations. Such an approach hindered the advancement of a more equitable and compassionate society, where every individual is free to form their family according to their choices and preferences without fear of discrimination or persecution.
We must approach discussions surrounding “Family values” with a critical lens and scrutinize those who employ it. It is crucial to be discerning about why and how this term is used, as it can mask harmful intentions and perpetuate discrimination and inequality. By being vigilant and informed, we can challenge the selective application of “Family values” and advocate for policies that prioritize inclusivity, equality, and respect for individual autonomy. In this age of polarization and deepening divides, we must be vigilant about the language we use and the ideas we endorse. Being very serious about who employs the term “Family values” and why they do so will empower us to have more meaningful discussions about societal challenges and create a more inclusive and equitable future for all. By recognizing and calling out the discourse surrounding family values from a right-wing dog whistle, we can foster a more united and compassionate society that values the well-being and dignity of every individual and family, regardless of their background or identity.
Sources:
https://www.fgcu.edu/aquila/repository/theculturewars.pdf
https://newrepublic.com/article/121627/war-soul-america-history-culture-wars-review
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/21census.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2015/12/17/1-the-american-family-today/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8456611/
https://timeforfamilies.com/gay-family-values/
https://www.wicker.senate.gov/family-values
https://prospect.org/features/got-seventies/
https://web.archive.org/web/20100808164956/http://www.thenation.com/article/agent-intolerance
https://www.history.com/news/equal-rights-amendment-failure-phyllis-schlafly
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/11/07/firebrand
