The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

In politics, the “dog whistle” is coded language designed to delight a targeted subgroup and pass over the heads of everyone else. Other terms, such as “establishment,” “Washington insider” and “free trade,” are not quite full-grown dog whistles. Let’s call them puppy whistles.

These are expressions whose meanings remain vague. For the puppy whistle, the vaguer the better.

Both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders rail against “the establishment.” This is a way of saying that they are not favored by the traditional leaders of their parties — the leaders said to have let us down.

“Establishment” is hard to define, and when you do, it’s sometimes carries positive feelings. Who among us wouldn’t be impressed by a plumber’s ad reading, “The Wrench Brothers, Established in 1971”?

On the left, “the establishment” is itself a highly established term. It gained steam in the 1960s as a designation for the adults who messed things up for us kids. Sanders uses it as pure pejorative.

When Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Fund endorsed Hillary Clinton, Sanders responded, “Hillary Clinton has been around there for a very, very long time, and some of these groups are, in fact, part of the establishment.”

Clinton’s unfortunate comeback was that no one would be less establishment than the first woman president.

Harvard political scientist Danielle Allen then wrote a piece in The Washington Post titled, “Sorry, Hillary: You are the establishment.” She never explains why, uh, Hillary should be sorry for that — or more basically, why being part of the establishment is necessarily bad. The National Audubon Society has been around for 111 years. Is that any reason to hold it in low regard?

Allen offers this line: “Bernie Sanders is right that Clinton’s long list of endorsements represents her muscle within the Democratic Party.” That may be so, but if President Obama had that kind of muscle, we’d probably now have a government-run public option on the federal health insurance marketplace.

“Washington insider” is a puppy whistle favored by populists across the spectrum. It’s No. 2 on the right’s list of condemnations (after liberal).

The coded meaning is that long-time Washington politicians become servants of lobbyists. It really shouldn’t matter how long a politician has worked in Washington but rather what the politician has done in Washington.

“Free trade” has long held negative meaning for populists in both parties. The left continues to use NAFTA — the North American Free Trade Agreement — as almost a curse word, as the cause of devastating losses among our manufacturing workers. But how many sweatshirts in your closet were made in Mexico? Go into Home Depot and see where the hammers, screws and lighting fixtures come from.

On the Republican side, Trump rails against Chinese imports. At least he knows where most of those jobs have gone.

The consensus among economists is that NAFTA provided modest benefits for the U.S., as well as for Mexico and Canada. Some American jobs did move to Mexico, but many would have otherwise gone to Asia. The remedy for victims of globalization is not to stop the unstoppable but to strengthen their social safety net.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is the new trade boogeyman. Its purpose is to strengthen America’s hand in dealing with China, but that gets lost in the political discourse.

Trade agreements tend to be a mixed bag in terms of who benefits. They are not inherently evil. Likewise, so-called political establishments and Washington insiders should be judged by what they do, rather than what they are. But gray is an unpopular color in campaign season.

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at To find out more about Froma Harrop and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at

Photo: Hillary Clinton is introduced by U.S. Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) (L) as she is applauded by New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (back L) and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (back R) for her address at the The Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture in the Harlem section of New York City, February 16, 2016.  REUTERS/Mike Segar

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes at Capitol on January 6, 2021

Reprinted with permission from AlterNet

Members of the Oath Keepers — along with QAnon and the Proud Boys — were among the far-right extremists who, according to the FBI, were involved in the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol Building. The role that the Oath Keepers played in the Capitol insurrection is the focus of a report by PolitiFact's Samantha Putterman, who examines their activities before and during the attack.

Keep reading... Show less

Steve Bannon

When it comes to events surrounding the January 6 insurrection, there are some whose involvement remains unclear. Did Rep. Lauren Boebert lead future insurgents on a tour of the Capitol in order to help them identify the shortest route to the people they wanted to hang? Not certain. There are others who will pretend that their calls to storming the Capitol and spilling a swimming pool of patriotic blood were purely metaphorical. Right, Rep. Mo Brooks?

And then there's Steve Bannon.

Keep reading... Show less
{{ }}