Comerford 1

Introduction

Donald J. Trump’s campaign and brief period of presidency cannot be described as

anything but blatantly outspoken. However, Trump recently utilized the phrase “voter fraud”, a

style of rhetoric that is indicative of modern political elitism. This phrase began its prevalencey

in Trump’s first presidential interview with ABC reporter David Muir. While being

uncharacteristically subtle, the term “voter fraud” is a greater threat to modern race equality than

Trump’s more aggressive and outright racial appeals. In this paper I will build understanding of

the rhetoric used within the 2017 “World News Tonight” interview, and draw upon the theory of

dog-whistle politics to expose the more candid message behind the use of the triggering phrase.

Through this analysis “voter fraud” will be exposed as merely a modern reiteration of the ideals

of “tough on crime” or “law and order”, in which dog-whistle politics are used to build a sense of

“possessive reinvestment” in the current white-supremacist political system (Lipsitz 372).

“Voter fraud” in essence links American suffrage with whiteness and nativism, and in doing so

threatens the right of minorities and low income Americans to take part in the political process.

Description of Language Used

The phrase “voter fraud” itself is merely a facade behind which a carefully coded

meaning is constructed. In his “World New Tonight” interview, Trump built the concept after

Muir questioned Trump’s loss of the popular vote and corresponding tweets; the president never

directly addressed the question posed, and their following conversation was circular and vague.

However, through this contest of will, Trump developed a very clear understanding of what his

conception of voter fraud entails. The repeated phrase “illegal votes” was accredited briefly to

“illegals” (Muir). This directly implicated Latinos, and more broadly, non-white, non-native

voters. Furthermore Trump characterized the event as a threat he was forced to overcome,
 Comerford 2

winning the 2016 presidential election only through “the beauty of the electoral collage” (Muir).

The conversation concluded with discussion of what accusations of illegal voting would mean

for modern democracy, to which Trump replied “[as the president of the United States] I want

the voting process to be legitimate”. The sentiment of was that Trump intends to take executive

action to combat this “threat” to democracy.

Analysis of the Implications of the Rhetoric

Haney Lopez describes dog whistle politics as consisting of several necessary

counterparts (Haney Lopez 171). At the most structural level this involves the unconscious

automaticity of categorization through which the white majority comes to prejudicially

understand different groups of the non-white minority (Haney Lopez 185). In relation to

Trump’s response, the use of the term “illegal votes” and “illegals” implies that the 3 to 5 million

votes are the result of undocumented Latino immigrants, thus fitting Haney-Lopez’s description

of categorial attribution (Muir). While he never explicitly speaks on race, the implicit message is

that immigrants and people of color are the perpetrators of this threat to the electoral process- a

sentiment that purposefully addresses stereotypes and prejudices held by the white majority.

Furthermore, Haney Lopez understands these appeals to be be intrinsically tied to threat

(Haney Lopez 171). The implication is that white losses, either economically or socially, will

occur when government action benefits minorities, thus disrupting the carefully constructed

hierarchy of supremacy and privilege (Haney Lopez 172). This is a clear element of the

interview, as the millions of “illegal” popular votes awarded to Hillary Clinton are described as

undermining “the legitimacy” of the voting process (Muir). In linking the votes with accusations

of wrongdoing attributed to a minority group, Trump appeals to the preexisting stereotype that

Latino immigrants are an economic and social threat to American citizens. By perpetuating this
 Comerford 3

fear to voting, Trump extends the perceived threat of minorities to the political realm. These

implications are a successful framework for “voter fraud” because they address the unspoken

belief of the white majority; the right to vote is reserved for native, white Americans.

The final aspect of racial coding that Hanley Lopez dissects is the dichotomy between

explicit argument for fear, and the racial implications it subtly invokes (Haney Lopez 180). This

is paralleled in Trump’s rhetoric throughout the interview, as it is fronted by his crusade to

ensure “the voting process is legitimate” (Muir). This element is crucial, as modern racial bias

hinges on the concept of social desirability (Huddy and Feldman 425). What separates this

specific phrase “voter fraud” from many other racially charged assertions from President Trump,

is that it isn’t outwardly racist. A person who holds biased beliefs about latinos, immigrants, or

people of color can proclaim these beliefs without acknowledging their own prejudice. As a

classic reiteration of dog-whistle politics, “voter fraud” can be easily supported without the

negative social connotations of explicit racism (Huddy and Feldman 426).

Implications of the Prevalence of “Voter Fraud” in Political Rhetoric

The ramifications of “voter fraud” are extremely prolific both due to its palatable nature,

and the radical context of Donald Trump’s populist politics. At the most individual level, this

sentiment will be most effective when it permeates the white middle and working class (Haney

Lopez 189). Much as Gilen’s describes the process by which blackness was linked with negative

images of the welfare system, the association of immigrants and people of color with democratic

threat will frame future discussions of voter rights (Gilens 111). Furthermore as the concept is

disseminated, more people will be able to outwardly express their prejudice without fear of being

viewed negatively as racists (Huddy and Feldman 429). This will have tangible effects on public

policy.
 Comerford 4

At the most dramatic level, Trump’s more socially acceptable presentation of voter fraud,

may actually make his more radical policies attainable. If the white majority is primed with the

concept of “voter fraud”, more extremist policies are easier execute without protest. Because

much of Trump’s policy concerns relations with Mexico (i.e. his plans for a border wall, more

aggressive immigration restrictions, and the mass deportation of Mexican and South American

undocumented immigrants), it would be in the president’s best interest to proliferate fear of the

hispanic ethnicity. If the white majority views Latinos as a threat, polices that disparately affect

that demographic are easier to enact, even if such policies are radical.

If public support grows in this fashion, policy change will occur at the state level as well.

Because of the recent ruling of Shelby v. Holder, it has become both relatively easy and

commonplace for states to restrict access to voting (“Voting Rights in Trump’s American”,

2016). If Trump’s assertion of “voter fraud” becomes a widespread belief, it will be even more

favorable for state legislators to pass laws that specifically target people of color and low

socioeconomic status, thus inhibiting their ability to take part in the democratic process. The

recent practice of requiring a driver’s license or birth certificate could become more stringent and

common under the guise of protecting the democratic process from corruption (“Voting Rights in

Trump’s American”, 2016). Furthermore access to polling though mail, on multiple days, and at

attainable locations would most likely be restricted in some form under the guise of voter

legitimacy.

These changes in policy will have pandemic effects, and ironically harm large portions of

the withe population that support them. While people of color, most significantly Latinos, will

be greatly detrimented, whites of low economic status will also be disparately impacted (Gilens

123; Haney Lopez 171). As polling locations and voter identification laws increase the difficulty
 Comerford 5

of accessing polls with the time and money restraints of a blue collar job, racialized policies will

suppress white voters as well. Both Gilen’s and Haney Lopez’s work illustrates this phenomena,

as white middle and lower class voters support policies that are against their own interests in the

wake of pervasive dog-whistle rhetoric (Gilens 123; Haney Lopez 171). In this way the notion

that non-white, non-natives are not deserving of the right to vote will actually be used to

suppress the political voices of an economic class of whites as well.

Conclusion

Dog whistle politics are incredibly successful political instruments in the fact that they

manipulate white fear into bloc voting in support of policies that benefit only a small proportion

of the population. Memorable phrases such as “war on drugs” or “state’s rights” command as

sense of nobility and necessity, allowing politicians to push policies that target specific

demographics without the social stigma of racism. Trump’s use of “voter fraud” is no different.

At its core, the phrase is nothing more than a reassertion of white privilege; voting is a right

reserved for for native citizens and white Americans. Trump’s rhetoric contends that the

participation of minorities in American suffrage undermines the racial hierarchy meant to stifle

their political voices.

Works Cited

Berman, Ari. “Voting Rights in the Age of Trump.” New York Times, 19 Nov. 2016

Haney Lopez, Ian. Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals have Reinvented Racism

and Wrecked the Middle Class. Oxford University Press, 2013.

 Comerford 6

Huddy, Leonie and Stanley Fledman. “On Assessing the Political Effects of Racial Prejudice.”

Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 12, pp. 423-447.

Lipsitz, George. “The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: Racialized Social Democracy and the

“White” Problem in American Studies.” American Quarterly, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 369-387

Muir, David. Interview with Donald Trump. World News Tonight, American Broadcasting

Company, 2016.

Appendix

DAVID MUIR: I wanna ask you about something you said this week right here at the White
House. You brought in congressional leaders to the White House. You spoke at length about the
presidential election with them -- telling them that you lost the popular vote because of millions
of illegal votes, 3 to 5 million illegal votes. That would be the biggest electoral fraud in
American history. Where is the evidence of that?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: So, let me tell you first of all, it was so misrepresented. That was
supposed to be a confidential meeting. And you weren't supposed to go out and talk to the press
as soon as you -- but the Democrats viewed it not as a confidential meeting.
 Comerford 7

DAVID MUIR: But you have tweeted ...

(OVERTALK)

DAVID MUIR: ... about the millions of illegals ...

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Sure. And I do -- and I'm very ...

(OVERTALK)

PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... and I mean it. But just so you -- it was supposed to be a confidential
meeting. They turned it into not a con... Number two, the conversation lasted for about a minute.
They made it -- somebody said it was, like, 25 percent of the ... It wasn't. It was hardly even
discussed.
I said it. And I said it strongly because what's going on with voter fraud is horrible. That's
number one. Number two, I would've won the popular vote if I was campaigning for the popular
vote. I would've gone to California where I didn't go at all. I would've gone to New York where I
didn't campaign at all.
I would've gone to a couple of places that I didn't go to. And I would've won that much easier
than winning the electoral college. But as you know, the electoral college is all that matters. It
doesn't make any difference. So, I would've won very, very easily. But it's a different form of
winning. You would campaign much differently. You would have a totally different campaign.
So, but ...
(OVERTALK)

PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... you're just asking a question. I would've easily won the popular vote,
much easier, in my opinion, than winning the electoral college. I ended up going to 19 different
states. I went to the state of Maine four times for one. I needed one.
I went to M-- I got it, by the way. But it turned out I didn't need it because we ended up winning
by a massive amount, 306. I needed 270. We got 306. You and everybody said, "There's no way
you get to 270." I mean, your network said and almost everybody said, "There's no way you can
get to ..." So, I went to Maine four times. I went to various places. And that's the beauty of the
electoral college. With that being said, if you look at voter registration, you look at the dead
people that are registered to vote who vote, you look at people that are registered in two states,
you look at all of these different things that are happening with registration. You take a look at
those registration for -- you're gonna s-- find -- and we're gonna do an investigation on it.

DAVID MUIR: But 3 to 5 million illegal votes?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, we're gonna find out. But it could very well be that much.
Absolutely.

DAVID MUIR: But ...

PRESIDENT TRUMP: But we're gonna find out.

(OVERTALK)
 Comerford 8

PRESIDENT TRUMP: In fact, I heard one of the other side, they were saying it's not 3 to 5. It's
not 3 to 5. I said, "Well, Mr. Trump is talking about registration, tell--" He said, "You know we
don't wanna talk about registration." They don't wanna talk about registration.
You have people that are registered who are dead, who are illegals, who are in two states. You
have people registered in two states. They're registered in a New York and a New Jersey. They
vote twice. There are millions of votes, in my opinion. Now ...

DAVID MUIR: But again ...

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I'm doing an ...

(OVERTALK)

PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... investigation. David, David, David ...

DAVID MUIR: You’re now, you’re now president of the United States when you say ...
(OVERTALK)

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Of course, and I want the voting process to be legitimate.