Good piece on some of the implicit messaging behind reasons invoked:

The further subdividing of Syrian refugees to prioritize “persecuted ethnic and religious minorities” can only make an already slow and burdensome process all the more so.

“Our focus is on the most vulnerable refugees who are often in a more difficult spot and harder to reach,” Conservative Jason Kenney conceded this weekend on CBC Radio’s The House.

But those are just rational arguments.

“The key is to craft messages that trigger fears but are not themselves explicit about the sorts of fears they are trying to trigger,” is the way [Ian] Haney-Lopez explains this type of messaging.

[Lynton] Crosby phrases it slightly differently: “You can have a rational argument, you can have a rational position, but unless you make an emotional connection, you will rarely succeed,” he says in the 2013 video.

Last March, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau accused the Conservatives of “using dog-whistle politics,” to stir up anti-Muslim sentiments in the debate over anti-terrorism legislation.

However, when asked on Friday if Crosby’s arrival on the scene could mean an increased use of the technique, Trudeau side-stepped.

“I’m not going to comment on my opponent’s campaign and approach,” he told reporters.

Haney-Lopez suggests that’s the wrong answer.

“People don’t realize they are being manipulated, they don’t realize their basest instincts are being appealed to,” he says. “Staying silent and not addressing that is an absolute failure.”

Of course, calling out a dog whistle doesn’t necessarily negate its effect.

As Crosby himself teaches, in the battle of reason over emotion in voters’ minds, reason barely stands a fighting chance.