Author(s): Drew Kolber
Mentor(s): Antti Pentikäinen, Mary Hoch Center for Reconciliation, Carter School
Abstract
The use of religious language by moderate Democratic politicians remains understudied despite extensive research on “God talk” among conservative Republicans. This gap is particularly significant for members of the Blue Dog Coalition, who represent constituencies with many “split ticket” voters; those who elected Democrats locally while voting Republican in the national election. Previous research has focused on coded religious cues in conservative political communication, primarily relying on media appearances and campaign rhetoric, while largely leaving House floor speeches unexamined. This study aims to analyze all 2,059 congressional floor speeches offered by the ten current Blue Dog Coalition members from the 116th through the 119th Congresses (2019-2025). It employs comparative content analysis alongside thematic analysis to capture both the frequency of religious language and the contexts in which it appears. Preliminary findings reveal that Blue Dog Democrats explicitly appeal to faith during commemorations of retiring or deceased constituents and colleagues, as well as when honoring mass casualty events. “God talk” – implicit, coded religious language – was found in references to community stewardship, heritage, and the value of “neighbors” in civic life. Blue Dog Democrats primarily deploy religious rhetoric during moments of change and loss, rather than in policy debates, suggesting a “Blue Dog Bark” focused on the virtue of associational life rather than partisan identity.
Audio Transcript
Hi there. My name is Drew Kolber, and today I’m so excited to share my research: Blue Dog bark: God Talk and Religious Cues by centrist Democrats. So what is God talk, and who are the Blue Dogs? So in the 1994 midterms, Republicans gained 54 seats in the house and eight seats in the Senate. It was the first GOP House Majority since 1952 and democratic moderates responded. Founding members of this caucus viewed the results of this election as a rejection of the Democratic Party moving too far left. And so in 1995 the coalition formed with 23 members and advocated fiscal responsibility, centrist values like pragmatism and really a dedication to the financial stability and national security of the country. Today, there’s 10 members of the Blue Dog caucus with a real local turn. There’s been a shift back to an emphasis on the specific values and needs the constituencies that these representatives represent. They focus on values like the right to repair, not taking money from corporate PACs and sometimes break party lines while holding to their espoused values, focusing on a place based politics, as opposed to a national one. What’s God talk? God talk is implicit, coded religious cues embedded in political communication, coded, particularly historically, for evangelical voters, without alerting out group members, is built on GOP operative David quo’s investigation in the 1980s into this strategy by conservative politicians to imbue subtle biblical references and hymn phrases and value statements which appeared innocuous to general audiences but really resonated with religious voters. And so this coded language relied on the receiver to infer political attachments. And as I shared, the predominant focus has been on the GOP and this evangelical constituency, but I feel that it’s obscured an important research gap, which is, how do Democratic politicians employ similar strategies? So these members of the Buddha coalition represent constituencies with many split ticket voters, people who elected Democrats locally while voting Republican in the national election, and this previous research was focusing on conservative political communication, and it didn’t look at the way that Democratic politicians were speaking. And so my study aims to analyze all the congressional floor speeches offered by the 10 current Blue Dog coalition members from the 116 to the 119th Congress is essentially the last five years, and employs comparative content analysis and thematic analysis to capture both the frequency of religious language and the context in which it appears, and I’ll share some of my preliminary findings later. So why is this question important? Church and State didn’t end their dialog at the establishment clause in the early years of our nation, the separation provided a mutual protection of each institution in which they weren’t held accountable for the failures or successes of each other, and provided distinct support systems for our country. And there’s a long lineage of thinkers and philosophers observing this rich tradition of associational life and religion in many different sects in the US, looking at Alexa de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America and the way that the Federalist Papers discuss the role of religion in the new nation, looking to more modern thinkers, Robert Putnam shared in 2000 that there’s a noticeable decline in social trust and associational Life. He talked about the Bowling Alone and people moving from bowling leagues to individual pursuits. And while I noticed this trend too, I also saw a prevalence in the collective social imaginary, this remaining presence of religion and religious language in politics. And I have my own experience with civil society and religion, as someone active in Jewish student life and Jewish community, and I was curious, how are politicians talking about religion? So to look at this question, I first had to determine my corpus. There’s a lot of different ways to look at political communication. You can look at tweets and newsletters. I wanted a really standardized way, and so I looked to ProQuest congressional and looked at the house floor speeches offered by this set of members of this Congressional Caucus. I also did some preliminary sense making using Max QDA, particularly content analysis, which tracked the frequency and context of key terms like biblical references and expressions of civil society and associational life, as well as thematic coding, identifying and interpreting patterns and then organizing around these themes, which is a prominent method of meaning making in conflict, analysis and resolution. So what did I find? The following are the word clouds of the most frequent terminology expressed by professor. Yes, by Representative Marie bus and camperez, Representative Jerry golden, Representative Lou Korea and Representative Adam gray. Each of these are current members of the House Blue Dogs and a really good start to my understanding of the Caucus’s way of speaking and their appeal to faith, because they really have this local turn this, this focus on the constituencies that they represent and their specific values, as opposed to a nationalized politics. And you can see community pops out even in the broader word cloud, representing the primary frequencies of the whole data set, there’s an appeal to associational life when it comes to service and honor and community and neighbors. These are terms that these representatives are using another way to visualize. This is their top most frequent words in this way. So what does this mean? Though, thematically, I noticed that the Blue Dogs appealed to faith when they were honoring retired or deceased colleagues or community leaders. I noticed that they appealed to faith in the response of mass violence or tragedy in their communities when they were expressing the value of religious freedom or honoring American culture. They also really appeal to faith when discussing military service and the notion of the ultimate sacrifice for those who died while in the service, and also, there was a prevalence of biblical imagery invoked in response to a perceived moral failing of their leadership. The following are some pulled quotes representing these various themes. Jared golden in remembering victims of a shooting in Maine in 2023 offered this daily devotional. Lou Correa and remembering the community member offered a prayer, may his memory serve as an example for all seeking to lead a happy and joyful life, may his spirit rest in peace. Marie Lucent kept Perez in honoring the survivors of a horrific fire in her district, talked about the strength of unity and community and neighbors. This term neighbors is a key term that I see over and over. Additionally, in referencing the impeachment of President Trump, Lou Correa talked about this idea of a shining city upon a hill, key biblical imagery and a call to
a greater America.
And these are, this is interesting. This is not how we might think moderate Democrats would speak. Then. This is pretty explicit, and yet, there’s also some of that coded God talk too. So there’s a combination of thematics and finds a really rich starting place to try to understand why did these politicians speak that way? And that’s what’s next, in order to understand why, we first had to understand how, how are they speaking? And that was the main object of this project. And I would be grateful to continue my research, to start to understand why, when it comes to the galvanization of voter constituencies when it appeals to faith are present or not,
and the ways in which these representatives speak.
So I’m so grateful to URSP, Oscar and Dr Karen Lee, my mentor, Antti, Professor Thomas Flores for his initial shepherding of my project. Professor Djupe for his guidance and language, and also Professor John Farina for his framing about the founders and their perception of faith in politics.
Thank you so so much.