POLITICS
Voices in the Divide: Black Lives Matter Messaging across Multiple Congressional Communication Mediums
Bridging Scholarly Insights
Earlier this week, the journal “Politics, Groups, and Identities” published research I conducted with Professor Jeff Gulati of Bentley University. While academic journals often lay the groundwork for broader public insights, I thought it might be helpful to bridge that gap directly. Today, I’m sharing our findings in a more accessible format, hoping to engage those who don’t typically get into scholarly articles for work or pleasure.
An Exploration of Legislators’ Public Engagement with Black Lives Matter
Making public statements on media platforms allows members of Congress to highlight issues, leveraging their status as political elites. The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement gained national prominence following the police killings of unarmed Black men like Eric Garner, Michael Brown, and George Floyd, spotlighting America’s racial inequality and police brutality. Despite the movement’s significance, Congress’s response has been largely divided and inactive, with minimal public support from white members initially.
The 2020 killing of George Floyd refocused attention on these issues, coinciding with a pandemic-induced surge in online engagement. Posts about BLM proliferated on social media, indicating broad public engagement with the movement, considered one of the largest in US history. This forced elected officials to choose whether and how to publicly address BLM, knowing such movements could sway public opinion and electoral results.
Contemporary racial politics, especially under the Trump administration, has seen a resurgence in coded racial messaging. In response to BLM, there was significant opposition, often veiled in pro-police rhetoric without directly naming the movement.
Despite House Democrats passing the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, the Senate, then under Republican control, didn’t vote on it, highlighting the importance of non-legislative actions like public communication in understanding legislators’ priorities. Public statements can be a double-edged sword, potentially alienating or attracting constituents.
Our study examined which legislators publicly supported or criticized BLM from May 25 to November 3, 2020, across various communication platforms. We analyzed the factors influencing these communication choices, considering both direct and more subtle, coded criticisms. By focusing on official communications like e-newsletters, social media posts, and press releases, we aimed to understand the political calculations of sitting members of Congress behind addressing or avoiding discussions on BLM during an election year.
Our Expectations
Limited research exists on Congressional support for BLM, but studies suggest that legislators’ stances likely reflect their constituents’ attitudes, given the overarching goal of re-election. Communication about race-related issues, such as BLM, can help legislators connect with constituents, especially in districts attuned to such topics. However, measuring a district’s racial attitudes can be complex, though certain surveys, like the 2018 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, offer some insight.
While legislators don’t always mirror their constituents’ views, they generally align with the dominant opinions, particularly among co-partisans, and this alignment is even more pronounced in their communications. Evidence at the state level indicates BLM protests’ effectiveness in prompting policy changes. Yet, some studies find no significant link between constituency preferences and Congressional communications regarding systemic racism.
Despite these nuances, our first hypothesis posits that legislators from districts perceiving higher levels of racism are more likely to publicly support BLM.
Legislators’ public communications are both strategic and contextual, influenced by potential gains or risks and their personal or electoral ties to the issue. In the case of BLM, a legislator’s race and the demographic composition of their district are crucial factors. Additionally, the interplay between a legislator’s characteristics and district preferences cannot be overlooked.
Black legislators historically tend to support Black interests more actively, evident across various legislative activities. While there’s diversity in perspectives among Black legislators, recent studies suggest a strong inclination to address BLM issues. Their communication methods, especially on platforms like Twitter, indicate a heightened responsiveness to racial justice topics following significant incidents in the Black community.
However, there’s a scarcity of research analyzing the use of press releases and e-newsletters by race, and online communication preferences may differ by party affiliation, potentially influencing the frequency of race-related discussions. As online platforms evolve, understanding these dynamics is essential for interpreting legislators’ communication strategies regarding BLM.
Surveys show the strongest support for BLM among Black individuals, yet Black legislators might not voice this as openly due to assumed constituent alignment and the nuanced demographic makeup of their districts. Only 16 Black legislators represent majority-Black districts, potentially leading to cautious positioning on BLM to avoid alienating non-Black constituents. Additionally, not all voices within Black and Latine communities endorse BLM, adding complexity.
Legislators representing more Black constituents were presumed to express stronger pro-BLM sentiments. This pattern aligns with historical data showing such legislators consistently support race-related issues, and pressure from the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) on colleagues in districts with significant Black populations to advocate for pro-Black agendas. However, the connection between Black voter presence and non-Black legislators’ stances is less straightforward, prompting a more exploratory approach for our second and third hypotheses.
Black legislators are expected to voice BLM support more than non-Black counterparts. Legislators from districts with more Black residents are likely to express more BLM support.
Lastly, partisan affiliation influences legislators’ communication styles and content. While Republicans engage constituents more via e-newsletters, Democrats are active on Twitter, with both using Facebook extensively. Given the Democratic Party’s recent emphasis on racial equality and the fact that most Black legislators are Democrats, we anticipated these members, particularly Democrats, to mention BLM more in communications leading to our fourth and fifth hypotheses.
Democrats will likely endorse BLM publicly more than Republicans. Liberals will probably express public support for BLM more than Conservatives.
The Data
Black users engage more on Twitter and discuss BLM more frequently compared to other demographics. Given the varied user trends across platforms, our multi-modal approach aims to provide comprehensive insights into legislators’ communication choices regarding BLM across different mediums, despite the absence of medium-specific hypotheses.
We analyzed legislators’ official communications on Facebook, press releases, Twitter, and e-newsletters from May 25 to November 3, 2020, to determine their stance on BLM. We focused on explicit mentions of “Black Lives Matter,” “BlackLivesMatter,” or “BLM,” ensuring the latter wasn’t referencing the Bureau of Land Management. The majority of these communications were supportive of BLM.
Our study also considered district-level perceived racism, legislator characteristics, and district demographics. Perceived racism was measured using a scale from a 2018 survey, and legislator characteristics were sourced from ProPublica, including ideology based on DW-NOMINATE scores. We noted the influence of gender on communication styles but didn’t hypothesize a direct relation to BLM positioning.
We also factored in the racial composition of districts, highlighting the higher average percentage of Black residents in districts represented by Democrats (15%) compared to Republicans (10%).
We focused on explicit references to Black Lives Matter (BLM) but recognize that indirect language in support of policing often opposes the movement, historically used to counter pro-Black initiatives. For non-explicit anti-BLM messages, we examined official e-newsletters for terms like “Blue Lives Matter,” “All Lives Matter,” “Back the Blue,” “riot,” and “loot.” Out of 258 messages using these terms, predominantly from Republicans, 65 were coded as anti-BLM.
Most communications condemning rioting or looting also acknowledged racial issues, like Representative Troy Balderson’s message, which condemned violence and called for unity and understanding. However, some messages, like Rep. Betty McCollum’s, lacked acknowledgment of racial issues in policing, hinting at anti-BLM sentiment. Most indirect anti-BLM messages referred to rioting or looting, but none mentioned “Blue Lives Matter” in this period. “All Lives Matter” appeared four times, often in different contexts or promoting BLM. “Back the Blue” was in 13 e-newsletters, with three coded as subtly anti-BLM.
Analysis and Results
Overall, 173 legislators publicly supported BLM, and fewer publicly opposed it, with party ideology correlating with stance. Republicans criticized BLM, while Democrats were generally positive.
We ran regression models analyzing public BLM positions, separating them by party due to collinearity between party and BLM messaging stance. Among Democrats, those in districts perceiving high racism, Black legislators, and those with more Black constituents weren’t more likely to support BLM, not supporting Hypotheses 1–3. More liberal legislators were more supportive, aligning with Hypothesis 5.
For Republicans, those from high-racism perceiving districts were less likely to air anti-BLM views. More conservative members were more likely to oppose BLM, matching Hypothesis 5. This trend held in oblique anti-BLM references in e-newsletters.
We then counted the number of pro- or anti-BLM messages sent, reflecting stance intensity. Activity varied across mediums, but those who messaged about BLM in one medium likely did so in others. The count-based results mirror the indicator outcomes: Democratic legislators from districts perceiving more racism sent more pro-BLM press releases, while higher district racial resentment subtly influenced Republicans to oppose BLM without explicit mentions.
Ideologically, more liberal members sent more pro-BLM messages, except on Twitter. Conversely, more conservative members, especially those in the far-right Freedom Caucus, sent more anti-BLM messages, particularly through subtler means.
Despite overall similarities, Black legislators sent fewer pro-BLM e-newsletters, possibly because they issue fewer e-newsletters in general. The share of Black constituents didn’t significantly influence pro or anti-BLM message volume in any medium, but a slight positive correlation existed overall for Democrats.
DW-NOMINATE scores were strongly tied to BLM messaging frequencies. Democrats showed a broader ideological range in pro-BLM messaging, while anti-BLM messaging among Republicans was limited to those with higher (more conservative) scores.
The analyses were party-specific since no Democrats sent anti-BLM messages, while a few Republicans sent pro-BLM messages. For Republicans, the 21 legislators who expressed any pro-BLM sentiment had significantly lower (more moderate) DW-NOMINATE scores, reinforcing the ideological divide in BLM messaging.
Last Thoughts
This study is one of the first to analyze Congressional public support for Black Lives Matter (BLM) across multiple platforms following George Floyd’s death. Our key findings include:
- Few Congress members highlighted BLM in their official communications, those that did predominantly Democrats.
- More pro-BLM messages were sent than anti-BLM, but more Republicans conveyed negative sentiments.
- Legislators often used indirect rather than explicit anti-BLM language, especially in e-newsletters.
Left-leaning members sent more pro-BLM messages, while a few right-leaning members dominated anti-BLM communications. Interestingly, Black legislators mentioned BLM less, possibly due to presumed constituent agreement or to avoid alienating some voters. Also, some may disagree with BLM’s proposals.
District demographics influenced messaging. Democrats from areas with more Black residents or those acknowledging racism were more pro-BLM. For Republicans, constituents’ racial perceptions mattered more than demographics, with those denying prevalent racism more likely to criticize BLM.
Of course, the study had limitations. Future research could benefit from a more nuanced approach to different communication styles such as those that use more visual mediums.
Across various mediums, the trends were consistent, reflecting general media usage patterns. While public BLM support doesn’t equate to policy change, it’s a significant signal to constituents. The study underscores that public positioning on issues like BLM is tied to partisanship, ideological voting patterns, and district views on racism, rather than legislators’ race or gender.
I hope this description and explanation of the work was accessible. If you’re interested in reading the full study, it’s here.
