A Different Diversity
Do our politics and society place too much emphasis on the wrong areas of diversity? Could changing our focus to more substantive differences bring us closer together?
The object of government in peace and in war is not the glory of rulers or of races, but the happiness of the common man.” -William Beveridge
The population of these United States is an unquestionably diverse one. Religiously diverse, racially diverse, culturally diverse. Men and women, black and white, gay and straight, rich and poor, native and foreign born, young and old, Left and Right all proudly call America home and have opportunities to achieve wealth, happiness, and success here. No matter how humble one’s beginnings may have been.
Our diversity is something we celebrate and that many Americans—though not all—take pride in. When it comes to representation in government, however, politicians seem to predominantly put their eggs in those diversity baskets which emphasize the physical differences in our demographics: race or ethnicity and gender.
Democrats are especially fond of putting too much emphasis on these externals when selecting and nominating candidates for public office. At times, it appears as though they are specifically seeking people based on their skin color or gender. Last I knew, we aren’t supposed to do that because it’s wrong, unfair, and runs counter to the American standard that “all men are created equal.”
Given the current state of our political and social discourse, should we really be doing things that so flagrantly give preference to some at the exclusion of others? Should we want any chunk of the population to feel there is bias against them and that they’re being excluded from the promise of “equal opportunity?”
For a variety of reasons, no, we should not want that. It is neither fair to whoever is excluded, nor is it fair to whoever checks the right boxes and gets to be included. It sets the person who was elevated up for ridicule, doubt, and resentment. Whether those sentiments are justified and rightly placed or not is ultimately irrelevant. They’re damaging and contribute to our already tense cultural divisions. Whether or not that should be the result, it is for many people.
If a man, for example, is the best fit, most qualified for, and has undertaken all the hard work to reach a position at a job or represent either constituents or an organization, they should be given that role based on those pertinent facts and qualifications. He should not essentially be told “Yeah, you’re the perfect person for this, but we really think it will look better and set a good example if we go with a woman.”
In the above example, each woman—regardless of her resume—had much better chances of getting the job than any man who had applied for the same position. The business, organization, or political party then touts itself as being “pro-woman.” It’s the same story when they choose a candidate based on race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. They pat themselves on the back, celebrate, and advertise how dedicated to fairness and diversity they are.
Obviously, deciding who will be hired, appointed, or nominated for jobs and roles based on these externals gives a significant advantage to some and is anything but fair. Yes, it ensures that many who have historically been excluded are given opportunities. However, I repeat, it also ensures doubt and resentment towards whoever the advantage was given to. Particularly from those who were—or would have been—left out for superficial reasons.
These efforts to force diversity in race and gender have unintended consequences. In many cases, they are, frankly, harmful to those they are designed to benefit. It tends to close minds far more than it opens them.
I recall a couple years ago when I was covering the city council meetings for one of my rural Minnesota communities. The council was attempting to get funding for some much-needed projects in their small city. During one meeting, the foundation they were seeking a grant through had a representative in attendance to answer any questions council members had regarding the potential contract they had reviewed and to explain the application process and stipulations for receiving a grant.
Having reviewed the contract, a councilman asked for clarification on a section that discussed the rules around hiring companies or individuals who would be doing the work on the city’s projects. One of the conditions for receiving a grant through this particular foundation was that a portion of the work had to be awarded to either woman- or minority-owned businesses or contractors.
This did not sit well with several council members. But before rushing to the conclusion that these members were either sexists or racists, it’s important to understand the demographics of the area.
As of 2021, 94.2% of the county this community is in was white (non-Hispanic). The second largest race/ethnicity represented in the county was Hispanic/Latino with 3.2%. After that, non-Hispanic multiracial residents made up 1.2%, while Black and Asian residents each represented .6% of the county’s population. American Indians were the smallest group with only .2%. The surrounding counties have very similar demographics.
With only 5.8% of the county’s population being a minority, finding a business owned by one that works in the specific trades the council needed to hire—predominantly carpentry and construction—was going to prove challenging. Particularly when the council’s preference was to hire locally. Along with that, not too many women own construction companies nationally. The sparsely populated counties in this area don’t have a large supply of them either.
Besides the clear preferential treatment for a limited few, given those numbers, it’s much easier to understand why some council members were bothered by the stipulation. It was going to mean hiring companies that weren’t local, and it was going to mean not granting contracts to individuals that were more likely to be personally invested in the project. Much of the money contractors and their staff earned working would end up being reinvested in the community by giving the job to local companies as well.
This was also about a year into Covid, when most businesses and their employees were still playing catch-up financially and needing work. Scoring a contract with the city may have been a life raft to any number of companies as well as the workers who needed a paycheck.
On the way to my car after that council meeting, I had walked by a carpenter who lived in this town and had been attending the meetings that had discussions about the upcoming projects on the agenda. He had been intending to submit bids on the projects as soon as the city was ready to begin accepting them. The man was on his phone and I overheard him saying, “…can probably forget about bidding on it... ‘Cause I’m a white guy and I guess that’s against the rules now.” For the record, that particular white guy is married to and has children with a woman who is not white.
While it is important to care about and even help promote minority- and woman-owned businesses who are not strangers to being overlooked, demanding they be given business—arguably for the sake of scoring points in the game of identity politics—is a potent ingredient in cooking up resentments.
California governor Gavin Newsom is currently taking a stab at these identity politics. In March, the Democratic governor was asked by an MSNBC host (who happened to be a black woman) if he would commit to naming a black woman to the U.S. Senate if Sen. Dianne Feinstein resigns. Newsom responded, “We have multiple names in mind—and the answer is yes.”
I would like to take this opportunity to strongly suggest Kamala Harris. She’s a black woman from California. Plus, she has experience in the U.S. Senate. She has also added new work history to her resume during the last few years.
According to Census Bureau estimates from July of 2022, only 5% of California’s population is black. Women make up 51% of that five. This means, right off the bat, Newsom has limited those who qualify to represent everyone in the state in the U.S. Senate to about 2.5% of California’s residents. Not even that many. That number gets even smaller when you consider the age required to serve, as well as other qualifications to be a Senator.
To the other 98% of Californians, better luck next time. Nothing personal.
Newsom is far from the only one who ventures down the superficial pander path. In his effort to secure the Democratic nomination in the 2020 race, President Joe Biden also played this demographics game on two notable occasions.
During the CNN-Univision Democratic presidential primary debate in March of 2020, Biden vowed to choose a woman as his running mate. He said, “If I’m elected president, my Cabinet, my administration will look like the country, and I commit that I will, in fact, appoint a, pick a woman to be vice president.”
About a month later, a Politico/Morning Consult poll found that only 29% of voters felt it was important for Biden to choose a woman for vice president. Even fewer (22%) felt it was important that he choose a person of color.
Then what did voters say was important for Biden to consider in making his vice-presidential selection?
According to that Politico/Morning Consult poll, governing experience was the key. Two-thirds of registered voters, as well as four out of five Democrats, felt that Biden should have focused on picking a running mate possessing legislative and executive experience. In other words, voters want someone well qualified and capable of holding the nation’s second highest office; not someone who checks a box.
Interestingly, this poll had been released in April of 2020, which hints at how voters regarded another dip into identity politics the former vice president had taken a couple weeks before that CNN-Univision debate. The responses to the poll came not only after Biden had stated he would have a female VP, but also after he had vowed that he would put a black woman on the Supreme Court.
With about five minutes left in the primary debate in South Carolina that February and following an off-stage discussion with then House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC), Biden referred to the Supreme Court and representation on it stating, “I’m looking forward to making sure there’s a black woman on the Supreme Court, to make sure we in fact get every representation.” This statement received a lot of applause from the audience and is believed to have played a major role in giving him the win in the South Carolina primary a few days later.
Judging by that Politico/Morning Consult poll, however, I would venture to guess that voters feel the same way about those sitting on the highest court in the land as they do about the first in line to the presidency: that one’s qualifications and capabilities should be what gets them the job.
As we know, almost exactly two years after that debate, Biden made good on that promise by nominating Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court. She is now a Justice, replacing the retired Justice Stephen Breyer.
Is there anything wrong with having a black woman serve on the Supreme Court? Not that I know of. Are there people who have a problem with a black woman serving on the Supreme Court for less than honorable reasons? Unfortunately, yes, there are. And more than I think we previously realized. Though, I suspect many of those people would feel differently if said black woman was a Conservative.
But there are many people (myself included) who have a problem with a nominee’s foremost qualifications being their gender or the color of their skin. Particularly for positions that there are so few of, that rarely have openings, and that involve lifetime appointments. Since the Court was formed in 1790, there have been only 116 Justices with the average number of years served being 16 (according to supremecourt.gov). Also, these are arguably some of the most—if not the most—powerful, consequential, and future-shaping positions in our very important nation.
Our government and our elected officials should definitely be diverse and representative of the people who make up the country. But we are diverse in many more ways than those that are only skin deep. Many of our issues that have led to so much cultural division have little to do with our physical differences.
When looking at careers and income, levels of education attained, and “real-life” experiences, America’s three branches of government are not very diverse. In fact, they are not representative of most Americans.
If we look at income and net worth in the Senate alone compared to the average American, the differences are vast.
U.S. Senators have various forms of income in their lives away from legislating. We needn’t worry that any of them are in danger of entering the poorhouse anytime soon. Even if they do not have a comfortable side gig or very well-informed lucrative investments, the annual salary of $174,000 that each receives for their day job should keep them afloat. Based on 2020 findings in Forbes, U.S. Senators had a median net worth of $1.76 million.
For the same year, Forbes found the average American’s median net worth was $97,300. (I trust a large percentage of citizens would be quite surprised to learn that number was so high.) The average American’s median household income in 2020 was $63,179, much of that coming from households with two incomes. This means each individual senator has an income—strictly from being in the Senate—that is $110,821 more than the average American’s household income. (They really get us though.)
These income disparities between our lawmakers and average working-class Americans explain much of how the former is so willing to play fast and loose with their responsibilities such as the federal spending limit, possibly defaulting on the national debt, compromising on a budget, taxes, tariffs, risking a recession, and other financial matters. They don’t face possibly losing their homes, jobs, life savings, or other significant parts of their lives and financial security because a bunch of suits in Washington couldn’t relate to real world struggles and chose politics and towing partisan lines instead of buckling down and doing their jobs for the millions of citizens their decisions affected.
In March, the Congressional Research Service released its profile of the 118th Congress and the Members who make it up. The profile contains “Statistical information…on selected characteristics of Members, including data on party affiliation, average age, occupation, education, length of congressional service, religious affiliation, gender, ethnicity, foreign birth, and military service.” The report is an interesting read and I recommend checking it out in its entirety here if you’re curious about such things.
This report demonstrates that education is another area where we can clearly see considerable disparities between those serving in Congress and most Americans.
CRS found that 96% of the people currently serving in Congress have received a college education. That includes 93.8% of the House of Representatives and 99% of the Senate who have bachelor’s degrees. 64% of the House and 79% of the Senate went on to earn degrees beyond their bachelor’s. There are 23 Members of the House (about 5.3%) whose highest level of education was receiving their high school diploma or GED. (Side note: For as often as we hear that lawyers run the country, I was surprised to learn that only 132 Members of the House and 51 Senators hold law degrees.)
By contrast, a study by the Census Bureau on educational attainment in the U.S. that was released in February of 2022 found that 37.9% of Americans aged twenty-five and older have earned bachelor’s degrees. As expected, even fewer (14.3%) citizens had gone on to earn their master’s, doctoral, or other advanced degrees. 25.3% of the population earned their high school diploma or GED but did not pursue further education.
These disparities lead me to wonder how truly representative our “representative” form of government is. The income and education levels of members of Congress compared with those of most American citizens suggest that isn’t exactly the case. They also suggest we are a nation operating under minority rule—political parties aside.
During the last couple decades, there have been more “average” people elected to office, which is good. However, those members are few and far between. Much of that is to do with how much it costs to run for office. In most states one needs to either be wealthy themselves or be well-connected to wealthy donors if they want any real chance of getting on a ballot. To me, that smells an awful lot like a “pay-to-play” kind of political system.
Yes, we want intelligent and capable people serving in our government. But here’s a little secret: a person’s intelligence and capabilities—much like how much class they have—is not determined by their income or education.
In recent years, we’ve seen a lessening of education requirements by various employers and for different professions. There have also been governments at various levels that have done away with degree requirements to work in several positions. Upon taking office, Governor Josh Shapiro (D-PA), for example, eliminated Pennsylvania’s four-year college degree requirement previously needed to work in about 65,000 of his state’s jobs. That opens 92% of state positions up to a broader, more diverse chunk of the population.
I recently was pleased to see that Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN)—who represented me in Congress until redistricting this last year—addressed this subject. In an email sent to supporters and constituents, she stated, “An expensive, four-year college degree shouldn’t be the default for every job in our country.” She went on to say that “…we will no longer require a college degree as a default in my office…job applicants will be evaluated based on their experience, work ethic and ability to do the job in front of them—regardless of their degree.”
Society and the workforce are catching on to what many workers have known for a long time: a degree doesn’t necessarily make someone capable of or good at their job; it only means they took certain classes for a certain period of time, are skilled at studying a specific subject, and graduated. There are many skills that a person can’t get from any amount of schooling, nor from a degree or certificate. They come from life experiences, communication and listening, interest, care, and hard work.
“I confess my belief in the common man…The man who is swimming against the stream knows the strength of it…The man who is in the melee knows what blows are being struck and what blood is being drawn.” -Woodrow Wilson
How much better and more effectively could our government serve its citizens if it was made up of more everyday Americans? How many more real-life problems could be addressed if those making governing decisions consisted of more people who have experienced more of those real-life problems? Sympathy is fine, but we tend to offer better advice and possible solutions when we truly understand and can empathize with the hardships others are facing.
Along those same lines, might we be better served by our courts if some of the jurists handing down rulings and the people who work in our justice system had at one time found themselves on the other side of the law? I don’t suggest we put convicted murderers and rapists or other criminally minded individuals on the bench. But how about someone who, once upon a time, received a minor drug charge, got a DUI, wrote a couple bad checks to make ends meet, or got into a bar brawl that resulted in charges?
Our legal system has plenty of flaws that might, perhaps, be better addressed if some of the judges who hand down these rulings and decisions were able to offer understanding and a different, more rounded perspective because of their own experience being inside that system.
The Sentencing Project is an organization that promotes more humane and effective approaches to crime and punishment and aims to decrease criminalization and imprisonment. They recently did a profile that highlighted the sizable role that having a criminal record in America plays in poverty and lost opportunity. “Having even a minor criminal record, such as a misdemeanor or even an arrest without conviction, can create an array of lifelong barriers that stand in the way of successful re-entry. This has broad implications for individuals’ and families’ economic security, as well as for our national economy,” the report said.
An astonishing number of Americans have some sort of criminal record. According to The Sentencing Project and other sources, that number is between 70 million and 100 million. That means as many as one-fourth to one-third of our population has a record.
Most job and housing applications ask applicants if they have ever been arrested or convicted of a crime or felony. Often, answering “yes” to that question results in disqualification or being written off as a candidate. For some, a criminal record results in a lifetime of lost opportunities even if their offense was a misdemeanor that happened decades before.
The consequences of that have effects on society and our national economy. The abundance of Americans with records “serve as major drivers of poverty; having a criminal record can present obstacles to employment, housing, public assistance, education, family reunification, building good credit, and more,” The Sentencing Project explains.
We can debate how much of that is due to an over-willingness of law enforcement to stop and arrest marginalized citizens. But no matter the motives, the results have enormous effects on individuals, families, communities, and the percentage of Americans living in poverty, which affects the national economy as a whole.
Criminal records not only lead to employment and financial challenges, they also bring social stigmas with them. When learning someone has a criminal record, fellow citizens are often dismissive and untrusting of those with the record, no matter the charges nor how much time has passed. Minds are made up quickly that the individual is a “felon”, and neither can nor should be trusted to offer anything of value to their community and our society.
If we dismiss one-fourth to one-third of our citizens because of mistakes made in the past, how many knowledgeable, capable, and potentially game-changing legislators, judges, and leaders are we robbing ourselves of because of our apparent preferences for public figures who have—or appear to have—squeaky clean records and reputations? When such serious and tough decisions need to be made by the people serving in our government and on our courts, should we so easily dismiss people who have learned some hard lessons in life? Especially those who truly learned from their mistakes, turned their lives around, and genuinely want to serve their communities?
If instead of predominantly putting people in government who spent several years attending college, we put citizens in government with more diverse levels of education—such as those who didn’t pursue degrees but have been working full time since they were teenagers—would we actually see a Congress that worked? How many of the problems that challenge our nation, our economy, our households, and our society might there be solutions to if the kind of folks who attended trade schools to work on specific jobs were the ones tasked with solving these problems?
How much could we decrease spending and our national debt if the people we put in office who are responsible for coming up with the budget came from more diverse incomes? Would electing more individuals to be our leaders and representatives who actually know what it’s like to stretch a paycheck and live within a tight budget instead of so many people whose net worth includes -illion bring about wiser uses of our tax dollars?
Diversity is beneficial to America. When a wide range of people feel positive about the place they live, call it home, and put roots down there, it is a stronger and safer nation. Respecting cultural differences while also valuing the established norms of a society is not always easy, but it is key to maintaining that strength while also having a peaceful and happy population.
But I strongly believe we would benefit more from focusing our diversification energy on having individuals in our government with more diverse levels of education, more diverse income levels, and more diverse life experiences. If more than one-fourth of our population—from every race, age, and both genders—didn’t pursue or have the means to pursue education beyond high school, more than 5.3% of “the People’s House” should reflect that. If 52.3% of the population makes less than $75,000 per year and 36.1% makes less than $50,000 per year, why are we represented in both houses of Congress by so many people who are worth millions? Even most “typical” Members of the House have a net worth above $500,000.
Most of the challenges currently confronting Americans that Congress and our government need to address affect those with lower incomes and less education much more severely. When more of the people writing bills and passing laws know very well the differences their work makes in the lives of everyday citizens because they have had to face the consequences themselves, I trust we will get more responsible and serious conduct at the Capitol.
If we are to have a government that is more connected to and representative of the people, the focus needs to switch from what people are to who they are and what their lives are really like. If we stop putting so much emphasis on advancing some but not others based on physical differences and put more emphasis on the substantive, socioeconomic differences that affect all genders, races, and backgrounds, I believe we will see much more unity, understanding, and a considerable decrease in many of the societal conflicts that have been weakening our nation and its security.
When our government truly is “of the people,” and “by the people,” it will finally work and be “for the people.” When more of the governing class is made up of the governed, we will meet the standards of and fulfill the true promise of America that generations have fought for and that were set forth by our Founders in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.