The Dems are Diverse

The House Republican leadership announced the committee heads for next year’s Congress yesterday and somewhat unsurprisingly there were no women or racial minorities in the group. Let’s compare this to the Democrats. While Nancy Pelosi hasn’t announced her roster yet, we can make a pretty good guess at who will be serving as the ranking member (highest ranking Democrat) on each full committee in the House.

Agriculture- Collin Peterson (Minnesota)
Appropriations- Marcy Kaptur (Ohio) or Nita Lowey (New York)
Armed Services- Adam Smith (Washington)
Budget- Chris Van Hollen (Maryland)
Education & Workforce- George Miller (California)
Energy & Commerce- Henry Waxman (California)
Ethics- Linda Sanchez (co-chair) – (California)
Financial Services- Maxine Waters (California)
Foreign Affairs- Eliot Engel (New York) or Eni F. H. Faleomavaega (American Samoa)
Homeland Security- Bennie Thompson (Mississippi)
House Administration- Bob Brady (Pennsylvania)
Judiciary- John Conyers (Michigan)
Natural Resources- Ed Markey (Massachusetts)
Oversight & Government Reform- Elijah Cummings (Maryland)
Rules- Louise Slaughter (New York)
Science, Space, & Technology- Eddie Bernice Johnson (Texas)
Small Business- Nydia M. Velázquez (New York)
Transportation- Nick Rahall (West Virginia)
Veteran’s Affairs- Corrine Brown (Florida)

For those of you scoring at home, seven out of nineteen House committees will be led by women on the Democratic side. Eight (and possibly nine) of the committees will be led by people of color on the Democratic side. Of course, the House Democrats are also led by a woman and the party is led by a black man.

The Democratic Party is not only a diverse party, it is a party that shares power diversely. The House Republicans have three women in their leadership team, and their Majority Leader is Jewish. Other than that, they have no racial or religious diversity and all power resides with men.

This difference in internal party dynamics played out very explicitly in the last election, where the Republicans only did well in districts that are either devoid of minorities or where there is a high degree of racial animosity.

This polarization of the country has grown extreme and it helps explain why it is difficult to get Democrats and Republicans to work together. They seem to live in and represent different countries.

9 Comments

Lucidamente on November 28, 2012 at 10:18 am

But what will Luke Russert say?

BooMan on November 28, 2012 at 10:45 am

I don’t know. Maybe he will just order lunch.

JeffL on November 28, 2012 at 10:55 am

Check out a study that looked at population density in the election. Over 800 people/sq mi went to Obama. Under 800 people/sq mi went to Romney. Some interesting graphs:

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2012/11/what-republicans-are-really-against-population-den
sity/3953/

Given the logic of economic development and urbanization, he argues that “red states are just underdeveloped blue states,” noting that: “As cities continue to grow in red states, those cities will become more blue, and ultimately, those states will become more purple, and then blue.”

The Republicans are becoming a party of anti-progress, which is ultimately what is costing them so dearly. The issue cuts far deeper than identity politics and turns on ideology and policy positions which are “simply not compatible with the global urban future. If that’s the case, an Hispanic candidate running on the same old Republican platform will simply not resonate.”

priscianus jr on November 28, 2012 at 12:46 pm

While this is the general trend, there are some interesting exceptions.

Victories of Tester in Montana and Heidkamp in North Dakota.

There are Democratic rural strongholds in the counties of the southern “black belt”, the more Hispanic counties of Texas and the Southwest; and in much of New England and the upper Midwest.

Also, you get another perspective by looking at rural counties that were BLUER in 2012 than in 2008, regardless of who won the absolute majority. If you look at change since 2008, most southern rural counties went bluer this time, except in coal mining areas, including West Virginia and Wyoming, which were targeted for massive GOP spending.

Look at all the counties colored “white” (meaning increased % Dem vote since 2008) on this map:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/appvoices/8203945794/

boran2 on November 28, 2012 at 11:01 am

Not true. The Republicans include a vast range of angry old white men, from those seeking government “reform” to others trying to protect their lawns.

XeckyGilchrist on November 28, 2012 at 11:38 am

it helps explain why it is difficult to get Democrats and Republicans to work together.

The rest can be explained by the Republicans’ official announcements that their policy is to never cooperate with the Democrats unless the Democrats agree to everything the Republicans want, and even THEN they’ll move the goalposts and ask for more.

priscianus jr on November 28, 2012 at 12:23 pm

Yes, Cantor is Jewish — but he is the ONLY Jewish Republican in Congress.

On the Democratic side, there are 12 Jewish Democratic senators and 23 Democratic Jewish representatives.
http://www.njdc.org/site/page/jewish_members_of_congress

japa21 on November 28, 2012 at 12:52 pm

And Cantor is not the Whip, but Majority Leader.

clif on November 28, 2012 at 2:15 pm

Well well well, at least two groups remain where pasty old white guys dominate;

GOper congress critters, and the sex offender data base.

Lucidamente on November 28, 2012 at 10:18 am

But what will Luke Russert say?
- BooMan on November 28, 2012 at 10:45 am
  
  I don’t know. Maybe he will just order lunch.
JeffL on November 28, 2012 at 10:55 am

Check out a study that looked at population density in the election. Over 800 people/sq mi went to Obama. Under 800 people/sq mi went to Romney. Some interesting graphs:

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2012/11/what-republicans-are-really-against-population-den
sity/3953/

Given the logic of economic development and urbanization, he argues that “red states are just underdeveloped blue states,” noting that: “As cities continue to grow in red states, those cities will become more blue, and ultimately, those states will become more purple, and then blue.”

The Republicans are becoming a party of anti-progress, which is ultimately what is costing them so dearly. The issue cuts far deeper than identity politics and turns on ideology and policy positions which are “simply not compatible with the global urban future. If that’s the case, an Hispanic candidate running on the same old Republican platform will simply not resonate.”
- priscianus jr on November 28, 2012 at 12:46 pm
  
  While this is the general trend, there are some interesting exceptions.
  
  Victories of Tester in Montana and Heidkamp in North Dakota.
  
  There are Democratic rural strongholds in the counties of the southern “black belt”, the more Hispanic counties of Texas and the Southwest; and in much of New England and the upper Midwest.
  
  Also, you get another perspective by looking at rural counties that were BLUER in 2012 than in 2008, regardless of who won the absolute majority. If you look at change since 2008, most southern rural counties went bluer this time, except in coal mining areas, including West Virginia and Wyoming, which were targeted for massive GOP spending.
  
  Look at all the counties colored “white” (meaning increased % Dem vote since 2008) on this map:
  http://www.flickr.com/photos/appvoices/8203945794/
boran2 on November 28, 2012 at 11:01 am

Not true. The Republicans include a vast range of angry old white men, from those seeking government “reform” to others trying to protect their lawns.
XeckyGilchrist on November 28, 2012 at 11:38 am

it helps explain why it is difficult to get Democrats and Republicans to work together.

The rest can be explained by the Republicans’ official announcements that their policy is to never cooperate with the Democrats unless the Democrats agree to everything the Republicans want, and even THEN they’ll move the goalposts and ask for more.
priscianus jr on November 28, 2012 at 12:23 pm

Yes, Cantor is Jewish — but he is the ONLY Jewish Republican in Congress.

On the Democratic side, there are 12 Jewish Democratic senators and 23 Democratic Jewish representatives.
http://www.njdc.org/site/page/jewish_members_of_congress
- japa21 on November 28, 2012 at 12:52 pm
  
  And Cantor is not the Whip, but Majority Leader.
clif on November 28, 2012 at 2:15 pm

Well well well, at least two groups remain where pasty old white guys dominate;

GOper congress critters, and the sex offender data base.

About The Author

BooMan

9 Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Comments