Congress Needs More Diversity

In case you think I’ve suddenly gone woke, let me assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. I remain the same politically-incorrect conservative firebrand you’ve come to love… or hate.

And so, when I say that Congress needs more diversity, rest assured that I am not talking about race or gender, because they are mere accidents of birth. After all, no preborn child pages through a catalog in its mother’s womb and chooses its sex or skin color. God determines them both through the DNA that He created… and his or her parents contributed.

(For the record, 155 women currently serve in Congress, along with 65 Black Americans, 61 Latino or Hispanic Americans, 21 Asian Americans or Pacific Islanders, and five Native Americans).

No, my friend, I am referring to the profession or vocation of the 435 members of the House of Representatives and the 100 sitting Senators.

Here is how the New York Times described the makeup of the 116th Congress (the current Congress is the 118th)…

Among both Democrats and Republicans, lawyers are staggeringly overrepresented: They constitute less than 1 percent of the voting-age population but more than one-third of the House. Perhaps it is natural for the people writing laws to study them first. But the United States is an exception internationally. Research by Adam Bonica of Stanford and Maya Sen of Harvard found that in Sweden, France and Denmark, lawyers make up less than 10 percent of the legislature.

Not only are lawyers more likely to run for office, they are also more likely to win. This success is largely because of the advantage they have in early fund-raising, drawing from professional networks of other lawyers and affluent professionals.

Once in office, lawyers tend to vote in a way that benefits their profession. They are less likely to support laws that would cap awards for damages or regulate legal fees, according to Mr. Bonica and Ms. Sen’s research.

(Please allow me a brief segue to say that there are quite a few attorneys who serve their constituents extremely well in public office. At the federal level, I am grateful for men like Sen. Ted Cruz, who is an expert on constitutional law and would make a great Supreme Court justice; and Rep. Jim Jordan, who has a law degree but never sat for the bar... and yet, has the bulldog tenacity of a prosecutor. Locally, I can't think of a more competent and more effective legislator than State Senator Erin Grall, a pro-life warrior who has also championed parental rights in Tallahassee).

The Times also found that when businesspeople and medical professionals are added to the mix along with attorneys, they constitute more than 70% of Congress. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the Times drew the following conclusion:

In part because Congress is filled with successful white-collar professionals, the House is much, much richer than the people it represents, and affluent politicians support legislation that benefits their own class at the expense of others.

Whereas 2/3 of Americans 25 and older lack a bachelor’s degree, 95% of House members were college educated… and 10% of them studied at elite and very expensive private universities. Now don’t get me wrong. There is absolutely nothing wrong with getting a good education. After all, I graduated from Temple University in 1981 with Summa Cum Laude honors and even earned 15 graduate credits before family and ministry responsibilities (and a statistics class that was way above my pay grade) forced me to withdraw.

However, from my vantagepoint we would greatly benefit from having fewer lawyers and more small business owners, accountants, farmers, and tradesmen walking the halls of Congress.

Who better to balance the federal budget than a CPA or someone who ran a small business or nonprofit organization on a shoestring? And who could possibly be more qualified to address America’s rising food costs than a farmer that grew the corn, a trucker who transported it to market, or a storeowner who sold it to consumers?

Need another example of why out-of-touch legislators and career bureaucrats are clueless when it comes to establishing commonsense government policies? Politicians with little or no business experience mandate automatic increases in the federal minimum wage to placate voters while small business owners realize that such measures will force them to raise prices, lay off workers, or both.

The same goes for cutting back on fossil fuel production and usage… while simultaneously shoving windmills, solar panels, and electric cars down our throats.

Here’s another one for you…

In the early 1970s, more than 70% of the members of Congress had a military background. Today, that number has dropped to less than 20%. Don’t you think that having more veterans – or active-duty National Guardsmen – would come in handy when making decisions about the defense budget or sending American troops overseas?

Only 20% of the current members of Congress never held a previous political office. In fact, many of them have been in public office (and on the government payroll) for decades. To me, living inside the “Beltway bubble” for a long period of time causes even the best and most dedicated public servants to lose touch with the real world, let alone with their constituents. I guess that is why I am so passionate about instituting term limits for all federal officeholders.

One last point which, on the surface, may come across as a bit self-serving. However, it really isn’t because my political aspirations are all in the rearview mirror. Simply put, I think Congress needs more ministers. After all, many of our Founding Fathers – such as John and Sam Adams, Patrick Henry, John Hancock, John Jay, John Marshall, and Benjamin Rush – were all evangelical Christians and virtually all our Founders who attended college did so at a time when universities were more or less seminaries. In fact, almost all our present-day Ivy League schools were originally established to train ministers and to spread the gospel.

John Collins, who holds a PhD from Princeton, writes “There were strong religious affiliations at all but Cornell.” And Stephen White, a graduate of Central Bible College, adds the following…

Of the 8 Ivy League Universities, only Cornell University does not have Biblical and Church origins. Harvard, Yale and Dartmouth were started by the Congregationalist Church, Columbia by the Episcopal Church, Brown by the Baptist Church, and Princeton by the Presbyterian Church.

Meanwhile, the University of Pennsylvania can trace its origins to Benjamin Franklin’s desire to erect a large building in which his close friend and evangelist George Whitefield could preach.

My friends, if America desperately needs a spiritual revival along the lines of the First and Second Great Awakenings (and it DOES), who better to spark the fire and fan the flames than a minister serving in Congress? Throw in a healthy portion of accountants, farmers, tradesmen, and most of all veterans and we might actually get something done in Washington D.C.