Nepotism and the definition of Diversity

There will be a tide of commentary on the momentous election of 2014 and I cannot meaningfully add to that. I do have a couple of purely speculatively observations.

I wonder if there isn’t a lesson about diversity in some of the results. But diversity defined differently than is customary among the clerisy. Republicans swept all the state-wide seats in Georgia. There was nominally quite a difference in degree of diversity in terms of the slate of candidates each party advanced. For the statewide races, the Democrats had a slate that was 60% (six out of ten races) female and 50% African American female (five out of ten races), a seemingly admirable degree of diversity. In contrast, the Republican slate was 100% white males. Since they won all the races, it means that the state’s electorate chose a markedly non-diverse group of winners. If you accept the traditional definitions of diversity.

However, if you look at the candidates' backgrounds, you get a different story.

All of the Republicans have a business background ranging from founding prominent law firms, to family firms, to farms, to major corporations. All also have some combination of volunteer activities in their local communities, civic positions (Chamber of Commerce officer and the ilk) and local elected positions. About a quarter have some military service in their background. Their age range is 44-76 with the median age around 60.

Three of the Democratic candidates only have experience in government positions. Two more have only worked in NGOs over their entire career. Only four have some business background at all and that tends to be fairly limited, i.e. all of it is white-collar services work, primarily for the education sector. Their age range is more limited, 39-61 and younger with a median age around 55.

It might be unfair, but not inaccurate, to describe the Democrat candidates as being primarily younger and their careers to have been entirely within NGOs, Government, and Education, with those few having some business experience being quite limited. Likewise the Republican candidates seem to have a lot more public accomplishments (big businesses, important positions, more executive experience), a much greater variety of experience within business, a broader range of industries, and a much greater mix of experience of civic roles, business, and government. They are also older.

All the explanations I am seeing in the papers for the Republican sweep seem to be inside ball and focusing on alliances and relationships and race and urban versus rural and changing demographics, and national trends, etc. I wonder if there might be a simpler explanation for the Republican sweep which might be as simple as that Republicans ran older, more accomplished, and significantly more broadly experienced candidates than did the Democrats. The Republicans ran an experientially diverse slate whereas the Democrats had a much more experientially homogenous slate.

The second observation is about family dynasties. At the national level, who lost by surprisingly robust margins? Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Michelle Nunn (Georgia), Jason Carter (Georgia), Mark Pryor (Arkansas). What do they all have in common? They are all from old southern political dynasties with their roots in a Democratic South which has evaporated. Are they losing because they are Democrats in the South or because the public is tired of family dynasties in an era of political dysfunction? I don’t know but I have a suspicion that the general public exasperation with crony capitalism, rent seeking, regulatory capture and perceived ineffectiveness of politicians is exacerbated when there is a whiff of nepotism and entitlement.