The Saturday New York Times has a column by Charles M. Blow about the supposed lack of diversity in the Republican Party. He writes:The question must be asked:
Why do so many insensitive comments come from these Republicans?
One reason may well be their proximity problem.
Too many House Republican districts are isolated in naturally homogeneous areas or gerrymandered ghettos, so elected officials there rarely hear — or see — the great and growing diversity of this country and the infusion of energy and ideas and art with which it enriches us.
Mr. Blow may have a point about homogenous districts, but his column makes no mention of one cause of such districts, which is that similarly homogenous districts were created to provide same electoral bases for urban minority candidates with the strong support of the Democratic Party.
He goes on:
With the exception of a few districts, a map of the areas in this country with the fewest minorities looks strikingly similar to a map of the areas from which Congressional Republicans hail.
Yet in fact those maps don't look particularly similar at all. New England, for example, has few minorities according to the map, but also sends few Republicans to Congress. Parts of Alaska have lots of minorities (probably Native Americans), but are represented by Republicans.
He writes, "although this is the most diverse Congress in history, not one of the blacks or Asians in the House is a Republican…The Republican Party has a severe minority problem." The column focuses on the House, but it doesn't mention the Senate. Maybe that's because there the Republicans have twice as many Hispanics (Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio) as do the Democrats (Bob Menendez). Or maybe it is because in the Senate the Republicans have exactly as many blacks (Tim Scott) as do the Democrats (Mo Cowan). Maybe it's the Democrats who have a "severe minority problem."