The New York Times:
Years before Lisa Cook became President Trump’s latest target in his effort to exert control over the Federal Reserve, she wrote about her experience as one of a relative handful of Black women in a field long dominated by white men.
“Economics is neither a welcoming nor a supportive profession for women,” she and a colleague wrote in a New York Times opinion essay in 2019. She added, “But if economics is hostile to women, it is especially antagonistic to Black women.”
What is the overwhelming political identity of those who are hostile to women in general and Black women in particular? “Political Affiliations of Federal Reserve Economists” (2022):
According to a new analysis of voter registration data, Democrat economists at the Federal Reserve outnumber Republicans 10 to 1. The imbalance is even larger among economists in leadership positions, among younger economists, and among female economists.
Previous studies look at the political ideologies of the broader economic profession. For instance, Langbert, Quain, and Klein (2016) report that Democrats outnumber Republicans 4.5:1 among economics faculty at 40 leading universities. In addition, Langbert (2020) finds a ratio of 4:1 among members of the American Economic Association (AEA), 4.1:1 among academic AEA members, and 2.5:1 among AEA members working outside academia and government. Earlier, Klein and Stern (2006) estimateds the ratio at 4.1:1 among public sector economists and 1.4:1 among private sector economists. McEachern (2006) shows Democrats outnumber Republicans 5.1:1 among AEA members in terms of political contributions.
I find that the ratio of Democrats to Republicans among Fed economists is 10.4 to 1. The lack of political diversity is especially pronounced at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (48.5:1). Economists at regional Reserve banks range from 3:1 (Cleveland) to 12:1 (San Francisco). The lack of diversity is also noteworthy in leadership positions (22.25:1). Economists who are 40 years old or younger at the Fed are more likely to lean left (20.33:1), as are female economists (27.5:1). This suggests the Fed is likely to become even less politically diverse in time.
We are informed that if Republicans were eliminated (liquidated?) the U.S. would become a paradise of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Yet it seems that the discrimination that has kept and continues to keep qualified Black women from assuming leadership positions at the Fed has been almost entirely perpetrated by Democrats.
Sorry Phil, I’m gonna skip the NYT article, not falling for that again. Someone has sure eliminated/liquidated most of the Buckley-ites. (Puns intended.) I wonder if the National Review is still available in sustainable paper.
Funny story, the director emeritus of the Columbia/Princeton Electronic Music Center was in a punk band called Dow Jones and the Industrials:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Jones_and_the_Industrials
MIT had Tom Scholz, Columbia had Brad Garton.
I have the impression from your writing that you have some interest in avoiding solecisms, so I hope you don’t mind if I point out that the correct adjective for a member of the Democratic party is “Democratic” (in other words, your headline is not up to your usually admirable grammatical standards).
I do love to cling to obsolete English usage standards, e.g., “whom”. That said, I do think the evolving standard of “Democrat” versus “democratic” is superior to “Democratic” versus “democratic”. Under the old standard, two radically different words differ only in capitalization, which itself has lost significance for the text message generations. We are informed on a daily basis about threats to “democracy” and “democratic standards”. So it is more important than it was in the 1960s to have different words to distinguish between (1) questions about how voting gets done (“democratic”), and (2) advocacy for gender affirming surgery on teenagers, open borders, expanded public housing, etc. (“Democrat”).
Lee, great point. Phil definitely has it wrong. The correct term would be Leftist.
Dr. Jill: I reject the terms “Left” and “Right” as applied to U.S. politicians because they imply coherent systems of political philosophy!
Much as left-brained/right-brained presupposes anyone even has half a brain anymore, especially politicians.
Phil, just because you reject Leftism doesn’t make it RIGHT.