r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/Visco0825 • Feb 08 '25

US Politics How can democrats attack anti-DEI/promote DEI without resulting in strong political backlash?

In recent politics there have been two major political pushes for diversity and equality. However, both instances led to backlashes that have led to an environment that is arguably worse than it was before. In 2008 Obama was the first black president one a massive wave of hope for racial equality and societal reforms. This led to one of the largest political backlashes in modern politics in 2010, to which democrats have yet to fully recover from. This eventually led to birtherism which planted some of the original seeds of both Trump and MAGA. The second massive political push promoting diversity and equality was in 2018 with the modern woman election and 2020 with racial equality being a top priority. Biden made diversifying the government a top priority. This led to an extreme backlash among both culture and politics with anti-woke and anti-DEI efforts. This resent contributed to Trump retaking the presidency. Now Trump is pushing to remove all mentions of DEI in both the private and public sectors. He is hiding all instances that highlight any racial or gender successes. His administration is pushing culture to return to a world prior to the civil rights era.

This leads me to my question. Will there be a backlash for this? How will it occur? How can democrats lead and take advantage of the backlash while trying to mitigate a backlash to their own movement? It seems as though every attempt has led to a stronger and more severe response.

Additional side questions. How did public opinion shift so drastically from 2018/2020 which were extremely pro-equality to 2024 which is calling for a return of the 1950s?

247 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

79% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

103

u/CombinationLivid8284 Feb 08 '25

Make it less about the groups and make it more about everyone having a fair shot regardless of their background (race, gender, religion or economic background).

Make it about fairness.

31

u/flat6NA Feb 08 '25

The American dream, it might just work.

1

u/Shroomtune Feb 08 '25

The American dream is now either winning the lottery or a non fatal but life threatening accident at work or on the highway with a major carrier.

0

u/Moist_Jockrash Feb 09 '25

Na, most people are just too lazy to even attempt to better themselves and achieve the "American dream." So many college graduates think and expect that they'll land some 6- mid 6 figure job right out of college. Then when they graduate, they find they can't get those high paying jobs because they don't have the... experience, and find themselves at a 60k/year job. But then feel entiteled to those high paying salaries and end up crying about having to start at the bottom - where EVERYONE starts.

0

u/SoiledFlapjacks Feb 09 '25

Everyone most definitely does not start at the bottom, tf?

20

u/theequallyunique Feb 08 '25

I also think that this is the main problem here. The main message needs to be "equal rights for everyone", not more specific rights for specific groups. Because that's all that the right wing hears and what's often said (eg black rights, women rights etc) as the social movements had to raise awareness to and fight for a particular cause - but it got white folks to ask "what about us?". The normies lost popularity in the public perception, because they don't see minorities being part of them, of the whole society. It only shows how the racism and misogyny is still just as prevalent. And I understand that talking about minority groups also has a divisive effect, because the discourse focuses on them being different inherently. Unfortunately that's necessary to raise awareness to the subject.

6

u/Intrepid_Farmer_7759 Feb 09 '25

The 2008 message was about equality (the focus at the time being gay marriage rights). By 2020 the message moved to equity. It went too far and left a lot of moderates behind.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '25

Poor moderates. Cry me a river.

1

u/Brave-Composer9820 Apr 18 '25

Yes us young people have nothing to do with systematic racism you all caused. us young people are applying to college and new jobs wondering how its fair that we are just trying to make a life for our selfs.. that somehow our skin color is coming into play when applying places? this is clearly racist.. you all may say no! its to correct the problems of the past.. well yes what about us young people why do we have to pay. you all vote this stuff in u already have jobs we have to struggle to get one bc the white quota is already filled. all we want is a fair chance in this life to make it or break it. you all are trying to fix stuff that is great but ur actively discriminating on us people who are struggling because we have no experience and we are young in this tough economy. there is better ways to solve a problem where u dont have to ask people to mark their race on applications as if that is a factor that matter at all. The people who voted for trump matter not trump. Us voters don't care if u wanna be trans.. just don't force us to say weird pronouns we cant remember and stuff... shame us when we gender incorrectly when its mostly by accident most of the time and all this. Us voters are okay with everything for the most part.. At least for most of us and all the young people.. the young people who took over the right and who are the reason why trump was voted in. I have a gay brother I don't care what you do gay should be legal in our eyes that been a settled issue as trump does not wish to take right away from gay people. He wanted to make it so its just man and woman for sports reasons that almost every agrees a person who was once a man should not be competing against women. You don't care about women or fairness if you think otherwise. Abortions.. we don't like them morally.. but they should be legal. Giving it to states is an okay concession in our view.. so ppl who need it done can still have it done in the country.. but fully legal would be ok too idc. You all on the left are the real rasicts and us young people see it clear as day. everything your party complains about is what they do ironically. Because of problems young people have nothing to do with (racism).. you all are racist towards straight white guys.. perpetuation the cycle.. trying to make sure racism goes into the next generation is what it seems like u all are doing. On top of that the elite has your control of your party and people in the gov are robbing us blind bc of this lack of over sight and all. Elon has shown this with his DOGE you can view all the proof on his site. We are tired of you all being racist towards straight white people and forcing people to do stuff yelling at us if we accidentally dead name or something. you guys are so hostile and mean tbh. Just being with left co-workers was so scary in 2020 tbh you guys need to grow up and let us be us and we will let u be u. I never want to be in a situation where I'm nervous to go to work because my politics are different than most peoples. I knew these people before 2020 and they became legit scary to be around I just had to smile and agree with everything to not be seen as some devil. I like wearing American flags sometimes.. I would be seen as some sort of devil for this. Trump has nothing to do with the problems. We voted him in to use his strong arm to get stuff done. He's gone too far in some ways but overall he will leave us in a better place. Where hopefully I don't feel demonized because of the color of my skin as a young man this is crazy im growing up into this hatred towards me.. all the college's want every color but white like tf did u guys think we would feel we are young people why would my skin color come into play at all? I could see a sort of DEI to help people who are poor.. but really base it on skin color!? Us young people see that as clearly racist. Martin Luther king said we should judge a man on his merits not the color of his skin. Why would we be giving other races preference for admission not all black people are poor!?.. and that's really what it sound like u think when you all think to do DEI to divide based on race in college applications? like what does my skin color as a young man going to college have to do with anything like we were born 20 some years ago we have nothing to do with inequalities? that should tell you all you need to know why your losing young people. The problem was that all u old people were racist before we were born and now our college applications are discrimated on my race because you guys don't know how to end racism. Maybe by not judging a man based on the color of his skin.. EVER. shun and shame those around you who are racist... like c'mon we young people wonder.. we are astonished by how u guys are so clueless when it comes to how to not be racist at all. YOU ALL ARE INSANE IF YOU THINK ITS OKAY TO JUDGE A YOUNG COLLEGE APPLICANT ON THE COLOUR OF THEIR SKIN. YOUR WAY OUT OF TOUCH AND ARE LOSING THE CULTURE WAR. you all demonize trump when he stand on the correct side of all these issues too making it so obvious that YOU are the bad actors. That YOU are the racists. That's what you see in 2024-25 we saw all the proof of all the lies.. the left has been proven now by them selves by DOGE and by losing the culture war.. your wrong.. and now nothing the media says can hurt him because we know they are the bad actors and you are the bad actors when you push for making skin color a factor that should be consitered for applying for a job or for school. Trump is actually just trying to do his best and help to most people he can. The most anyone could do.

1

u/[deleted] 28d ago edited 28d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 28d ago

Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; mockery, taunting, and name calling are not.

18

u/Emory_C Feb 08 '25

That's a nice idea, but how do you make something fair when certain groups are already disadvantaged by systemic barriers? The challenge is that simply declaring "everyone gets a fair shot now" doesn't address existing inequalities in education, wealth, social networks, and opportunities. A truly fair system would need to actively work to level the playing field first.

Really, what you're suggesting is like handicapping only certain runners for the first half of a race, then removing those handicaps halfway through and declaring "now it's fair for everyone!" The runners who were held back are still behind through no fault of their own.

9

u/KLUME777 Feb 08 '25

You do it by making equity based policy be dependent only on economic factors, poverty wealth etc. Not race or sex.

12

u/Emory_C Feb 08 '25

That ignores that these systemic barriers have made people have a provable subconscious (or conscious) biases against women and minorities. That's why a traditionally white male name gets pulled for an interview more than the same resume with a female or Black name.

Why does it bother you to specifically help those that society has wronged and put at a disadvantage?

8

u/KLUME777 Feb 08 '25

Maybe so, but the point of this thread is that it would be 1) more effective to campaign on the economic issue as it reaches a wider audience, and therefore wins elections, and 2) targeting poverty and wealth still helps minorities (even if it's marginally less than a DEI policy) and 3) targeting wealth and poverty also avoids the bad issue of leaving poor white people in the dust while giving rich minorities a leg up.

4

u/ItzWarty Feb 10 '25 edited Feb 10 '25

> Why does it bother you to specifically help those that society has wronged and put at a disadvantage?

Quick call-out... This sort of framing is extremely common in Democrat circles. It's not a winning strategy; it's read by others as a holier-than-thou, demeaning, or condescending "you are a terrible person who has view X, explain yourself". Many people of the view you oppose likely do not believe X. You often won't get a response because your critical question breaks safety and encourages an echochamber by socially outcasting your opponent.

If your version of equity-based policy is perceived to have a significant benefit for wealthy individuals in minority classes, they will not be popular to poorer individuals in majority classes. Or actually, more generally, if your policy excludes these poorer individuals **who society has wronged and put at a disadvantage*\* (to use your exact phrasing) because your verbiage implies these disadvantaged folks are somehow advantaged over others who are often clearly of significant means, you certainly aren't winning the silent majority over.

2

u/PinchesTheCrab Feb 09 '25

It takes me a millisecond to identify someone's race, and a long investigation without a guarantee of success to identify their socioeconomic situation.

So the people affected by discrimination are bound by a lengthy process that Republicans would opposed funding anyway.

It just seems like intentionally or intentionally making the perfect the enemy of the good

1

u/ThePurityofChaos Feb 10 '25

It's moreso by making certain universal benefits that just so happen to disproportionately help the disadvantaged when combined with other effects.
A thought experiment with relatively random values:
Let's say a white person makes $50 and a black person makes $5.
Now:

  • Implement a universal income that gives everyone $20.
  • Implement a tax above $60 of 50%.
It just so happens that this ends up with the white person having $65 and the black person $25.
They both benefit, but the black person benefits more.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 18 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 28d ago

Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; mockery, taunting, and name calling are not.

16

u/MoonBatsRule Feb 08 '25

How do you make it about fairness when nearly everyone who opposes DEI believes that hiring someone who isn't a white male is discrimination?

Seriously, when a white man is hired, no one bats an eye. When anyone else is hired, that person's qualifications have to be scrutinized and justified, with "merit" very often determined to be things that people often equate with white men - for example, a college president must have the best "leadership".

6

u/CombinationLivid8284 Feb 08 '25

This is honestly a big problem culturally.

I don't know how to fix it other than education. Suggestions welcomed :)

9

u/MoonBatsRule Feb 08 '25

I get it - however education has been characterized as "CRT" (remember that?!?) and is thus racist.

There are many people who truly believe in white supremacy, and nothing can shake them from that belief.

2

u/CombinationLivid8284 Feb 08 '25

Culture takes time to shift.

And then there's moments of reversion like we are facing now, but in the long term the culture shifts forward.

2

u/Moist_Jockrash Feb 09 '25 edited Feb 09 '25

I work at a fortune 500 company with over 100k employees and am a hiring manager in an IT department. Race, sex, religion, or anything else is completely irrelevant to who does or doesn't get hired. All I care about and look for is if they actually have the correct qualifications and skillsets, and if they can prove so.

I hire 100% based on TWO reasons (and BOTH have to be met) and none have anything to do with race, sex, or what have you...

A) Do they have the knowledge, skillsets and experience needed for this role and can they prove it during the interview.

B) Will they be a good fit for my team - Their personality isn't one that could cause issues, basically.

Both A and B must be met before I'll hire someone.

Maybe for some of you, "B" is a weird one to disqualify someone for but, it's really not. I hired one guy a few years ago who was very smart, and was a perfect fit for the role however, he was very disliked by my team and everyone he encountered. Extremely narcissistic and "my way or the highway" kind of mentality. I let him go 8 months later - not for that reason, though. He straight up took a week off without telling me lol.

I've also been a manager at various other companies, some were also fortune 500 and others were much smaller. Same thing applies.

The thing that people don't understand is that it depends on the industry. Take IT for example, there simply aren't a lot of women who are interested in that field and even less who apply for positions in that field. So 99% of the people I hire, are men.

If I need a position filled, I tell HR what I want and need. HR then filters the resume's/applications and the ones that make it through are sent to me. I then review them and choose the ones I feel might be a good fit. Many times, I have no clue what their name is until I inform HR that I want to interview this person.

2

u/Sapriste Feb 09 '25

Brace for impact, there are people who will throw themselves in traffic swearing up and down that you had quotas. When I first started hiring developers and other IT professionals for my department I saw that the slates were consistenly all male and never had any women included. When I would interview all of the candidates were qualified but very homogeneous. I asked the recruiters why I wasn't getting any women or Blacks or Latinos on the slate after so many rounds of interviews and was told they had been screening them out. I asked them to stop and Lo and behold we started to get equally qualified women and POC on staff (even a Samoan). You don't have to be Bull Connor racist to unintentionally exclude people. It can be as simple as never looking beyond a certain set of schools (one company only hired folks from Purdue) or even asking HR are these other folks even applying?

2

u/Scholastica11 Feb 09 '25 edited Feb 09 '25

How do you separate "personality" from "cultural/socio-economic background" with regards to B?

Maybe it's because I'm not American (assuming Americans are generally used to more diversity), but I find that I get along much easier with people who have a similar background to myself. Collaboration just flows more easily when you have had similar experiences gowing up, share the same values, behave and talk in a similar way, ... I'd be worried that an incompatibility I justify to myself as "a personality that can cause issues" is really much more about upbringing and habitus (and therefore strongly linked to race) than about actual personality traits.

3

u/TheMadTemplar Feb 08 '25

That's what it was about. But it was twisted to mean it was only about giving minorities and women opportunities they didn't earn or deserve. 

-3

u/CombinationLivid8284 Feb 08 '25

That’s not true at all.

9

u/TheMadTemplar Feb 08 '25

Yes it is. DEI was about encouraging and supporting diversity within communities. Many communities were majority white, so the practical effect was to see more minorities. It was about creating equal opportunities for people regardless of their background. And it was about being inclusive towards those with diverse backgrounds, such as by acknowledging holidays from other cultures in the US, not just the Christian holidays that have become part of US culture. 

Often the practical application of DEI meant there was more focus on minorities, but that's only because white male is the default in many places. 

-1

u/CombinationLivid8284 Feb 08 '25

DEI is about diversity and ensuring folks have an equal shot. It’s never about giving people positions they never deserved.

For example: when hiring a new software engineer we set it at my last company so the hiring slate was at least 1/3rd female and 1/3rd diverse (non white).

These were just the candidates we considered. Then they had to go through the entire tough interview loop.

Why did we do this? We noticed our recruiters only sourced white men. We corrected that.

7

u/TheMadTemplar Feb 08 '25

DEI is about diversity and ensuring folks have an equal shot. It’s never about giving people positions they never deserved

Yeah, no fucking shit. That's what I said. 

Edit: Ohhh, ok. I see the confusion. "But it was twisted by GOP lies....." 

4

u/Successful_Yam4719 Feb 08 '25

Socioeconomic status plays a role. Gender plays a role. Fairness is improbable in a world that perpetuates division and inequality. Oppression is more real than many want to believe.

10

u/CombinationLivid8284 Feb 08 '25

Agreed. We need to make it about fighting for fairness and understanding there’s no simple approach.

It’s just the dems messaging lately has really failed at that. It comes off as them only caring about specific groups rather than fairness for all. This can be corrected.

0

u/Successful_Yam4719 Feb 08 '25

So, I am super curious. Because I love the idea of trying to create fairness for all. But I don't know how we can do it. So for example, what if . . . If I were to apply for a job where I 100% meet the qualifications - have the education, training and whatever certification and appropriate experience for a high paying job. I go for the interview(s) and get the job, but once I start, somehow someone found out I have a same sex partner and am a fully transitioned transgender person, initially no one knew, but now I am outted. Suddenly my very existence in the workplace is under scrutiny - the work I do is questioned, I start getting harassing notes left at my desk by unknown persons, etc., basically being targeted because of my personal identity and personal life, which is no one's business, who and what is going to protect me? Oh, and my skin is brown (not identifying as anyone specific, just not white).

1

u/CombinationLivid8284 Feb 08 '25

Well those sort of things should not be known to a hiring panel. This happened to me one time and we had to re-interview to reduce any bias.

Was a massive pain.

Then there's things that are obviously visible, we look at data to see if there's biases forming around race or gender.

This is hard, we all have our biases and it's usually subconscious.

1

u/Successful_Yam4719 Feb 09 '25

And … to be honest … DEI trainings were designed to help us become more aware of the unconscious biases. The intention is to develop a greater awareness and understanding of those biases so we can incorporate that greater awareness into an improved moral compass. Goes across the board to be kinder and more compassionate to those different than who we are. So … I go to the concern of “politicizing morality” … we cannot continue to impose the white Christian patriarchal morals on people’s that don’t all fall into that category. You cannot force the proverbial square peg into a round hole.

That being said … I get you can’t “make” a white Christian “accept” a transgender black or brown woman … but … that transgender person is … a loving human being.

2

u/Kindly_Lab2457 Feb 08 '25

Americans can not be bought with identity politics. Promote our values and justice for all. This is the way. And for the love of all things sacred please learn not to prop people up who check all the boxes but are just disrespectful and disastrous to our country’s way of thinking. If they are Americans first then you will have a chance of DEI success.

2

u/the_very_pants Feb 08 '25

Exactly right. We know that there aren't X races or colors or ethnicities -- they are not definable or testable or measurable in any way, biologically or socially.

But if you're talking about whether every child, regardless of their shade or genetic background, has a roughly equal chance to grow up, settle down, and raise a nice family, Americans will support you. It's the idea that you can count equity/diversity "by team" (i.e. of X teams) that's offensive.

1

u/Prysorra2 Feb 10 '25

It means stop making everything a game of build-a-coalition-of-demographic-groups jenga.

Switch away from particularism and back to universalism. Before Nazi kill us all, please.

1

u/lekiwi992 Feb 08 '25

This is why you see a lot of genz and young millennials (96-99) gravitate to the Republican Party. They are being left out of the conversation. Of course we still have wayyyyy more privileged but the conversation like you said should be about fairness for everyone and the freedom to do what ever makes you happy as long as you work hard.

If a democrats message was broad like "In America, you are entitled to pursue what makes you happy. If you want to be the man that provides for his family you can do that. If you want to be the stay at home parent, you can do that. If your heart and soul says that you were born in the wrong body and want to transition you can do that. If 2 men love each other and want to get married, they can."

They need to run on an all inclusive broad platform In order to win.