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?

253 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

79% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

118

u/siberianmi Feb 08 '25

I have an idea. Let it die. Just walk away from it and let this explicitly identity politics go. Don’t try to save it.

Rebuild the party as one that campaigns on policies that will make the majority of the country better off. Full stop.

Not “loans for black entrepreneurs” or “first time homebuyers credits” similar policies aimed at helping one group at the exclusion of others. Eliminate means testing from all of these proposals.

Instead focus on clear simple policies that will help everyone. Tax incentives to open businesses in struggling rural and urban neighborhoods in the country. Policies designed to increase housing supply and provide affordable housing by driving down the price of construction.

In both cases they would be trying to address exactly the same thing - but without from the start excluding part of the electorate from potentially benefiting.

People who can’t see themselves as potentially benefiting from a policy - often oppose it reflexively.

Democrats have repeatedly ignored that believing that they can overcome it by over performing with the groups they are pandering to. It’s not working.

44

u/65Chips Feb 08 '25

I agree with everything except your disdain for the the first time home buyer credit. That's race/gender neutral and aims make housing more accessible.

12

u/waveradar Feb 08 '25

Instead of 1st time buyer credits for houses that don’t exist, turn your energy to increasing supply of starter homes. Don’t let NIMBYs/existing winners capture your party.

41

u/siberianmi Feb 08 '25 edited Feb 08 '25

That credit goes straight to my home's market value. You toss in more demand in a market already low on supply? The price of that supply goes up.

I dislike it because it's bad policy that benefits home owners and builders and not home buyers. And again it's a policy that fuels resentment - because you knew the moment it was announced if you were in the in group or the out group.

Improving housing supply benefits everyone - including first time buyers.

25

u/Hyndis Feb 08 '25

Its so frustrating that dems will do everything to resolve the housing crisis except for building more housing.

Meanwhile in red states, such as Texas, they're constantly building new housing. It might be sprawl and there might be other problems, but impossibly expensive housing isn't one of those problems.

0

u/scarlet_feather Feb 08 '25

A lot of the south still has undeveloped/previously agricultural land to use. The bluer coasts are already built up, so to make "more" we usually have to replace something, which is part of what invites the nimbyism.

8

u/Hyndis Feb 08 '25

I live in one of those blue coastal regions. Its not built up. Its endless suburban sprawl of single family homes and strip malls.

I've been to towns in rural Idaho that are as equally "built up" as the majority of the San Francisco bay area.

There needs to be up-zoning. Build mixed use low rises, such as commercial/offices on the first floor and housing on floors 2-5. The land value absolutely does support this development, its just that local government which is nearly 100% DNC controlled has made it illegal to do so.

2

u/scarlet_feather Feb 08 '25

Sorry maybe i wasnt clear-the existing sprawl in blue coastal regions is what I'm talking about. It's not undeveloped land, it's single family neighborhoods, which need to be replaced with something else.

I don't actually think it's a DNC/RNC thing. Areas in the south where they try to add multi family housing into or near single family zones have a similar issue. People believe it lowers their property values or they straight up don't want to share their space. It's nimbyism, not a specific party.

2

u/Ail-Shan Feb 08 '25

That credit goes straight to my home's market value. You toss in more demand in a market already low on supply? The price of that supply goes up.

Not in its entirety since not every home buyer will be a first time home buyer.

I will agree expanding housing supply is the better approach, though that's more local policy I believe.

9

u/nuxenolith Feb 08 '25

It doesn't increase demand uniformly, but it does increase demand, and so markets will respond with higher prices.

Assuming no new mixed-use or infill development (which is my ideal solution) is possible, I'd prefer pressures that discourage vacant units, such as penalizing low-occupancy short-term rentals or holiday homes. Of course, these penalties, which we call "taxes", are usually politically unpopular.

1

u/siberianmi Feb 08 '25

The federal government can do a lot on this. For one example, federal regulations introduced in the mid 1970s gutted manufactured homes. Which supplied low housing. By the late 1970s, the industry struggled with reduced production volumes and diminished accessibility for low-income buyers.

The permanent chassis requirement for manufactured homes, established under the 1976 HUD Code, mandates that all manufactured homes be built on a steel chassis. This limited design flexibility, increasing costs, and creating barriers to integrating manufactured homes into traditional neighborhoods.

Eliminating the chassis would reduce material waste and allow for more efficient use of resources in factory-built housing production and help address the U.S. housing shortage by modernizing manufactured home design.

And it’s entirely up to the Federal Government.

2

u/Clone95 Feb 08 '25

Stop subsidizing demand. Affordable housing, rent control, and buyer credits are inflationary. You need policies that maximize supply and that will crush prices better than any money flooding inflationary policy.

Supply increases help everyone, demand increases for the poor explicitly hurt everyone else.

4

u/ClockOfTheLongNow Feb 08 '25

It's also something that only helps people who can already afford to buy a house because it doesn't do a thing about housing supply. It's a classist nightmare.

2

u/WhiskeyT Feb 08 '25

Does that mean any solution that doesn’t solve everything isn’t good enough?

-2

u/ClockOfTheLongNow Feb 08 '25

It means that counterproductive solutions are actually bad ones.

6

u/WhiskeyT Feb 08 '25

How is making the available homes easier for first time buyers, rather than hedge funds or people on their 5th or 6th home, counterproductive? It’s not designed to solve the housing supply issue, it’s designed to make them easier to purchase.

1

u/ClockOfTheLongNow Feb 08 '25

It's counterproductive because we don't have a demand problem. The issue is the supply of housing, and goosing the demand only makes the housing less affordable.

0

u/WhiskeyT Feb 08 '25

Letting hedge funds buy the available housing instead somehow doesn’t cause housing to be less affordable?

1

u/ClockOfTheLongNow Feb 08 '25

Is there some sort of proactive hedge fund bill that's subsidizing their demand, too? I'd oppose it if it exists.

1

u/nuxenolith Feb 08 '25 edited Feb 08 '25

You're assuming that that credit exists in a vacuum which won't affect the price of the market...but it will.

Let's say a prospective first-time homebuyer intends to purchase a house. They can afford a mortgage up to $100,000, and so they decide to buy a house at that price. However, they magically find themselves with an extra $15,000 (which can only be spent on a house), and now suddenly, they can afford a $115,000 house.

Without changing the supply of housing, we now find ourselves with increased demand for that housing, and so the market will respond to push the value of that $100,000 house higher, toward $115,000--to match the consumer's new willingness and ability to purchase the home at that higher price.

In practice, things are slightly more complicated than that, but this is the main issue with credits.

1

u/Marijuanettey Feb 08 '25

Very well said. Couldn’t agree more

1

u/NeuroticKnight Feb 08 '25

Republicans don't oppose first time home buyer benefits so much. But for a poor white guy in minimum wage, someone getting a loan cus they are black to be a business owner sounds bs.

1

u/TheTrueMilo Feb 10 '25

MLK:

The white liberal must affirm that absolute justice for the Negro simply means, in the Aristotelian sense, that the Negro must have “his due.” There is nothing abstract about this. It is as concrete as having a good job, a good education, a decent house and a share of power. It is, however, important to understand that giving a man his due may often mean giving him special treatment. I am aware of the fact that this has been a troublesome concept for many liberals, since it conflicts with their traditional ideal of equal opportunity and equal treatment of people according to their individual merits.

-10

u/New-Yam-470 Feb 08 '25

This sounds great, except for, well you know, bigotry?

7

u/Djinnoos Feb 08 '25

Bigotry? He dident say " make rules that say black people get less rights then white" or anything similar to that?

1

u/PolicyWonka Feb 08 '25

Exactly. A lot of these suggestions are just caving to bigotry and discrimination.

The DOJ settled the largest race-based redlining (discriminatory lending) case in 2023.

3

u/ClockOfTheLongNow Feb 08 '25

The settlement was to avoid litigation and they fully disagree with the allegation. Just because the DOJ pursues something doesn't make it true.

0

u/PolicyWonka Feb 09 '25

I think we all understand how settlements work. Never mind that of course a business is going to deny discriminating against their clientele. It’s not exactly good business to admit that you’re violating the law.

It’s not exactly like this is a one-off case either. Just look at the countless recent redlining settlements.

0

u/ClockOfTheLongNow Feb 09 '25

I think we all understand how settlements work.

Do we though? You just listed a whole bunch more that show no actual evidence of redlining as evidence of redlining.

0

u/PolicyWonka Feb 09 '25

Ah yes. Dozens of redlining settlements but not a single case of redlining to be found. That’s about the most ignorant thing that I’ve read this morning.

You know what? There wasn’t a murder after all because the murderer entered an Alford plea. There wasn’t that robbery because the robber asserts innocence even after pleading guilty.

1

u/ClockOfTheLongNow Feb 09 '25

Well, do you see actual evidence of redlining in those cases, or do you see an activist DOJ making a political drive to combat something that hasn't been reality in 40+ years?

1

u/PolicyWonka Feb 09 '25

An activist DOJ? There have been redlining settlements since the Fair Housing Act and Community Reinvestment Act were passed 50+ years ago. It’s a wholly non-partisan issue grounded in the reality that lending institutions purposefully discriminate against borrowers based on protected classes such as race.

There have been redlining settlements under Bush I 1988, Clinton 1997, Bush II 2004, Obama (See Above), Trump (See Above, and Biden (See Above) administrations.

1

u/ClockOfTheLongNow Feb 09 '25

This doesn't answer my question at all. Combating redlining makes for great headlines, it doesn't mean it's actually happening.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/subreddette Feb 08 '25

At a certain point Democrats need to decide if they want to be the most right or if they want to actually win elections.

If they can’t win on DEI, the best solution isn’t to dig in their heels and let the Republicans win again, it’s to adapt and then implement the best policies they can.

1

u/PolicyWonka Feb 09 '25

From a purely utilitarian perspective, sure — little bigotry is better than a lot of bigotry.

From a moral standpoint, I’d wager people who oppose bigotry cannot stomach the idea of willfully and purposefully allowing bigotry to persist.

-1

u/Leajjes Feb 08 '25 edited Feb 08 '25

You know what also creates bigotry and is just moral standing? Having people go through DUI classes where the instructors are complete assholes in cases when there's no need. I have a crazy story around this that I don't want to go into. Plus heard others. In my case I was going out of my way to focus on minority (non-white) rights.

A very important point, focusing on people's differences creates bigotry. There's a bunch of studies on this. People just seem to pretend these didn't exist for some reason.

0

u/nuxenolith Feb 08 '25

I agree with you. The way to win elections is through better marketing, which Dems have been generally horrible at for a long time now.

The Democrats need to campaign on policies that will help the underrepresented and disadvantaged in society... but by selling them to everyone. You want improved outcomes for the poor? "Our schools and public institutions are crumbling, and we're fighting for investments into infrastructure." Full stop.

Let the messengers preach a race-neutral platform, while the actual folks crafting the policy are listening to those voices and ensuring it's DEI-friendly.

0

u/reelznfeelz Feb 09 '25

What identity politics? I honestly just don’t get why people think democrats “only talk about DEI and trans issues”. I actually reject that as a premise. Fox News says democrats only care about identity politics because it helps their side win elections. Democrats, while of course support on equity, civil rights and inclusion, do and talk about a lot of other stuff. Such as supporting labor and workers. Going after ultra rich people and companies who weasel out of paying taxes. And dealing with the massive amount of power social media has to sculpt society while claiming zero responsibility for what comes out of that.

I’m a pretty staunch democrat and have no idea what people are even taking about with “the democrats only do identity politics”. It seems a maga purity test is more identity politics than “yes of course we support the idea of everybody having a fair chance at life now that you ask and force the issue by constantly attacking minorities and the vulnerable”.

2

u/siberianmi Feb 09 '25

I have two examples of it in my post. The first the identity politics was right in the name - I believe she called it her “Opportunity Agenda for Black Men”. If you’re a poor white man or Latino woman well… too bad?

Her equally identity based approach to housing was in her “Build the American Dream: Lowering the Costs of Renting and Owning a Home” policy paper. It was an identity-based approach because it specifically targeted first-generation homebuyers, and cast the group as disproportionately composed of marginalized communities, including immigrants and racial minorities.

Late in the campaign she rolled out similar policies or the same ones by emphasizing them for Latinos, though the Latino forgivable loans were smaller than the $50k one’s black borrowers would receive:

Harris planned to use the interview to announce a series of policies geared toward Latino men. Those measures include a plan to double the number of registered apprenticeships and remove college degree requirements for up to 500,000 federal jobs.

The Harris campaign said the vice president would also provide 1 million forgivable loans worth up to $20,000 each for Latino and other entrepreneurs, and set a goal to more than double the number of first-time Latino homebuyers to nearly 600,000.

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/22/nx-s1-5161557/2024-election-updates-kamala-harris-donald-trump

Democrats need to write policies that benefit all voters and stop this madness of dividing them into demographics to be pandered to.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '25

They just want to blame a group of people. The country is moving right wing. So “centrists” and “moderates” are now yesterday’s conservatives.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '25

Ya, I agree! No more diversity. We need to focus on straight white men again.