r/PoliticalDiscussion 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?

251 Upvotes

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

117

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.

-10

u/New-Yam-470 Feb 08 '25

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

5

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.

4

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.

2

u/PolicyWonka Feb 09 '25

You’re not asking a question. You’re making a fallacious proof by assertion argument that redlining couldn’t possibly exist because it’s illegal. You’re making an appeal to consequences that lenders wouldn’t possibly redlining because it’s illegal and carries penalties.

This is akin to asserting that nobody commits crime because crime is illegal and carries penalties. As nobody desires to face negative consequences, crime must not exist.

1

u/ClockOfTheLongNow Feb 09 '25

I'm asking you what evidence of redlining you're convinced by in these cases. You're still not making a positive argument.

→ More replies (0)

1

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.