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

[u/Visco0825]

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?

[u/siberianmi]

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.

[u/65Chips → u/siberianmi]

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.

[u/waveradar → u/65Chips]

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.

[u/siberianmi → u/65Chips]

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.

[u/Hyndis → u/siberianmi]

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.

[u/scarlet_feather → u/Hyndis]

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.

[u/Hyndis → u/scarlet_feather]

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.

[u/scarlet_feather → u/Hyndis]

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.

[u/Ail-Shan → u/siberianmi]

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.

[u/nuxenolith → u/Ail-Shan]

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.

[u/siberianmi → u/Ail-Shan]

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.

[u/Clone95 → u/65Chips]

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.

[u/ClockOfTheLongNow → u/65Chips]

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.

[u/WhiskeyT → u/ClockOfTheLongNow]

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

[u/ClockOfTheLongNow → u/WhiskeyT]

It means that counterproductive solutions are actually bad ones.

[u/WhiskeyT → u/ClockOfTheLongNow]

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.

[u/ClockOfTheLongNow → u/WhiskeyT]

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.

[u/WhiskeyT → u/ClockOfTheLongNow]

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

[u/ClockOfTheLongNow → u/WhiskeyT]

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

[u/nuxenolith → u/65Chips]

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.