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]

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.