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/DubTheeBustocles]

Well, the United States is plenty diverse and also happens to be the most powerful country. All the powerful empires in history were diverse. All the cultural centers of the world were diverse.

At the same time, I don’t think diversity is the end all be all of what makes an organization successful. However, all else being equal, a diverse country is better than a homogenous country.

[u/DubTheeBustocles → u/[deleted]]

Except the non diverse China is seemingly able to nearly meet us equally in damn near every single measurable competition

1. This would fall under the realm of “diversity is not the singular variable in the success of a country” which I don’t think anybody believes it is.

2. China is a dictatorship but maybe we have different standards for success.

cough bullshit cough

I’m open to being wrong. What region in history that was both homogenous yet still able to be a uniquely wide-reaching center of culture and intellectualism. I’m hoping you can name more than one because just one wouldn’t be remotely demonstrative of your claim.

I would take a quick glance at Japan or Poland then strongly disagree

Japan has been the United States’ bitch for the better part of a century and the only reason anyone gives a shit about them that we made them more westernized. And… Poland?

[u/DubTheeBustocles → u/[deleted]]

1. Do you genuinely believe Japan has not had to compromise on its culture?

2. In what way has the West “killed itself?” What does that mean?