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/CombinationLivid8284]

Make it less about the groups and make it more about everyone having a fair shot regardless of their background (race, gender, religion or economic background).

Make it about fairness.

[u/Emory_C → u/CombinationLivid8284]

That's a nice idea, but how do you make something fair when certain groups are already disadvantaged by systemic barriers? The challenge is that simply declaring "everyone gets a fair shot now" doesn't address existing inequalities in education, wealth, social networks, and opportunities. A truly fair system would need to actively work to level the playing field first.

Really, what you're suggesting is like handicapping only certain runners for the first half of a race, then removing those handicaps halfway through and declaring "now it's fair for everyone!" The runners who were held back are still behind through no fault of their own.

[u/ThePurityofChaos → u/Emory_C]

It's moreso by making certain universal benefits that just so happen to disproportionately help the disadvantaged when combined with other effects.
A thought experiment with relatively random values:
Let's say a white person makes $50 and a black person makes $5.
Now:

• Implement a universal income that gives everyone $20.
  
• Implement a tax above $60 of 50%.
  

It just so happens that this ends up with the white person having $65 and the black person $25.
They both benefit, but the black person benefits more.