I've noticed a tendency for liberals and progressives to talk about racial inequities as if talking about them will win people over to their cause, but I think it tends to do the opposite. It may not be fair, but when an issue is framed as being particularly important for racial minorities, it will tend to trigger reflexive opposition from white people.
For example, picture I'm trying to sell an idea for subsidized childcare. I'd be wise to focus on it being a way to boost labor participation, by making work outside the home more economically viable for poorer people. With that sales pitch, I may get some cross-over support from conservatives and independents. But if I try to sell the exact same idea and focus on how currently the high price of childcare disproportionately affects people of color, and argue that therefore these subsidies would boost racial equity, I may as well be digging a grave for my idea.
Liberals and progressives tend to think that "and it'll be good for people of color" is a strong selling point, but it's a death knell for the kinds of people you need to win over. When at all possible, pitch your policies in racially neutral ways -- with no reference at all to race, if you can. Resist the urge to even throw it in as an "added benefit." As soon as your idea is seen as a way of helping "those people," you're screwed.
That even shows up when dealing with something like efforts to defeat COVID. If you sell an idea as a way to shut down the virus and get us all back to our regular lives faster, you may win converts. If, instead, you focus on the racial disparities of COVID, which has been killing people of color in higher numbers, you wind up alienating the people you need to convince. As soon as they see effort as being focused on helping racial minorities, they'll want no part of it:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795362200257X
I think this is a huge part of why the US is such an outlier among wealthy nations. Most rich countries have a lot more social spending relative to GDP, because those things are perceived simply as a way to pool resources to improve quality of life across the whole population. But in the US, we have a tendency to discuss similar ideas in terms of dealing with systemic racism. When most white people see a program as doing more for non-white people, they become hostile to it, even if they, themselves, would also benefit.
For example, picture I'm trying to sell an idea for subsidized childcare. I'd be wise to focus on it being a way to boost labor participation, by making work outside the home more economically viable for poorer people. With that sales pitch, I may get some cross-over support from conservatives and independents. But if I try to sell the exact same idea and focus on how currently the high price of childcare disproportionately affects people of color, and argue that therefore these subsidies would boost racial equity, I may as well be digging a grave for my idea.
Liberals and progressives tend to think that "and it'll be good for people of color" is a strong selling point, but it's a death knell for the kinds of people you need to win over. When at all possible, pitch your policies in racially neutral ways -- with no reference at all to race, if you can. Resist the urge to even throw it in as an "added benefit." As soon as your idea is seen as a way of helping "those people," you're screwed.
That even shows up when dealing with something like efforts to defeat COVID. If you sell an idea as a way to shut down the virus and get us all back to our regular lives faster, you may win converts. If, instead, you focus on the racial disparities of COVID, which has been killing people of color in higher numbers, you wind up alienating the people you need to convince. As soon as they see effort as being focused on helping racial minorities, they'll want no part of it:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795362200257X
I think this is a huge part of why the US is such an outlier among wealthy nations. Most rich countries have a lot more social spending relative to GDP, because those things are perceived simply as a way to pool resources to improve quality of life across the whole population. But in the US, we have a tendency to discuss similar ideas in terms of dealing with systemic racism. When most white people see a program as doing more for non-white people, they become hostile to it, even if they, themselves, would also benefit.
