> large groups of people that the government wants to marginalize

Who does the government want to marginalize? I thought the government (and the rest of the world, really) was all about equality and inclusion as of late.

To borrow the quote from another post on this thread (which is still very valid): "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." — John Ehrlichman, to Dan Baum for Harper's Magazine in 1994, about President Richard Nixon's war on drugs, declared in 1971.

I'm not trying to stir the pot when I ask this:

How is a quote about how the Nixon administration having "black people as the enemy" around 1968-1971 still relevant in 2021 when the current administration's messaging is one of inclusion and equality?

Its not like every time there's a new president every single person in the government is fired and new people are rehired. Its also not like every policy/law gets shredded and entirely new policies get created overnight.

Having a new president is like a new captain giving orders on an incredibly massive ship. There's a ton of inertia going on, there's a lot of people below the captain that are still the people with the hands on the controls operating the boat. Plus, usually when you're in the middle of trying to steer the boat to port the captain gets replaced and starts commanding the boat turn to starboard.

Coupled this with the idea that its not really just a single ship, its a fleet of 50+ ships each with that same concept of a ton of inertia at play and not really a strict chain of command between the captains of each ship and the admiral of the fleet (imperium in imperio).

Watch this

https://mobile.twitter.com/thehill/status/140521998971242496...

Then read website until you get bored of example after example.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27518459

There are multiple jurisdictions in the United States. Many of those are still directly attacking inclusion and equality, for instance by tightening voting laws without also funding efforts for voting access.

Additionally, many people do not agree with the current administration. Politics is not just about the big guy in charge, it's about how everyone approaches the matter at hand.

> I thought the government (and the rest of the world, really) was all about equality and inclusion as of late.

They're certainly all about talking about it. They don't really take a lot of actions to back it up.

> They don't really take a lot of actions to back it up.

Is this why more groups have been added to the list of protected classes? Is this why our current administration is one of the most diverse to ever exist?

I get the twitter outrage is fun, but when you look at data, our government has become more and more about equality and inclusion in meaningful ways. The US government isn't perfect, but it can't be perfect, there will always be room to grow. It does take time, but looking at data and trends shows equity ticking up over time. Lets have more nuanced views.

Diversity of skin color is not meaningful change in the slightest if all the policies stay the same. They're just hiring different faces to say the same things.

Diversity of skin color is meaningful in many ways, but that's not the greatest example. Policies that have changed in recent years include giving transgender individuals protected class status, as well as gay marriage being legal, federally.

There are also the states legalizing marijuana to consider. If the war on drugs is in fact a racist policy, then turning back the pages on that, wrt the most common, least harmful drug, then real policy changes are being made. Furthermore, the current congress has introduced legislation to legalize marijuana federally. So yeah, we are seeing policies change.

Are you trying to say there are existing racist policies in 2021? Can you list some examples?

The existence of the Electoral College, which was specifically designed to give slaveholding states an advantage when selecting the President.

The gerrymandering of electoral districts to maximize the concentration of white voting power.

To put a finer point on the electoral college, it was to appease slaveholding states so they would ratify the constitution. They wanted their enslaved to increase their voting power at the polls without actually giving Black people the right to vote. So the three fifths compromise let them count their enslaved as three fifths of a person. Now it obviously wasn't enough that a Black vote would only count as 3/5ths. The electoral college was needed so they could accomplish this while still having only white people as representatives elected by white voters.

There were other reasons for the electoral college, but appeasing the slave states in this way is one of the big reasons that was specifically written about and reasoned openly between the founding fathers at the time.

So when someone tells you, oh, the electoral college allows smaller states to have a say, think that through a bit. That old apocryphal explanation makes no sense really.

Is this a criticism of our most sacred institution, or have I misinterpreted your words?

> Who does the government want to marginalize? I thought the government (and the rest of the world, really) was all about equality and inclusion as of late.

Only the moral & good parts of the government. There's plenty of politicians & forces out there whose campaign message & activities are rather the opposite.

I think the problem with this statement is that, if not read generously, it can be an easy way to demonize any opposition. “If you don’t agree with X govt policy intended to combat inequality, you are immoral.”

It’s possible to agree with the moral intent but also disagree with the policy. (Not saying this was your frame of argument, just thought it an important distinction).

Edit: downvotes are fine but please add to the discussion. Maybe you’ll change someone’s mind.