If I think "it's one of those people from the other side of the tracks" it won't feel like a person with whom I could have a close connection. I might not care as much.
Not saying it's a good thing, though.
I'd say you would care too much! (abstract/general 'you', not @CalRobert). The problem any sort of reform faces is antipathy, not apathy.
Or you could say that it's an appeal to numerous studies (psychological and sociological), most of human history, and prudence...
Often, you'll hear people say something like, "Norway did X and it works, so we should do X in the U.S." These are typically fairly naive claims. Regardless of the normative dimension of the claim (whether X is worth doing in the U.S. in the first place), there is a non-trivial amount of complexity that is swept under the rug. For instance, NYC has twice the population of Norway. The U.S. really is significantly more demographically diverse than Norway (or, if this claim isn't good, then we can just say they are equally diverse, but at the scale of the U.S. this diversity increases complexity a non-trivial amount). The U.S. has a more fragmented legal system. Etc. Etc. Etc.
If a Martian were asked which nation would be easier to implement new policies in, maintain those policies, and have them bring about the desired end, which do you think they'd choose? I wager they would immediately choose Norway.
We also have a much more diverse population than Norway, so if anything, US should be looking towards us for inspiration.
It's all white people.
Sorry to be so glib, but I don't think I've ever seen "homogenous" used by someone who wasn't engaged in at least borderline racist dog whistling. The entire idea of it is based on the notion that people cannot successfully mix together, and therefore should not try.
Instead of using race as the example, let's use language.
You have three people. Two have spoken English their entire lives. The third grew up speaking French and learned English later.
They need to do something really hard to get right, something easy to mess up. Mistakes come at a high cost.
When the two English speakers work together, things work. They go smoothly. They can manage to overcome challenges and meet goals.
When they try to work with the French speaker, you see a lot more problems. It's frustrating. He does things they didn't expect. It is easy to feel like he's intentionally screwing things up.
Homogeneous demographic groups have an easier time all being on the same page. They spend less time and effort trying to bridge differences in experience, attitude, etc.
You get ugly terms like Mansplaining and Whitesplaining because "privileged" people -- people for whom life has tended to work -- often feel that their life works because they were taught the right information and if people who are having a hard time just had the same info, their life would also work. And then the person getting the info gets mad because they feel like they are being treated like they are stupid and not trying rather than like their life actually works differently because they are different and the world treats them differently.
Frontline did a report on people on parole. It’s a punishing system, even when you’re out of the systems you’re usually one drink away from being thrown back in
It’s a very good example of something where all the individual players are trying, but so much of how the system works makes results be harsh and cruel
-former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman
https://www-m.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-ri...
As user GatorD42 pointed out when this was brought up before:
>...Baum claims Ehrlichman said that to him in 1994 while he was researching for a book he published in 1996 about the drug war. He didn't include the quote in that book, but instead published it in 2012 and again in 2016, after Ehrlichman had died (in 1999).
If the quote was said by Ehrlichman, it doesn't actually describe the drug polices of the Nixon administration. While Nixon is remembered for "war on drugs", the actual substance of his policies seem to be different than what people think it was:
>...I have been fortunate over the years to discuss the distorted memory of Nixon's drug policies with almost all of his key advisors as well as with historians. Their consensus is that because he was dramatically expanding the U.S. treatment system (by 350% in just 18 months!) and cutting criminal penalties, he had to reassure his right wing that he hadn’t gone soft. So he laid on some of the toughest anti-drug rhetoric in history, including making a White House speech declaring a “war on drugs” and calling drugs “public enemy number one”. It worked so well as cover that many people remember that “tough” press event and forget that what Nixon did at it was introduce not a general or a cop or a preacher to be his drug policy chief but…a medical doctor (Jerry Jaffe, a sweet, bookish man who had longish hair and sideburns and often wore the Mickey Mouse tie his kids had given him).
http://www.samefacts.com/2011/06/drug-policy/who-started-the...
High recidivism (shows it's at least a failure), focus on punishment (mandatory minimums, etc...) for things like drug possession, cruel bail system, "tough on crime" judges, legalized prison slavery, heavy use of solitary confinement, outright criminal levels of cruelty, normalized prison rape, stigmatization of felons, etc...
They had prisoners fight california wildfires for slave wages. They justified it as it was voluntary and they were learning a skill.
Felons can't become firefighters in california.