Among my affluent, educated, “liberal” friends, expressions of concern about race have completely replaced concern about poverty. I probably hear more people talking about student loans than poverty—except insofar as that poverty affects non-whites.

The brilliant thing about “equity” is that it refocuses everyone on distribution within a class instead of between classes. “Health equity” means you prioritize people of color over whites when they show up at an under-resourced hospital. But it draws attention away from the disparities between medical resources available in rich communities versus poor ones. Admissions gerrymandering at Princeton may mean that the consultants at McKinsey are more diverse than ever, but they’re all still working on shipping American jobs to China. In theory, of course, one can chew gum and walk at the same time—think about class disparities, and also about racial disparities that exist even after accounting for class. But that’s not the nature of politics. If you split the electorate along one axis (race), it becomes almost impossible to work on issues that require them to orient themselves along another axis (class). And of course 80% of racial inequality is caused by the top 10%, so you’ve kneecapped your ability to achieve the measures that would make the biggest difference.