An effect size that is about equal to a one standard deviation shift to the right in ideology

From Losing Elections, Winning the Debate: Progressive Racial Rhetoric and White Backlash by Richard Hanania, George Hawley, and Eric Kaufmann.

The inclination of far left politicians to enter critical theory territory with discussions of affirmative action, white privilege and reparations has always struck me as the inverse of Pascal's wager.

Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas if God does exist, he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).

Little downside risk and great upside potential might be the business person's interpretation of Pascal's wager.

Affirming white privilege (inherently racist as it entails judging people solely by their skin color), Advocating for reparations (both racist and proclaiming racially inherited guilt), and championing affirmative action (again racist as it requires transfer of assets or opportunities solely based on race rather than the more accepted basis of need) have all struck me as a reverse Pascal's wager, all downside and little upside. Since most people do not find racism acceptable, advocating for policy racism (no matter how well intentioned) will repulse rather than attract, particularly if you are speaking to those whom you are accusing of racism based on their skin and not their behaviors.

There is a twisted logic within the victimhood ideology of critical theory but not much of a value proposition to the vast majority of voters who are averse to such ideology.

But there sure are a lot of politicians who are quite committed to progressive racial rhetoric.

My view is a logical one, but I have never seen much analytical investigation as to whether the logic is consistent with empirical evidence. Apparently it is. From the Abstract.

Recent years have seen liberals moving sharply to the left on issues related to race and gender, the so-called “Great Awokening,” accompanied by commentary arguing that this has led to a popular backlash against the left. Through a preregistered survey, this study polls a representative sample of white Americans to test the effect of a Democratic candidate, Kirsten Gillibrand, arguing for programs designed to help blacks and declaring the significance of white privilege in American life. Our results show that statements about white privilege decrease support for the candidate, with an effect size that is about equal to a one standard deviation shift to the right in ideology. The effect is concentrated among moderates and conservatives. Advocating reparations and affirmative action has a similar but smaller effect. At the same time, arguing for reparations actually increases support for such policies, and discussing white privilege may decrease some aspects of white identity among conservatives. The results indicate that taking more liberal positions on race causes white voters to punish a Democratic candidate. However, there is no evidence for the hypothesis that white Americans move to the right in response to such rhetoric or develop stronger feelings of white identity.

We'll see. One study in a field with a lot of motivated reasoning and interpretation.

That the logic is consistent with the data is not especially surprising. But the results are interesting in two other ways. First is the effect size quantification. A whole standard deviation is a pretty strong effect size. That would send most politicians running far away from the topic.

But the most surprising is the last line, almost sotto voce.

There is no evidence for the hypothesis that white Americans move to the right in response to such [racial] rhetoric or develop stronger feelings of white identity

So Americans don't like racism and will punish a politician for making explicit racist policy recommendations by declining their support. But the last line is also saying that pitching racial policies to voters does not change voters' own values. Their opposition to racial policies is independent of behavioral racism. That is kind of interesting.