Systemic harms persist when beneficiaries dominate the policy audience

Evidence

Challengers refute such moral arguments by appealing to what they regard as a higher level of morality derived from communal concerns. They see their constituencies as comprising entire classes of people who are harmed either directly or indirectly by injurious institutional practices. Challengers argue that, when many people benefit from a system that has adverse effects on marginalized or devalued segments of society, harmful social practices receive widespread public support. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 361

Categorization

• XREF: Ties to Cooper’s social-conservatism argument and vault claims about why ordinary people back exclusionary policy. — connects to: Seemingly substantive policy domains conceal underlying partisan self-entrenchment battles. — Daryl Levinson and Benjamin I. Sachs, Political Entrenchment and Public Law, 536
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 361