Care for a minority group is a moral issue for majorities. There is no universal solution to the problem of power, which lies at the border between minority and majority.
There is a current issue of whether or not to keep the US Senate filibuster. What started as a way to deal with a legislative timeline of business being completed the same day it rose could use the personal stamina of an individual of a minority view to control the majority.
As time goes along, timelines change, along with a shift from a view to an identity. A filibuster’s major use has been a control mechanism for racial identity politics and enforcing a minority status on Blacks even where they had a majority.
We now have voting blocks that don’t talk to one another. This separation enhances the issue of power over that of a particular view on a legislative matter. There is very little room to operate in a zero-sum situation. Mechanisms that allow political minorities to have a veto mean there is no need to give either compromise or consideration.
Suppose the matter was about identity, then some process could be designed, such as the Uniting Church in Australia granting their Indigenous Peoples a special veto right to stop any legislation that involves them until they are satisfied with it. Unfortunately, political processes are not as clear, and allies shift and reshift.
The current US Senate choice seems to be between keeping a filibuster that protects racism (benefiting the minority) or placing more responsibility upon the majority to be accountable for their decisions (raising the stakes for the majority). Both choices have a tendency to obscure the motivations behind legislation (hiding little nuggets of doom within legislative speak). Neither choice works well in the short-run; they have long-term consequences.
If asked, I would favor getting rid of the filibuster and making the majority party accountable for their decisions. Hopefully, they would consciously and openly incorporate the strong points of the minority. The emphasis would be upon actionable items that can reenergize the “general welfare” of its citizens. Consequences would have to be faced for misreading the facts-of-life.
The standoff between Democrat and Republican parties may have reached the point where both are captive to a desire for power. There seems to be no desire for anything other than a filibuster based on identity politics, grievance, and personal economic power. In which case, both parties will choose the blame game over the risk of responsible governance.