I'm scarfing down lunch between calls so I probably won't articulate this as well as I should but I'll give it a shot. This may get too political for the mods, if so feel free to delete.
What you said up there is something where my perception has shifted. In my 20s and early 30s I fancied myself a bit of a libertarian (probably little l, not big L) and a "fiscal conservative/social liberal". Over time I've come to the realization that "fiscally conservative socially liberal" can often be an oxymoron and at times it's a bit intellectually immature.
What creates the uneven playing field are the built-in advantages. I went to good schools. I ate good food. I had good healthcare. My parents had access to educational toys and tools as I got older. So did my parents. And their parents, going all the way back.
If we're going to create a level playing field, we have to change that. That means healthcare. That means better education. That means access to a living wage. That means all of the things that a "fiscal conservative" would traditionally be against. But if you're truly "socially liberal", you've got to understand that without access to those things, minorities will never have the same opportunity that my kids will. Politically I'm still sort feeling my way through exact policies (I'm still unsure about universal healthcare, for example). But I do recognize that until those things are accessible to all, there isn't true equality of opportunity.
There are a lot of smart white people who I think truly in their hearts want equality for all. But I think there's a lot of people (myself to some extent) that naively believe that you can be "fiscally conservative and socially liberal". We're going to have to spend money on things if we really want to create equal footholds for all.
Anyway, a bit of an unfinished thought, I'll prob circle back later after others have added more to the discussion.