Not at all - I'm suggesting that the only successful strategy in the political sphere is the thing which can get the most number of people on side. That's not a moral judgment, that's a mathematical one. I think what the OP is saying and what you are saying makes perfect sense on an emotional and human level. I think it's misguided.
This is where the dialogue becomes somewhat complicated and requires nuance and understanding. I am not saying race is unimportant or needs to be marginalised, I'm saying the centring of it is creating a pyrric victory. The result of prioristing racial identity politics arguments over a broad brush economic argument? The emergence of an invigorated right wing. Do I think racism needs to be combatted, of course I do. Do I think it has to be done the way we're doing it - absolutely not.
Somehow the discussion has slipped from the socialist democratic teachings of MLK into a more right wing model of competing group identarianism. King was a socialist, he was committed to making life better for everyone. He saw tackling racism as part of that - but he saw poverty as a major problem. Here's some MLK for you....
“A second evil which plagues the modern world is that of poverty…Almost two-thirds of the peoples of the world go to bed hungry at night. They are undernourished, ill-housed, and shabbily clad. Many of them have no houses or beds to sleep in. Their only beds are the sidewalks of the cities and the dusty roads of the villages. Most of these poverty-stricken children of God have never seen a physician or a dentist.”“There is nothing new about poverty. What is new, however, is that we have the resources to get rid of it.”“The rich nations must use their vast resources of wealth to develop the underdeveloped, school the unschooled, and feed the unfed. Ultimately a great nation is a compassionate nation. No individual or nation can be great if it does not have a concern for ‘the least of these.’” (Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech)
"Many poor whites were the derivative victims of slavery. As long as labor was cheapened by the involuntary servitude of the black man, the freedom of white labor, especially in the South, was little more than a myth. It was free only to bargain from the depressed base imposed by slavery upon the whole labor market. Nor did this derivative bondage end when formal slavery gave way to the de-facto slavery of discrimination. To this day the white poor also suffer deprivation and the humiliations of poverty if not of color. They are chained by the weight of discrimination, though its badge of degradation does not mark them. It corrupts their lives, frustrates their opportunities and withers their education. In one sense, it is more evil for them, because it has confused so many by prejudice that they have supported their own oppressors." (Why We Can’t Wait 128–29)
As the OP stated, he's under no obligation to change his position - and neither are you. You don't have to marginalise your ethnic issues if you don't want to. I cannot request that you omit any issues that you have - all I can do is point out that the current strategy is having the reverse effect to the one intended. That's it. You can ask 60% of your white voters to change their position if you like - but it's far easier for a demagogue like Trump to appeal to their more base tribalistic instincts.
Here's the choice facing voters: "Make American Great Again by building a wall because White people are the best" or "You're all a bunch of white supremacists and why can't you see we're building a better world which we will get on with only when you admit (despite being dirt poor) you're more privileged than the rest of us". Your Government is decided by swing voters, many of whom are in the rust belt states. Whatever argument you choose to centre will have consequences. I can't compel you to reconsider your stance, I can only point at the consequences of your stance in the voting system.
Not hypocrisy. Maths.
