If people are gonna call you racist no matter what, why not just be it and actually live up to the standard. Be the best you can be. Lmao

If the Left isn't geared toward elites and elite-wannabes then why is it so out of touch with the poor and the working class?  Why did people they thought they had wrapped up turn away?  Why are shows like The View still around, where the hosts sound like they have no idea what the real world is like?

More importantly, why did Democrats spend the last several years COMPLETELY ignoring lower income white people in their messaging, despite that being the largest group of poor in the US?  On the surface, does that make any sense at all?  I'll tell you why--because their well-off, "progressive" target class doesn't care about poor people unless they're some type of minority.  Not only do they not care but research indicates that they are actually prejudiced against lower income white people and have the mentality of "it must be their own fault".

I will also add that I don't believe many members of the Left care about poor racial minorities, either.  Lots of their policies and programs are badly thought out charities that do very little actual good.  They exist for show and only really serve to keep people dependent and voting for more, like addicts going back to their source.  It's pandering, pure and simple.  I kind of hoped the Left would reevaluate after recent elections but it looks like they're just going to double down and simply pray the Right screws up enough to let them back in the door.

I feel like this type of hyper-emotional arguing leaves me not really sure what to say. It's all about how you feel or what you personally believe. We aren't dealing with a shared reality or any set of debatable facts. There is just a fanfiction about the progressives that you've made up and are now attempting to wield in an argument. 

What am I supposed to do with that?

Here's what I'll say: Compare actual policy proposals and tell me what side hates the poor.

Look at the "Big Beautiful Bill", for example. The poorest Americans (lowest decile) are set to lose roughly 2-4% of their household resources, while the richest Americans are set to see their household resources increase by 2-4%. Thats hundreds of thousands of dollars going into the pockets of the richest people in this country every year and what fraction of that loss is being paid for is coming from the pockets of the poorest Americans, who will go hungry or avoid seeking necessary healthcare as a result. This is one of the most regressive bills in decades.

Is that the policy of a party that is truly looking out for the poorest Americans? 

That is actually a pretty decent description of the situation in the US. Except in the US both major parties are neoliberals, none of them care for the working class (as you describe), so I would describe neither as left. You are completely right in explaining that the democratic or liberal side uses anti-racism that is "safe" for their target audience of better off wealthy urban educated white people. While they relied that working class while vote democrat however the situation too much and Trump and the Republicans were actually able to utilize the anger of the working class people, without actually helping them.

Without a genetic analysis it is really hard to clearly get your ancestry. Which is why these questions are difficult to answer. They more ask for the environment you grew up in combined with visible features in a complicated mix. This is the problem actually, all these identities are problematic, a person actually is neither identity, although they may have some attributes of multiple identities.

I think a key point here: systemic racism exists, but it doesn't mean everyone in the "right"demographic (aka white) profits the same way.

I think we need to remember capitalism and how it works, as already Karl Marx described. Working people produce value with their work. But they need the means of production (tools, machines, working places, raw materials, distribution and marketing of the products). Rich people spend their wealth (aka capital) to make these means of production available, but in turn they take value from the work the workers do. In all actuality, the rich people become the owners of the business, not the workers.

Now you could argue this is all fair, because the means of production are needed to be able to produce something. But the problem is, that a capitalist has hundreds or even thousands of workers producing value for them, while they only participate with their bank account. Even if they take a small-ish share, that means they got a lot more out of it than each of the workers do. American culture idolizes these capitalists. I often read how hard they work for their success. Let me tell you: none of these super rich can produce any of the money they make on their own work - they always need others working for them to get these amount of results.

What has all of this to do with racism? To keep the system going in which a few profit off the work of the majority of people, they need to keep the working majority in line not rebelling against the systems. There are multiple ways to do this. Keeping them wealthy enough to keep them satisfied (at least a big enough amount to matter) is one way, and it was back in the 60s and 70s. But racism is actually another - creating discord between the people being exploited so they fight amongst each other instead of uniting against the capitalists.

Systemic racism is real. But that doesn't mean the working class white people are really profiting off it. It is just the few at the top, that are profiting off everyone. Not always the same amount, but white and non-white people are both exploited by the rich.

Which the democratic party did a lot of as well as the republicans. I don't think the terms left and right applies to the US. The US don't has a left. They are all neoliberal, they all hold up capitalism and only want to apply band-aids at the most instead of proper regulations. The policies of the democratic party in the US might be slightly better for the working class, but they are far from a good working class oriented policy. Because the US has not really a left. The most leftist of the US - Bernie Sanders - has policies that align with the CDU here in germany, our center-right party. That is the most left you get out of the US, a center-right politician. And that is the problem. So yes, the democratic party in the US is oriented towards the elites (as are the Republicans), they do the tax cuts for the rich as well.

Because social media are owned by rich people and racism is among the oldest tricks in the book to get people to act illogically in elections. If people in any given country were reasonable, they'd vote for their own benefit. As most people in our modern society are employees, all logical options to vote for consist of left political parties because the parties on the right side are all about transfering wealth from the normal people to the rich.

Racism is an appeal to hierarchy. It's about moving minorities down the ladder and having the majority (which happen to be white people in most democratic countries of this world) sitting above without any accomplishment or merit on their own. For a surprisingly large amount of people that is worth the sacrifice of their own wealth and they will even believe that they are behaving reasonably despite hurting themselves again and again and again.

Here's what I'll say: look at the results.

The Gini-index is the measurement of distribution of wealth towards complete equality (0) or complete inequality (all wealth to one person, everyone else has nothing - 1 or 100 depending on the scale). So here is the development over time for the US:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOVGINIUSA

So, the Gini-index was slowly going down (more equal wealth distribution) until 1980. That is Ronald Reagan and his new neoliberalism. Actually, let's look at power distribution for the two parties over time, including not only presidency but house and senate as well:

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/jun/25/control-house-and-senate-1900/

So Reagan's neoliberal politics had quite the effect and changed the distribution towards the rich. So far that aligns with your hypothesis and I would say back then you were right. But the thing is - with the change of power towards the democrats it didn't change. Bill Clinton mostly preserved the status quo Reagan and Bush had created. After that the effect of which party is in power has a negligable effect on wealth distribution. For instance you see a small decline in the Gini-index (meaning more equality) starting 2006 to 2010. That is the end of the George W. Bush era and the start of the Obama era. But the rise afterwards falls also into the Obama era. The biggest effect on the Gini in post-Reagan era we see with the pandemic. But 2022 the Gini index rises again - with Joe Biden in the White house.

So yeah, for now 30 years neither party does anything substantial for the working class. Not anything that has an actual effect. The people don't notice superficial good looking policies (or maybe even well intended ones), what the see is that their life is not improving. Take notice that the Gini index isn't about recession or economic growth. However much wealth the economy produces, the Gini index is measuring how this wealth is distributed amongst the populace. So to speak about the fairness of the system. And that is the point here - after Reagan who clearly and strongly moved the needle towards more unfairness politics just kept keeping the status quo, regardless of party in power. Working class people noticed that, that despite all their words the Democratic party did little to really change anything.

In germany we have a joke this goes like this: A millionaire, a worker and an immigrant sit at a table with 10 dollar. The millionaire takes 9 dollar and says to the worker: Watch out, the immigrant wants to take your dollar!

This is basically how racism is used as a tool to misdirect attention away from the underlying system. The Republicans still use that formula, while the democrats use a modified one, they tell the black man: Watch out, the white worker has taken your dollar.

Either side uses racism to deflect attention away from the system, neither party challenges the neoliberal system. The reality is, that neither the immigrant, nor the black, nor the white workers want an excessive share of wealth, the majority of wealth was already soaked up by the super rich, which leaves the rest fighting for scraps. To change the system these groups need to unite, not to divide into even more and more sub- and identity groups which see themself slighted by other identity groups.