In reality, “Identity Politics” is just the latest buzz word for something that has always existed. It may have had significance when it was coined, but today all I see it as is a reductionist argument. It is easier to reduce one’s opponents to “Identity Politics” (which is it’s own form of “identity politicking”) so one doesn’t have to actually dig into why a group of people think the way they do.
This is a large part of what I hate about these discussions, whether about politics or history (or even art or interior design, believe it or not). The first thing BOTH sides do is reduce their “opponents” to some label, sometimes simple delineations like conservative or liberal, but mostly reduce them to some derogative inflammatory like “regressives” or “repugs”. Doing so makes it easier to hate the “other”.
In the bigger picture, I lay the blame of our modern day IP at the feet of Modernism. It is another form of individualism. But it is also torn with needing community. So when society and culture is being driven in a way that seems to leave someone out, they still have a need for community. It is part of our human nature. So they seek out others of like mind.
I really wish more people would study art and achitectural history. The post-war Modern architecture movement was specifically seeking out to destory individualism. The architects of that day, philosophically, saw individualism, particularly in the form of nationalism, as the cause of war. Ironically, over time Modern architecture became central to empowering the individual.
The republicans are as much to blame for the current form and leveraging of identity politics as the liberal democrats. That’s why I am no longer either republican or conservative. In reality the ideals are at best theoretical and, as the election of Trump shows (as well as the democratic opponent shows of liberalism), faithless.