I'm a straight white guy, so clearly there's something wrong with me when I can say, "Hey, there are other groups of people out there, groups that don't include me, that I should be cognizant of, that I should try to be sure get a slice of the pie as well, that aren't out to get me.
I've been in enough "out" groups at various times that, even though I am in and of the biggest "in" groups, I can sympathize with others.
And, yes, we are also all more than that, we are all human, we are all American. But to deny that there are "in" and "out" groups — that black people, that poor people, that women, than gay people, that others, face additional barriers that I haven't had to surmount — would be deeply wrong as well.
The backlash against so-called "identity politics" come from people who want to outwardly deny that those "identities" exist because they fear that it calls into question the easy "us vs them" that is a part of their being, that it's all a zero-sum game where those "other" folk can only win if I lose.
'Political elections have always played identity politics. The difference is that the game was heretofore entirely weighted towards the white straight male, which I guess is why it comes as such a shock to that demographic when they are not at the absolute forefront of every single political discussion now.'
It's difficult to figure out how to break out of that, not just the "us vs them" mentality that seems intrinsic to the human psyche, but balancing issues of unity and standing together, while recognizing that some groups, made up of individuals, have legitimate grievances that need to be heard, and honest problems that they face as a group that may not be recognized or appreciated by folk outside of that group.
Identity politics can certainly be played as a divisive game (and that's even true when the largest "identity" is being semi-covertly riled up), but to acknowledge differences is also to acknowledge reality. When the most common cry against "identity politics" is by those who have most benefited from it, as an identity, then it's hard to see that cry as anything more than self-serving (or serving those who want a particular identity in their hip pocket).
They have even turned on Bernie.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/EI7bCVaivTvEYsLbjmw7R_gBkryMUQ4sqYCIY0hOdg-iSVxz2SQGQTh7H_5d55WUoedlhfNBk2Y
Identity politics was turned on Bernie a while ago by the Clinton campaigners when they labelled his followers as Bernie Bros.
What the article misses is that there are positive identity politics and negative identity politics. The Clinton campaign ran hard on negative identity politics even though, to my knowledge, the closest the candidate herself didn't proselytize this other than the deplorables statement. But as the Clinton campaigners were fond of reminding everyone, the candidate is a reflection of his or her supporters. Thus it was that the negative identity politics, the type of identity politics that actively spins up hate and derision, turned people against her.