When @BarackObama talks about identity, it isn't JUST about race, @AriMelber.

It's about who you identify AS - and that includes individuals' identities based on flawed understandings of patriotism and conservatism as influenced by hostile actors.

It's about inherited, inclusive AND exclusive identities (I am this, but I am also that VS I am this, therefore I am not that).

incl: "I am a New Yorker; I am an American"
inherited: "I am a New Yorker, so I am an American"
excl: "I am American, so I am not British"

The danger we face is with identity when political ideology shifts towards an exclusively exclusive model - and that's what hostile actors (both foreign and domestic) have been pushing for my entire lifetime:

the otherization of those who value this nation's original ideals.

This is an operation that's been in the works for decades:

Gingrich's rhetoric in the early '90s,
the war on science starting with climate change denial (a joint venture between the far right and the Russians)
Bush's "You're either with me or against me." (intentional? )

And so, with Trump's & the GOP's derision of "globalists," we finally have arrived at

"I am an American, so I am a Republican; anyone who is not a Republican is not really American."

A full adoption of an exclusively exclusive model.

So I don't think you can solely cast "identity politics" as being about race/gender in this context.

Or, at least you shouldn't: internally-perceived identity is mutable & can be manipulated by all sorts of hostile actors to foment civic discord too.
It's just a longer game.

So please make sure to address internally-perceived identity, not just stochastically-defined & externally-perceived identity when you discuss the subject of "identity politics."

Ignoring it only helps the radicalization and otherization proceed undetected.

Ahem.

Case in point: