I don't think this is an accurate reflection of identity politics. Names are only the beginning. They indicate that the group being identified is a legitimate one; once this is established, particular concerns the group has are raised. If you think this is meaningless, consider that transpeople continue to face an uphill battle in being recognized as a substratum of society.
>It is interesting that this also gets shuffled over to the "left". That is liberals call themselves "leftists". Except, Marx would have probably laughed at that, and would have said "Why don't you destroy those who have power, instead of just forcing them to call you by a different label".
Identity politics has been practiced by the Left for a long time. The originators of the term were black feminists[1]. As to Marx, his thoughts may be important but they are not the be-all and end-all of leftism. There has been 150 years of evolution under the umbrella, and lots of disagreement, just as there has been on the right.
Liberals call themselves "leftists"? Only ever saw it as a derogatory from the (US) right.
(Edit: fixed formatting screw up)
Oh please. We lived in a golden age of enlightenment, peace (our past president, did after all get the Nobel Peace prize), and prosperity and now the dark ages have come. Probably brought about completely unexpectedly "by the Russians".
> the failure of liberal élites around the world to address the perpetual problem of identity,
Maybe one of the reasons for its failure is precisely because they addressed identity, but in the wrong way -- creating "Identity Politics". Everyone gets to get called by the label they pick for themselves and it seems everything is good. Except it is good only on the surface. Ultimately this is just impotent outrage. Those who have power still do, those that don't still don't, even if they get called however they wanted in the public sphere.
It is interesting that this also gets shuffled over to the "left". That is liberals call themselves "leftists". Except, Marx would have probably laughed at that, and would have said "Why don't you destroy those who have power, instead of just forcing them to call you by a different label".
> American atavism has to take into account that the same system that produced Trump had immediately before given us the eight forward-looking years of Obama, who remains a far more popular figure than his successor.
Right. If the years would have been really forward looking and wonderful, we would not have ended up with a TV personality as the president. Trump is just a symptom. People expend tremendous amount of energy trying to get rid of Trump somehow. Marching, talking of impeaching, veiled and misguided hints at assassinations and so on without understanding he is a symptom of something deeper. If he is gone, there would be Trump 2.0 replacing him. And I am sure, just like I've heard people praising G.W. Bush compared to Trump, they'd be praising Trump compared to Trump 2.0.