Many commenters here appear to be testing the extents of mental flexibility in order to render their side of the political divide innocent of tribalism. I assume they are doing so because they believe conceding that fact is tantamount to being a racist. My assertion is that conceding this fact is not racist, it's just laying out contemporary political realities. It's just laying out behavioral evolution. We, as in "our society", put the screws to certain groups, because in our society doing so delivers votes. When it no longer delivers votes, maybe we won't do it? But for now, it's just how the game is played.
And all political sides play this game. It's just that different political sides put the screws to different "tribal" groups. And some tribes have the rare misfortune of coming under pressure by all political sides.
Nixon is obviously a good example of a politician who used tribalism to his benefit. I don't argue that at all. Because, again, conceding that doesn't make me a bad person or a racist. Just makes me a guy stating a fact.
Conceding the fact and still voting for them is. Yes, this is rampant on "both sides." It is still morally repugnant, and it continues because it doesn't cost them enough votes.
Political realities exist because people accept them.
Doesn't make you racist or a bad person to concede, in a debate, that which really is just millennia on millennia of human evolutionary biology at work. Does it make politicians irresponsible when they employ tribalism? Absolutely. No question. But it's abundantly clear the left and the right employ that strategy all the time.