We hear a lot about identity politics, so I thought that this week I would explore what that term means, where it came from, and how it has changed over the years.  According to The Oxford Review, “Identity Politics refers to political and social movements driven by the shared experiences and concerns of particular social groups based on race, gender, sexuality, disability, religion, or other defining characteristics.  These movements advocate for the rights, recognition, and inclusion of marginalized communities within political and institutional frameworks.”  How’s that for an egghead explanation?

Because, as former House Speaker Tip O’Neill was fond of saying, “all politics are local,” the early history of identity politics focused on the various ethnic groups in a given locality.  Local Party bosses tended to the needs of their Irish, Italian, and Jewish constituents.  They were ready with a bucket of coal or a basket of food.  And on election day, they made sure these groups showed their gratitude by voting the right way.

Later on, political catering to ethnic groups was geared more toward tapping into the ethnic pride of the so-called “hyphenated Americans.”  I can remember being in a New Jersey Republican headquarters during the 1972 Nixon campaign, and seeing huge bags filled with buttons proclaiming “Italian-Americans for Nixon,” “Polish-Americans for Nixon,” and the like.  But even then, things were changing.

The agent of change was the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act.  That legislation changed the formula, which had been in place since 1924, and which had restricted the number of people allowed to immigrate from countries other than those in Western and Northern Europe.  The 1924 law was designed to discriminate against immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe (Italians and Jews), Africa, Asia, South America, etc., by imposing low quotas for the admission of such groups.

By 1965 it was clear that a change was necessary.  But, using the tired liberal  cant of the day, they went too far in the other direction.  At the time, liberals always used the pendulum excuse – “the pendulum has swung too far in one direction, so now it is only just that it should swing just as far the other way.”  In other words, “two wrongs are required to make a right.”  This was the same flawed rationale used for affirmative action.

The 1965 Act led to greatly increased immigration form countries previously subject to the discriminatory limitations.  Immigration from Mexico, South America, and the Caribbean swelled.  Yet, as the Democrat Party had not yet lost its mind, the Act also gave priority to immigrants with special skills needed in the U.S., and mandated (how heartless could they have been?) work requirements.  Had the changes ended there, America would have benefited from the new law, but Democrats weren’t done.

The infusion of people from different places was healthy, but liberals were not satisfied with the most important component of U.S. immigration – assimilation.  America had been “a melting pot.”  People came from far and wide, assimilated, and became Americans.  Out of many, one.  It’s on all our money.

That wasn’t good enough for liberals, though.  They changed “the melting pot” to “the salad bowl.”  They said, “come on in, but never change who you are.  In other words, never assimilate, just feed off of Uncle Sucker.  “Don’t learn English.  Americans will just have to accommodate you.”  The Biden Administration’s erasure of our borders, which admitted millions of illegals was the final straw.

Think I’m exaggerating?  This week I saw a YouTube clip of a young female Mexican immigrant.  She spoke perfect English.  Here’s what she said, “We don’t move to America because we think it’s a better country.  We move here because it’s a little less worse than our other country.”  She went on to say her old country had better culture, food, and history than the U.S., but they just move here to make more money.  And yes, she supports rioting against ICE.  I rest my case.

Over the decades, the concept of identity politics changed from looking out for the concerns of different groups to the politics of grievance.  And the saddest part of this scenario is that today’s Democrats have chosen that young woman I quoted above, and millions like her, as the group they most identify with.  In other words, they’re very particular when choosing the identities they will support.

Democrats don’t identify with American identity as a whole, and they’re no longer concerned with entire ethnic groups.  Just the grievance of the month.  On the other end of the spectrum, they’re clearly not concerned with individual identity.  They’re not at all concerned with the identity of voters.  Although about 85% of Americans favor voter ID, Democrats won’t allow it.  It’s Jim Crow 2.0.  Ilhan Omar says it’s racist.  I guess she left Somalia because voter ID is required there.

Omar and the other Democrats can’t park their cars or enter the Capitol without their own ID, and they don’t want you to come near them without ID.  Valid ID is required for almost every aspect of our lives.  But Democrats are immune to the concepts of hypocrisy and irony.  For example, NY Mayor Commie Mamdani opposes voter ID.  But during the recent blizzard, he tried to recruit people to shovel snow at $30 an hour.  However, he required them to produce two forms of ID to get the job.  Nobody showed.  They’re calling it Jim Snow 2.0.

Mamdani explained this anomaly, however.  He said that it’s illegal for the City to pay people without requiring ID from them.  It’s a tax thing I suppose, but that explanation exposed the utter falsity and lunacy of the Democrat position.  The City isn’t permitted to pay legal residents seeking to earn a living who lack ID, but it must pay $5 billion a year to house, feed and educate anonymous illegal aliens, and it disciplines any police officer or other public official who dares to ask them for identification.

Identity politics has evolved from a system that ensured that the needs of distinct groups of Americans would be met, into the current perverted scheme in which Democrats adopt the grievances of chosen groups, and the needs and opinions of the vast majority of Americans be damned.  Reasonable Democrats (a few exist) know this is the road to ruin, but live in fear of the loony nuts who vote in Democrat primaries.

In the past, the assimilation of diverse groups of immigrants made America stronger.  The Democrat Party, as it currently is constituted, seems bent on tearing the country apart.  This fact was brought home quite starkly in Tuesday’s State of the Union address.

President Trump asked Congressmen to  stand if they agreed that “the first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.”  If our representatives can’t agree, even on this proposition, where are we headed as a nation?  Republicans rose.  Democrats remained seated.  Voters should remember this distinction come November.