Think about politics not just as something happening "over there" in distant government buildings, but as something that is always "right here" and "into" each of us. We are all shaped by the common spaces we inhabit, including their cultural influences, social attitudes, and power relationships. Because we are formed in relation to others and a shared space, whether we intend to or not, we are all involved in politics. The question isn't whether we are political beings, but rather _how_ we engage with that reality. One way we engage with politics is through our identities. Identity is a fundamental part of who we are; it runs deep in our psyches and is easily activated. It shapes how we see the world, although it doesn't rigidly predetermine every view. We don't just have one identity, but rather a "dizzying plural" of countless identities, some strong, some weak, some in conflict, and others dormant until prompted. These identities can include things like clan, hometown, country, religion, ethnicity, alma mater, political party, employer, and even interests like a sports team or brand of camera equipment. All politics is influenced by identity because human cognition is influenced by identity. This brings us to the concept often discussed as "identity politics." At a basic level, identity politics is a form of politics based on the idea that people are different, and these differences should be respected. It's premised on belonging to collectives defined by factors like sexuality, gender, race, and ethnicity. Historically, a new brand of identity politics emerged in the 20th century, particularly in the 1960s, where people developed and fought for political agendas based on factors identifying them as distinct and socially disadvantaged, like African Americans, women, and sexual minorities. This involved asserting the right to define oneself and bond with others who are similar. The term has been traced back to groups like the Combahee River Collective, which focused on their own oppression as the basis for their politics, viewing it as a potentially radical concept for marginalized groups. However, the term "identity politics" has also become a point of contention and is often "weaponized". It's frequently used to describe and often diminish the concerns of members of historically marginalized groups, framing their issues as self-interested or special pleading. Meanwhile, concerns of dominant groups, such as rural gun owners or wealthy CEOs complaining about taxes, are often framed as just "good, old-fashioned politics". This usage can obscure the fact that identity is always present in politics. Indeed, partisanship itself functions as a powerful identity in modern politics. Beyond just disagreeing on policy, political parties in the United States today represent fundamental divisions over things like the legitimacy of elections, institutions, and even concepts like decency and truth. Belonging to a political party has become one of the "most powerful identities in modern politics". This partisan identity strongly influences how people feel and act in the political sphere. What makes this dynamic particularly potent in contemporary politics is the way various identities are merging and reinforcing one another. Over recent decades, partisan identities have increasingly merged with racial, religious, geographic, ideological, and cultural identities. This creates what can be thought of as political "mega-identities". When identities stack atop one another in this way – for example, being liberal, living in a city, shopping at a certain store, and having specific cultural interests – they reinforce a singular sense of self that becomes easily politicized. Activating one part of this mega-identity often activates all the others, strengthening them each time. This merging of identities means that political conflict is not just about policy disagreements or the struggle for power, but also about group conflict and identity. The stakes can feel visceral and emotional, tied to whether "our group" is winning or losing, and whether the "out-group" poses a threat. This is evident in "negative partisanship," where people are driven more by negative feelings towards the opposing party than by positive feelings towards their own. These negative feelings and a sense of group rivalry are strong motivators for political engagement, often more so than specific policy positions. It turns out that how we feel about the other side matters significantly, often more than what we think about the issues. Psychology plays a role here, too. Our politics can emerge from our psychological makeup, with certain ideas appealing to some and repelling others based on basic psychological dispositions. For individuals who are highly engaged in politics, their political participation is less about material self-interest (what a policy does _for_ them) and more about identity (what supporting a policy says _about_ them). Their political positions become a means of self-expression and group identity. The intensity of these merged identities affects how we interact with political information and those with opposing views. Exposure to opposing viewpoints, particularly online, can sometimes exacerbate polarization rather than foster moderation, triggering rebuttal and reinforcing identity-protective cognition. It's often easier to organize people against something than to unite them with a shared affirmative vision. In this environment, political media and social media can amplify tribal tendencies by highlighting differences and weaponizing outrage, which is deeply connected to identity. This makes candidates and media that effectively leverage identity and conflict more visible. The influence of these powerful identities can extend even into ostensibly non-political areas. Research suggests that partisan identity can be a stronger factor than qualifications, or even race in some contexts, when making decisions like awarding a scholarship. This highlights how deeply partisanship has become a cleavage in American life, sometimes viewed as a form of discrimination that is "fair game for hatred". Historically, American political parties were more ideologically and demographically mixed, which helped moderate partisan intensity. The civil rights movement and the resulting party sorting broke this equilibrium, leading to parties that are now much more aligned ideologically and demographically. This sorting has led to increased polarization. While Democrats are often seen as focusing on "identity politics" due to their diverse coalition of interest groups, Republicans also build their coalition on identity, relying on a more homogenous base with abstract ideological commitments. This intense alignment of identity and partisanship presents significant challenges, contributing to the "chasmic conflict" observed today. It makes compromise difficult and fuels a feedback loop where polarized institutions and a polarized public reinforce each other. Understanding this dynamic – how our identities are shaped by politics and how our identities shape our politics – is crucial for making sense of the current political landscape. Further ideas to explore might include how this dynamic affects specific policy debates, how different media environments contribute to reinforcing these identities, or strategies individuals might employ to become more mindful of how their identities are being activated in the political sphere. The relationship between nationalized politics and the weakening influence of local concerns is also a dimension worth considering.