Name me one signature left policy isn't couched and positioned in-terms of victim identity politics?
All major policy proposals are described in terms of the victims that will be saved, regardless of left or right. You can't get the public to back anything unless you make it personal.
If it satisfies, then you're claiming the ends justify the means. Lots of mischief and tragedy has been rationalized in that way throughout history.
> I don't find that either side in the political spectrum can legitimately claim a moral high ground
Ah, well, I think we could complain that the moral high ground no longer exists. We've spent the past 100 years telling ourselves that there is no objective truth and therefore there is no moral basis for anything.
"Family values" on the right is the ideological shadow of traditional Judeo-Christian ethics and morality. And "identity politics" is the ideology of some twisted-up cultural marxism that seems to hold "being nice" up as the highest virtue. Both left's and right's claims lack all conviction or consistency and are too flimsy to represent any kind of moral high ground.
I suppose a lack of specificity means you're less of a target for your political foes and you have fewer concrete campaign promises to make and keep with the voters.
I'd say that conveniently, this lack of moral high ground allows snaky politicians to passionately proclaim whatever obscenity they fancy is moral since people hunger for a framework. Damn the consequences, the world is their political science petri dish.
But of course, this is my white male privilege speaking.
Nope, at least not in my experience.
I attended a small protest at the SF EPA offices in support of the agency and against the funding cuts from the Trump administration. It's fair to say that everyone there was an environmentalist who cared deeply about EPA efforts to curb pollution and encourage green energy. It's stands to reason that the organizers would focus on the thing that united everyone in attendance, right? But, instead, they brought up Native American speakers who offered prayers and talked about how non-Native Americans could never experience the same connection with the land that they had. They brought up Latin Americans who similarly talked about their special exposure to environmental issues. They took what little cohesiveness the group had and fractured it by having to acknowledge people's individuality.
We then marched to the Federal building. But on the way, they had multiple stops to protest non-environmental issues. They stopped at a housing developer to protest the new housing they were building, just because it happened to be near an area that's currently low income. Never mind the studies that show that any new housing, even luxury, helps keep rents lower at all levels. And then they stopped to protest in front of an industry conference of some sort. I forget their specific grievance, but I remember distinctly feeling like it was naive and I didn't support it.
The whole experience left me with a particularly distasteful feeling. I went to support increased funding and regulation by the EPA and somehow got roped into supporting a ton of crap that I disagreed with. And if this was an isolated incident, I could write it off as being poorly organized, but I've been to a few of these leftist protests now and, with the exception of the march for science, none of them were able to stay on message. They were all sidetracked by focusing on what divides us into individuals as opposed to what united us all to come protest. We're all multi-faceted people, but I think the left needs to learn that when we protest, it's okay to focus on the single facet that unites everyone protesting rather than the many that divide us so that we can speak with a single, powerful voice with a clear and coherent message and not a multitude of easily ignorable voices, each with their own unique message.
I know when the right rails against "identity politics" this is not what they mean, but as a progressive, I feel that this sort of identity politics gets in the way of building a coalition large enough to make progress.
When stated motives are questionable, look at the outcomes and use those to infer what the true motives were.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/529137/environmental...
Race and climate aren't naturally connected concepts. It's fair to conclude you use race and class in this way as a wedge to divide people and pit them against one another in order to batter your political enemies and increase your power.
If you want to be a Marxist, just be a Marxist and don't hide your beliefs.