Don't agree at all. What about the post-WWII anti-colonization struggles?
Well, when I talk about politics of identify it is more about how an entire group should identify itself and not making a separate identify due to some ethnic differences. So anti-colonial struggles I would not count as politic of identify. The British never claimed that Indians were British only that the British should rule over India. On Taiwan Province, those for Taiwan Independence and the Taiwanese identify view all people on Taiwan Province as Taiwanese not just those that identify with Taiwanese. The reveres is true for those with pro-unification Chinese identify. Another example is Ukraine, Ukrainian nationalists in Western Ukraine view all people that live in Ukraine as Ukrainian and not just those in the West. Just like the Pan-Russian Pan-Slavic identity also identifies Western Ukrainians as part of that identify. In India the Hindu nationalists view Dalits as part of the Hindu identify even as the Dalit movement tries to carve out a separate Dalit identity. So in cases where is is not about some sort racial or ethnic hierarchy but about what paradigm of identify context should be used politics tend to shift to the Right.
Except identity and class get mixed up all the time. I think what you're describing is a tendency for nationalist right-wing parties to glaze over class/ethnic differences in order to create a vague national identity.Doing this certainly can shift discourse to the right, as it destresses economic solidarity.
