Calling out Republicans specifically over identity politics seems kind of silly, given how much of the Democratic Party's politics is based on race and gender.
So for instance, the Democrats run on, "We need equal pay for women." The actual size of the wage gap can be debated as a factual matter (once you factor out different professions and hours-worked, it's usually about 5-10%). Then the Republicans run on, "Real Americans need to take our country back!", despite their "real Americans" (as a conjunction of features) composing a minority group that's only 20% of the country[1].
One of them plays the identity politics of inclusion, often duplicitously. The other plays the identity politics of exclusion and minority rule, often honestly.
There's a vast difference between obnoxious campaign rhetoric along the lines of Clinton and an organized decades-long campaign to disenfranchise people who don't vote the way you want or don't share your conjunction of identity features.
[1] -- http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/only-20-percent-of-voter...
My objection is that if I work outside the two-party electoral system I am labelled a lunatic and potentially even criminal, while if I work inside it, my voice is diluted for partisan advantage.
I don't think that's really fair: the difference is regarding whom they exclude & whom the include. Democrats, for example, appear to be quite glad to exclude Christians.
It's all pretty gross and cyclical. Identity politics in general is often a shiny thing waved around to distract people from difficult or politically costly work, usually regarding how much rich people and corporations have to pay for things.