Most of America, Democrats included, probably isn't interested in what Slate's selling
The Civil Rights Movement or Women's Suffrage or first wave feminism were not just "effective identity politics" They were movements to extend universal values, and their appeal was based on the claim that no special favour was being asked, and that the goal, far from being revolutionary, was actually simply correcting societies dissonance with it's own stated goals and ideals. Most importantly the success of these movements depended on the appeal to a higher identity that these movements expected particularism to be subsumed to - generally speaking the Nation, that would then stand guarantor of the rights won.
Drabeks definition of identity politics renders it pretty much indistinguishable from any politics that is sectional, parochial or group oriented. I don't think the term is being used that way at all and can't really see what utility is served by redefining it that way. Is 2 millenia of class politics to be redifined as identity politics? Parochial and sectional politics are really not the same thing even though identity is definitely involved.
Current Identity Politics is something that I think most people understand as having to do with Identities that are viewed as somehow inherent and also sliced rather than layered. Identitarian seems needlessly cumbersome. People have been using the phrase Identity Politics for some time and I don't think anyone has been confusing it with Class, Interest or old style Ethnic parochilaism.
“Of course it’s shameful that, in 2019, we’ve only had one nonwhite president and zero female ones.”
No, it's not. It's just democracy in action. When and if Americans want more nonwhite presidents or a female president they'll elect them. If elections were identitarian headcounts ALL presidents would be women, given they are always the majority.
Otherwise, thanks for an interesting article.