I was able to get in without signing in or subscribing 

https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2018/08/25/francis-fukuyama-and-kwame-anthony-appiah-take-on-identity-politics

Edit to add:

Here is the portion of the summary I point out

What has happened recently, Mr Fukuyama argues, is that many people have concluded that society does not adequately value their inner worth. That is society’s fault, not their own. So the world must change and grant them more respect. Mr Fukuyama spies this craving in many groups, from the working-class whites who are drawn to populism in Europe and America to the Arabs who rebelled against their rulers in 2010. The women who launched the #MeToo movement are impelled by a similar desire for respect; so even are Islamists.

Some of these movements are more admirable than others, Mr Fukuyama finds. But he is troubled by even the worthiest ones, because they so often begin by claiming that a group has been done down. To demand justice for one marginalised group is often to overlook the higher goals of equality and respect for all. Besides, right-wingers have learned to play the grievance game just as well as left-wingers, leading to an endless cycle of claim and self-righteous counter-claim.

In the case where legislators create laws to suppress votes of one specific group, what protest is allowed given that in all likelihood, no other group benefits from the protest.Only one group benefits from #MeToo.

An excellent argument against boring.  Because consideration, thought and, yes, mulling cannot in themselves be overstated.

Short answer, No, we can't. He's not a great philosopher. He's simple minded. Anyway, I don't want to get along. I want to win. I'd rather fight to win and lose than try to get along.

My eyes start to glaze over. First, I've become allergic to the phrase "the X needs to...." - I don't need to do jack shit, aside from open another beer & figure out if I'll keep reading or not.
Second, telling me I'm sexist, racist, xenophobic - well, duh. But how much, in what way? Am I mistaken in my information, or a trenchant X or Y or Z beyond hope? And an important question - who is it that's evaluating me on these traits or issues? what is *their* slant, problem or goal?
I will say that the chorus of little gnats piling on with pithy platitudes about white pride or male privilege or other de rigeur proclamation from this gen's Spartacus Youth League makes me take things less serious than I might.
These articles seem to be starting to accept that change might be coming too fast for some, but they don't necessarily question whether that change is right or wrong, should be accepted or stopped or reversed.

Again, tired.... is this all there is? another soap box?

The progression of ideas presented by Tim Adams suffers from a fatal flaw:

From the 1930s onwards, broad Marxist class wars have fragmented into the competing interests of identity politics. Who we are, the kind of cultural or national group we identify with, is a potentially more insistent psychological force than our desire for more wealth or security.

If there are parents of the "desire for recognition" to be found, why would anyone think they were Marxist class wars or the people who fought them? Presumably, the impulse being presented as an engine and pattern for political expression predates those events. According to the philosophers who originally brought up the idea, the impulse predates the act of dating anything.

Baker made a dig at Republicans who passed last year’s tax bill, comparing it to what happened under Reagan: “It was a tax reform that was a true tax reform—it didn’t jack up the unsustainable debt of the United States. It was revenue neutral.”

The average deficit during Carter's presidency was 60 billion. The average deficit during Reagan's presidency was over 180 billion. How is that revenue neutral?

The founding fathers practiced white supremacy. Jim Crow replaced slavery. Voter suppression is alive and well today. I don’t think the right needed the left to activate white identity politics.

From the article on King and the Civil Rights Movement 

But there is a particular modern version of identity that, in my view, really starts with Martin Luther. Luther said that in God’s eyes, what matters is your inner belief, your inner faith. God does not care about all the rituals of the Catholic Church. He does not care whether you count the rosary or go to mass, or whether you follow the rules of the Catholic Church, because God cares about the inner believer. That is really what is going to save you, and that is what constitutes Christian faith. The entire society around you can be false, wrong, and repressive, because it is denying the authenticity of that inner self, which is a believer. And the only person that can see it, apart from perhaps you, is God. And in a way, this sets up the modern understanding of identity, which is that we have a worth inside us that is superior to the evaluation of the surrounding society. In pre-modern times, one would have said: well tough, you’ve got to conform. Society sets these rules, so just grow up and learn that you have follow them. The modern version says: no, that’s not right, because what is valuable is the inner self, and the rest of society is wrong and false, and it is the one that has to change.

On women’s rights

The ‘Me Too’ movement in many ways has the same structure, about the valuing the inner self. What is the issue involved with sexual harassment? It has to do with the fact that men are not valuing women as whole human beings. Woman has knowledge, abilities, moral character. But man only cares about her sexual attributes. That is devaluing woman. But it is a modern view, because the lesson you draw is not that women have to learn how to get along. The lesson is that the inner self is what is valuable and that society has to change. That is what is happening right now. Men are going through a cultural retraining, they are learning that their rules are not the right ones, and that we need a different set of rules in relations between men and women that respect the dignity of the whole person. That is the modern understanding of identity and that is what has powered a series of political and social movements over the last 200 or 300 years.

The he left is not to blame, but while we  at analyzing let’s minimize the racism.

There is a tendency to dismiss populist voters as just a bunch of racists and xenophobes. It is true that they are white people who had been dominant in their societies, and who are losing some of that dominance. They resent that loss and are trying to return to their old social position.

On solutions

So what to do? That is an obvious question, one I get asked frequently. But it is very tough to answer. I don’t think that you can begin to solve the problem until you have analysed it properly, and have tried to understand, with a little bit of sympathy, what is actually driving people to vote for these parties.

The problem as it stands is that white voters will overlook racism and voter suppression. When Obama are was offered, they rejected it even though they benefited from the program. Now they are outraged if you try to abolish the problem. They laugh at the Green New Deal which could improve their incomes. There is sympathy for white workers, but they are rejecting suggestions. The reality is that most minorities and most women are not going to be comfortable giving up gains they have made to make whites feel better.

Take the opioid epidemic, it receives major attention because it is viewed as a white problem. The impact on black communities is overlooked.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/local/opioid-epidemic-and-its-effect-on-african-americans/?utm_term=.461120d08653

Democrats do outreach to white communities. Democrats do outreach to minority communities. As long as white voters see things as a zero sum game, I don’t see things changing. White identity politics was not triggered by King in the 1960s. White identity politics was written into the Constitution.

Is there a way to confirm whether it is true that what is underway involves "borrowing of the left wing concept of identity by the right"?

The topic so quickly becomes other things. And those other things leave a pretty simple question.

Who learned identity politics from whom?

Fukuyama has argued for a long time which kinds of agents can change a situation or not. I don't see any reason to discuss him without referring to these propositions.