This analysis of politics is only coherent if you ignore the existence of ideology entirely. It's true that "facts" don't necessarily unite people of competing ideologies because that's not how ideology works.
You could say a politically charged fact like "People of race A commit crime at 2x the rate of people of race B".
One person might then conclude "We need to put more police in predominantly A neighborhoods".
Another might conclude "We should bus kids from A neighborhoods to B neighborhoods to normalize education rates".
While yet another might say "Our public education shouldn't be funded primarily via property taxes, which systemically leads to under-education of lower-class individuals".
Same fact, different conclusions. You can't reduce it down to just "allegiance" or "feelings". I'd argue that understanding your ideology is the only way to make sense of politics. Most folks never really stop to examine their ideology, and just end up wherever they've been left by teachers / parents / talking heads.
I think we basically agree, just using words differently.
Ideology is, in my usage, an identity. *"I am an X." X can be socialist, catholic, christian democrat, moderate, african, working class woman, flat-earther... Some are more fixed than others. But genrally, people make political decisions based on these political identities.
Your example is perfect. More or better facts will not change people's understanding of that politically charged fact. It will usually be a byproduct of their wider political identity... including ideological affiliation. Ideological affiliation is probably the most important form of identity.
Identity is more fundamental then ideology. People get to choose their ideologies, they don't get to choose their identity.
Identity is negotiated between the individual and society. Some people argue otherwise, that an individual can arbitrarily decide their identity, but I don't think most people agree with this. The Rachel Dolezal [1] case is a pretty good illustration of this.
I think that's a very very narrow and specific definition of identity that most literature would disagree with. There's far more to identity then racial identity (or sexual/gender for that matter).
People incorporate anything and everything into their identity. Vegan/Crossfitter/Burner are all core identity components for many many people.
The "negotiation with society" is a function of how the individual externalizes it, and what type of reinforcement they expect to receive back.
To your example, Rachel Dolezal could maintain her self selected racial "identity" in peace and quiet if the society she was sharing it with was Tumblr and not the NAACP.
You could say a politically charged fact like "People of race A commit crime at 2x the rate of people of race B".
One person might then conclude "We need to put more police in predominantly A neighborhoods". Another might conclude "We should bus kids from A neighborhoods to B neighborhoods to normalize education rates". While yet another might say "Our public education shouldn't be funded primarily via property taxes, which systemically leads to under-education of lower-class individuals".
Same fact, different conclusions. You can't reduce it down to just "allegiance" or "feelings". I'd argue that understanding your ideology is the only way to make sense of politics. Most folks never really stop to examine their ideology, and just end up wherever they've been left by teachers / parents / talking heads.