Julie, thanks for reading the review and for your response.

My own theory around identification is that there is a sort of "replacement" of where one gets a core part of their identity from. It used to be that one's religion made up a core part of one's identity. That seems to have shifted to political affiliation. Of course identity comes from a variety of sources - work, relationships, possessions, etc. But I think religion and political affiliation share more in common than these other things. They offer a sense of meaning, a group identity, purpose, an origin story, values, a set of "priests", creeds (official beliefs), etc.

As for the political parties - both have weakened over time. It's just that the GOP has weakened far more than the Democrats have. For example, in the past a candidate like Bernie Sanders would have never seen the light of day. But in the modern version of the Democrat party, he has done pretty well.

How do we define conservative? Great question. I think there are a variety of conservatives and Klein doesn't offer an examination of the term, so I'm not sure he answers the question. For me there are classical conservatives who embrace a certain philosophical premise, there are populists who are calling themselves conservatives, there are foreign policy conservatives who are attempting to conserve a certain world order, there are economic conservatives, there are social conservatives, and more. And there are those who claim to be conservative but it's not about any set of beliefs at all. It's what Klein takes about in the quote you cited from my review. It's an identity.