> as it carries the baggage of civic nationalism. Maybe. But I don't think the average american is that sophisticated. Equate it with "useless *left wing* libertarianism" and that pretty much diffuses the issue of *nationalism* vs *civic nationalism*. You put nationalism opposite of libertarianism. Adopt the economic values of it, while keeping the social policies of nationalism. Marxist racial rhetoric and communism fails in a right-wing economy and the moderately 'leftwing' talking points of egalitarianism on the social front act essentially as rhetorical ablative shielding. This isn't an original idea of course. "Western chauvinism" comes to mind. They had the publicity angle correct, a little shock and awe, someone their opponents could wildly exaggerate, and unwittingly promote in the process, they just lacked mass appeal. And because we live in the age of *mass* politics, the more general the better. You want to approach *empty signifier* levels of generality with the label you choose. It means your opponents get "literal nazis!" as the free spot on their bingo cards, but that cards already been played out anyway, and all they do is call further attention to how absurd it is. While you get to talk civic nationalism while being anything but. The problem with accusing others of dogwhistling long enough is *eventually it comes true*, but by the *time it does* **everyone has stopped listening**. When the real "white supremacists" arrive in front of the american public, we will arrive as *mere* nationalists (as it were), moderates, and saviors from bolshevik insanity. All 'moderate' simply by the *relative* example that the bolsheviks themselves set *in extremis.* As the blacks like to say, they played themselves.