We often hear about how globalism's losers and malcontents need to be understood and mollified, but they are vastly numerically inferior and lack the firepower their opponents possess. Why don't we just defeat them?Steve asks what's the plan. The response:
I thought I was quite explicit in recommending that the nationalist populist program, where it conflicts with classical liberalism, must be aggressively defined, confronted, and discredited.The bold portion is the key flaw in his thinking because it assumes the Alt-Right aren't/weren't classical liberals.
There are many paths to the Dark Enlightenment, Neoreaction and the broader Alt-Right. One of the most important Red Pill cocktails is rejecting the blank slate, universalism and recognizing a cultural/genetic component to political values. Some significant portion of the broadly defined Alt-Right are former conservatives and libertarians who took these red pills. They believe that mass immigration will destroy (has already destroyed) classical liberalism. The weak view of the genetic/cultural component, which trends towards civic nationalism, says some degree of assimilation is possible. The strong view says that even if America had a King or theocrat, it could maintain most traits we would classify as classical liberalism if the population was traditional American. The techno-commercialist wing of Neoreaction leans in this direction.
Rothman has weight of responsibility reversed. It is his side that has been defined, confronted and discredited. Nationalist populism is a waypoint rather than a long-term solution. It is relatively easy to discredit portions of it because it isn't a coherent plan, but a response to the collapse of classical liberalism. If someone defeats nationalist populism, it's likely to be an Alt-Righter who proposes something better or Progressive socialists who finally complete their revolution.
It is widely accepted on the Alt-Right that immigration should be halted and demographic trends reversed. Classical liberals should start there and explain why that would produce a society that is less classically liberal. Most, if not all of the Alt-Right, would argue immigration moratorium and reversal of demographic trends would create a more classically liberal society. It would only be less classically liberal in that the people in it would not believe in the blank slate. "Classical liberals" argue that a classical liberal society becomes more liberal by adding anti-liberals, while the Alt-Right says it gets more liberal when you remove anti-liberals. They needs to show how removing anti-liberals turns liberals into anti-liberals. There's no evidence that this is the case. And if they argue that removing anti-liberals turns liberals into anti-liberals, they have to explain why they would want to add anti-liberals in the first place since the outcome is the same. Import anti-liberals, destroy classical liberalism. Remove anti-liberals, destroy classical liberalism. Classical liberalism cannot survive.
Alt-Right radicals who want a major change in American society might get nervous about an immigration moratorium and demographic reversal. The appeal of a white ethnostate would collapse. Assimilation would increase. The Asian and Hispanic population would decline through intermarriage. The black population would rise, but lighten. Assuming immigration and demographic policies were locked in place, civic nationalism would rise.
Classical liberals have to show how America would have less rule of law, less property rights, less support for the first and second amendments if demographics reversed. There are copious arguments and data all over the Internet, there are arguments from the right and left showing how demographics turned California (next Texas and then America) blue and anti-liberal. Classical liberals who are afraid of being called racist, but agree with the demographic argument, would quietly support the Alt-Right. If those making noise don't believe it, they should make their case. The only ones that come close (that I have seen) are from some left-leaning political analysts who believe assimilation will occur, Hispanics and Asians will shift into the white category and/or vote with whites. That doesn't refute the immigration moratorium argument though, and it confirms the main thrust of the demographic argument.