I'm not so sure it has been "unthinkable." One of the more famous cases was from the 70s, when the Nazi party sued the city of Skokie for the right to march in that community. There have been various other protests and demonstrations over the years, but they all appear basically the same: A few white supremacists in costumes surrounded by thousands who adamantly oppose them.
The global political discourse is also coming from other countries. Nationalism appears to be on the rise in multiple countries, not just in Europe or America, but also in Asia and Africa, too. Some of this is the result of well-intended anti-colonialist attitudes which then fed movements of national liberation – which shares a good deal of ideological overlap with nationalism itself. This is where a certain level of ideological conflict comes into play. The enablers are those who give validation to the nationalistic mindset, even if it might be considered well-intentioned in many cases.
This is true, because America and many other countries have a history of racism, without necessarily being Nazis or Klansmen or even nationalists. One doesn't really have anything to do with the other, which many people fail to consider.
And again, a lot of this has to do with how the issue has been presented to the public, not by white supremacists, but by the mainstream. They've presented racism as a kind of caricature of a beer-swilling, trailer-dwelling "redneck" who likes to dress up in World War 2 uniforms and wave swastikas in people's faces (as if upper-class, educated white people would never hold such views). Those who don't appear to fit that image might not be thought of in that way.
This is part of the problem with overusing the tactics of ridicule and the labeling of people as "deplorables," since it creates such an obvious, lopsided image in people's minds that it tends to confuse and distract them to the point where they may be ill-equipped to actually identify someone on the alt-right.
This seems to be the crux of your observation here, that these white nationalists are trying to pass themselves off as "logical centrists/conservatives" and not fitting in to the caricature associated with far-right extremism.
But it's the caricature that's been wrong all along, and that appears to be the primary reason why more people among the general public seem unable to recognize far-right extremism in the way that you think they should. Or they might recognize it and simply go along with it, cynically finding new and inventive ways of saying "Separate But Equal" while trying to craft their rhetoric in such a way as to maintain a veneer of "plausible deniability" in case they're called out on it.
I can't say how much of this supposedly influenced those who voted for Trump; it's hard to say. I would still maintain that Trump's election was largely the result of Democrats turning their backs on blue-collar workers, particularly those in the Rust Belt states which the Democrats were expected to win, but didn't. There were also internal squabbles within the party, such as between Bernie and Hillary, which also crippled them in the general election.
To be honest, I haven't really seen some of the more recent examples, but I've had occasion to look over the years and see how the tactic generally works. I agree that they're doing so in a biased and intellectually dishonest manner; I'm not arguing that point. But they do use it; it's there for them to use, and as I pointed out, even those in the mainstream might pick up on it and recognize it, and this is what might sensitize people to it so that when they do encounter it being used by white nationalists, they won't get the nuance and context that you're talking about.
I think what they're trying to do is suggest an attitude. That is, in the aftermath of a history of gross injustices, abuses, and atrocities, there will be those who call for justice, and those who call for revenge. What they seem to be suggesting is that there's a blurry line between legitimate calls for justice versus calls for revenge and violence.
People's views are often influenced and manipulated through fear. FDR once said "the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself," but nevertheless, a lot of people today seem to be engaging in the politics of fear.
Another thing I've noticed is that it appears that the alt-right sometimes tries to mimic the various social justice groups. For example, they might say, "Well, if it's okay to have an organization called Black Lives Matter – and not be considered racist, then whites should be able to form an organization called White Lives Matter and not be considered racist." Their logic being, "if they can do it, we can do it."
Essentially, that's what you're dealing with here. Of course, you can correctly observe that it's propaganda and a willful manipulation of the facts. You can point out that they don't understand the nuance or the context, and that's probably true, but that may also point up part of the problem. There's really no need for nuance or context.
It's still possible for people with righteous, well-intentioned goals to use questionable means of achieving them. That's what we might call into question here. You've pointed out numerous times how the alt-right uses dishonest and manipulative tactics, which I've never denied here. They're a bunch of dirty Nazis, so of course they're dishonest and unscrupulous, but that's not telling me anything I didn't already know. Surely you weren't expecting them to play fair, were you?
But that aside, my point here is that the liberals and progressives have opened themselves up to that. The weaknesses in their positions are being identified and exploited. So, perhaps a change in strategy might be considered? I don't see what good it will do to continue to defend a failed strategy when the same basic goals can be achieved through other means.
(to be continued)
