Don't get me wrong, I like the analysis in the article. However I have a disagreement with the idea that the appeal of right populism in reaction to social welfare states comes from racism, sexism etc. like with Trump here

I think one of the main things that lose people from the left is when the nanny state gets out of control in the social welfare state.

And then this is at the base of the appeal to many immigrants to the U.S. from social welfare states, especially those with a modicum of financial success and those who admire such success : the mythical American "freedom" from the nanny state type thing.

(And I think the dislike of nanny state type interference in people's lives is also related to dislike some intelligentisa have for political correctness, and there's where the slurs of straight out racism etc. jump in.Is all this "liberal" or not? Also: I had two very liberal parents and I will never forget my mother's fear of the public health nurse at the door reporting her depression and messy house to someone or something who could cause some trouble. Nor can I forget the social worker that caused me a lot of trouble recently, not understanding my complicated situation as well as my lawyer could.)

The distinction Beauchamp makes between economic policy and racial discrimination does not reflect how they are interwoven in American society. While Beauchamp is correct that Reagan promoted the narrative that welfare recipients of color were ripping off taxpayers, it was Reagan's efforts against affirmative action and other measures to develop equal opportunity for employment that comprised his economic policy just as much as his proposition that all citizens will become more wealthy if we let entrepreneurs run free unhampered by government restrictions. The name for this kind of thing is institutional racism. It differs from other kinds because it doesn't have to promulgate that certain groups cannot participate in the production of wealth. It just says that changing who can play must not diminish the fortunes of those already playing. The message is: There are only a finite number of chairs. Many of you will still be standing when the music stops.

In the case of our last election cycle, I don't think it can be demonstrated (per Arzheimer) that "Right-wing populists typically have gotten their best results in wealthier areas of countries — that is, with voters who experience the least amounts of economic insecurity." I propose that there is an overwhelming sense of economic insecurity spanning a broad range of income levels and that the different responses to that through election choices expresses different estimates of where more security can be found. In that sense, even the most fanatically driven "self-identified" voter is making an economic policy choice.