- Do some of their issues (economic protectionism, immigration policy, populism in general) have merit or are they poisonous by default and not even considered ? Are discussing those letting the far right set up the agenda of public talk ?
This is difficult and is arguably why the parties/movements in the West are gaining such power. Just to take the immigration component. And of course, standard Ugly American disclaimer. Also I'm going to be glib and simplistic in describing arguments.
The political elites in almost every country had a near consensus on this at least at the national level, at most slow immigration to high skilled, but overall it's a positive thing. The populations are vastly more hostile to FOREIGN INVADERS. The EU gets a similar sentiment. When you have the longterm major social democrats and conservatives that have been the consensus politics for decades placing themselves far away from the people on an issue or issues it creates that opening in these multi-party systems and it creates an opening for a Trump/Perot (even Bernie to a slightly different extent) candidate. (Speaking of Bernie, you can see the same thing in the gains of the left parties in Spain/Greece because of how their situation is mildly different from Northern Yurop.)
And a lot of these parties in Yurop are not
seriously threatening the status quo internally really, to take the infamous Swedish Democrats, they're all in favor of the welfare state, they're to the left of the Social Democrats on expanding it and globalization and related issues. They just don't want the filthy immigrants to get a piece. Especially as they mature as parties and throw out the harsher voices. The Progress Party in Norway was basically under cordon sanitaire for most of its existence until the last decade, much like the Swedish Democrats and Geert Wilders and the Le Pens are still under. But it moderated slightly while also becoming more powerful overall to where they were the only viable center-right coalition partner which did "normalize" the party, but at the same time further moderated it as it now wants to win.
You have similar sentiments in the Trump base, that illegals are coming here to get free everything, schools, health care, Social Security, etc. while not paying any taxes instead paying with their crime and low social values and then Democrats let them vote! A lot of these voters don't agree with Paul Ryan or Rand Paul or whatever on slashing the state. They want Medicare protected, all kinds of new benefits, they just don't want the darkies to get it.
Hillary goes out and says, look at all this stuff I'm going to implement for people who are not you, and even more, I'm going to give it to people you hate as we IMPORT more of them or create more of them with our gay/transgender/austim causing vaccines. Trump says, I'm going to get rid of those you hate which will let us keep those programs, and cut taxes and increase the military! Paul Ryan's budget becomes actually a benefit to this argument because the "Trump" angle gets to say "yeah, he has to propose those cuts because of all these illegals/globalists/Microsoft shills/etc.!"
I'm simplifying obviously but in terms of practical politics, especially in a two party, or major party system, you almost have to take those concerns into account because you can't keep offering an unsatisfactory solution and hoping they'll somehow "get it" finally. That's how the Libertarian Party operates ffs.
One reason the rhetoric gets so extreme is that you say "immigration reform" or "border security" or "self-deportation" nobody believes you. Even the moderate anti-immigration people. Trump says BUILD A WALL, DEPORT EM. Even people who don't want him to go that far at least will trust he'll do
something closer to their ideal than the people who already have (from their perspective) lied to them multiple times before.
But I'm off track and should cut it short before Rufus catches me too far out on a limb again.
