Your arguments might carry more weight if you saw those with opposing viewpoints as more than caricatures.
What you’re describing as “far right” is a sizeable fraction of America. If your views are, out the door, anathema to them, I’m going to de-prioritise them—they’re politically nonviable.
I don’t think your views are nonviable. The language, however, makes the whole package so.
imho lack of political viability should not be sufficient to not prioritize trying to understand something. For example, I don't think ideologies like Anarchism are politically viable, but do think understanding such ideologies is important to forming a solid base of knowledge upon which to base my actual positions.
why not?
De-prioritise doesn't mean ignore. It just means it goes down the list. If something has a chance of appealing to the population, it could merit working on. That makes it a priority to understand.
Non-viable politics are fine. They move the Overton window. And they can, as you say, inform broader philosophies. But if something has a chance of being viable, it benefits from more-compassionate framing.
It is in the far right's interests to continue to get press and traction of their irrational ideas. They are a cult of grifters (working the con) in that respect.
We have given these opposing views far too much credit and need to be treated with the same ridicule and vitriol as they deserve.
below a quote from "Capitalist Realism, Is There No Alternative" by Mark Fisher - this is a devastating but interesting read on this subject. (I just finished this last week).
pdf: https://libcom.org/files/Capitalist%20Realism_%20Is%20There%...
"> Watching Children of Men, we are inevitably reminded of the phrase attributed to Fredric Jameson and Slavoj Žižek, that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism. That slogan captures precisely what I mean by ‘capitalist realism’: the widespread sense that not only is capitalism the only viable political and economic system, but also that it is now impossible even to imagine a coherent alternative to it. Once, dystopian films and novels were exercises in such acts of imagination – the disasters they depicted acting as narrative pretext for the emergence of different ways of living. Not so in Children of Men. The world that it projects seems more like an extrapolation or exacerbation of ours than an alternative to it."
highly recommend.
Since most right, centre and left politicians in the US are right-wing compared to fx. European politics that doesn't seem like a problem with what he wrote.