Liberal democracy is playing defense. From Hungary and Poland to the United Kingdom and the United States, support for right populists claiming to defend the people against minorities, immigrants, and "globalist" elites has surged. Defenders of liberal democracy-"liberal democrats"-typically denounce right populism for two reasons (Müller, 2016). First, right populists threaten "political" pluralism by demonizing their opponents as elitist usurpers of the will of the people. 1 So, right populists deny the legitimacy of political disagreement, and undermine the rule of law, individual rights, and the freeness and fairness of elections. Second, right populists threaten "social" pluralism. They claim to act on behalf of the "real" members of the people-typically, the racial/ethnic majority-and aim to rid the people of its contaminating elements. So, right populists often call for racist immigration policies, legal discrimination, and the deportation of minorities (Miller-Idriss, 2020, p. 5).In this paper, I (1) articulate how liberal democrats ought to respond to this threat and (2) identify practices that can help further that response. I do so by engaging with two perspectives. The first, which I call the "containment" approach, urges different parties who share a commitment to liberal democracy to join hands and form "liberal democratic fronts" (Art, 2011;Pauwels, 2011). Most obviously, such coordination should take place during elections. For example, center-left, center-right, and (sometimes) left wing parties in Belgium, France, and Germany have periodically formed such coalitions since the 1980s to defeat insurgent right populist parties. Less obviously, such coordination can be institutionalized into the fabric of liberal democracy. For example, under Stefan Rummens and Koen Abts's "concentric containment" model of "decreasing tolerance," even though the informal public sphere should be kept as free as possible, more restrictions should be imposed as right populists approach the formal political sphere. 2 Right populist civil society organizations should not be able to protest and assemble as easily as others, while right populist parties should be confronted, isolated, and, if all else fails, banned. So, as is the case under E.U. law, parties that do not respect human rights codes should be denied funding, and antidemocratic parties banned (Abts & Rummens, 2010, p. 657). 3 In contrast, the second perspective, which I call the "liberal nationalist" approach, maintains that many people only drift toward right populism when social cohesion breaks down. Accordingly, this approach urges liberal democrats to repair social cohesion. For example, Yael Tamir 4 argues that people now find themselves in a polarized world of "nowheres" and "somewheres" where the winners of the winner-take-all global economy jet-set from cosmopolitan megacity to megacity, and where the somewheres rot in rapidly degrading, racially/ethnically homogeneous rural communities. 5 So, the somewheres are gravitating toward right populism o...