Abstract Scholarship on social movements, racism, and nationalism increasingly falls under the purview of “extremism studies” and its subfield “far-right studies.” Prominent extremism scholars have developed generalist theories purportedly explaining far-right politics and power dynamics (or “mainstreaming”) across liberal societies. They define “far-right” as “illiberal” politics promoting dehumanization, exclusion, and inequality. Their theory of mainstreaming suggests that “the” far-right is a coherent entity that “enters” mainstream institutions or discourse from the outside. For these scholars, strengthening liberal-civic principles prevents far-right political power (mainstreaming). I call these approaches “grand theory templates,” which I critique for simplistic interpretations of power and for overlooking critical theory scholarship showing how liberalism accommodates far-right politics. Using the Canadian nationalist movement as a case study, I show how liberal chauvinism can be crucial to empowering right-wing populist movements. My data include over 40 hours of participant-observation at 20 right-wing events and 35 interviews with 42 current leaders and members of on-the-ground nationalist groups. Right-wing nationalists foregrounded liberal-civic ideas, such as “security,” “rights,” “objectivity,” and “tolerance,” to advance anti-Muslim sentiment and populist conspiracism. My findings suggest that far-right movements can gain power by embracing liberalism’s ambiguity and contradictions. In other words, mastering liberal messaging can be essential to the growth of far-right movements, challenging any easy dismissal of these politics as “illiberal.” Altogether, “top–down” grand theory templates oversimplify political distinctions and power, compromising research design and analysis. I advocate for more granular and “bottom–up” inductive approaches that prioritize sociological traditions over theories recently popularized by extremism scholars.