I pretty much agree with the rest of what you said (especially about election particulars--those are all really good points, and could definitely mask the effect of a "whitelash"...and as I said, the limitations of my personal experience may have kept me from being exposed to it), but I'm confused about this one.

My impression has been quite the opposite: there's an effort to reclassify where almost everything qualifies as racism.

For instance, the idea of "if you are not an anti-racist, you are a racist" is pretty commonly heard on Medium (and is pretty close to Ibram X. Kendi's stance) and you can't get a broader reclassification than that.

Also, just on principle, wouldn't it go the other way around? The more narrowly-defined racism is, presumably the more horrible it has to be to actually deserve or be charged with the label, and therefore the less willingness there would be to be called that? It seems strange that simultaneously the charge could be getting more damning and people could increasingly not care.

For instance if being a "Nazi" means "supporting genocide against Jews especially but non-Aryans more generally, and engaging in expansionistic wars to commit this genocide over as large an area as possible", it's a lot worse to be called a "Nazi" than if it means "thinks symphony orchestras could be labeled part of 'white culture'".

(Regarding Trump's businesses in the 1970s, it's true, but also a long time ago, and it was a lot more okay to be racist then than now. It's certainly suggestive, but many people have dramatically changed their perspectives on all sorts of things--racism, homosexual marriage, etc.--over the past fifty years, so it's weak evidence at best. The repeated close contacts with people who show much more obvious racist behavior, and endorsement of policies with obviously race-selective impact, is far more damning.)