> "Conservative" isn't a view. It's a movement allegiance. So I don't think that qualifies. I feel the same applies more loosely to Brexit.

People tended to vote for these things because they believed that the policies of the Conservative Party in the 2019 election or the Leave option in the referendum would be the best expression of their values. They were also rejecting the alternatives, such as a centrally-planned economic model including wealth taxes and the nationalisation of companies and utilities or European federalism and supranationalism, because these policies opposed their views. And they were certainly criticized for this decision with the reasoning being that it was the result of them having the wrong sort of views.

> What's interesting in both case is that both movements absolutely contain rich seams of racism.

Where did racism come from, all of a sudden? That's a very broad smear, and I'd challenge you to provide evidence.

> So if the actual view people are afraid to voice is racism either intent or action, then I would submit that it is in fact good that they are not voicing it.

Again, I'm not sure why specifically you're bringing racism into Brexit or the 2019 GE, but you're welcome to substantiate that.

> I also strongly doubt that many are afraid to voice a view that the correct tax rate for high income earners are 3 points higher or lower.

In many parts of the UK, in various professions and walks of life it's just not worth the hassle of letting it be known that you vote Conservative or that you voted Leave. The unions all support Labour, and there is no point in particular in making your life harder by exposing your political alignment if you're working in a blue-collar role in the public sector.

> But what decades of history teaches is that since overt racism is no longer acceptable, quite a lot of other issues are used as covers for racism. See Lee Atwater's quote here, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#Evolution_(1...

It's hard to tell how much personal bias is involved when allegations of dog-whistling are made, but I'm not sufficiently familiar with Reagan to be able to make an assessment in this case.

> So I stand by my view that we must look at the specific opinions people are scared to voice and see to what extent they relate to oppressing groups who were previously forced to keep quiet. My bet here is that a lot of what "Conservative voters" happen to be afraid to speak about is the conservation parts of the past that they are rightly ashamed to be honest about wanting to keep.

I've already given you two particular examples of opinions that people have been unwilling to broadcast; one is that the UK should have a Conservative government (and not a Labour government under Jeremy Corbyn/John McDonnell) in the 2019 election, and the other is that the UK should leave the EU, and people have been subject to criticism for holding either of those views. The inference in this case that an unwillingness to broadcast the basis or the practical conclusions of one's political ideology would likely be due to a person harboring shameful and unconscionable opinions basically amounts to a form of victim-blaming, and it appears to be ideological rather than based in evidence. I'd encourage you to continue to look into this, if you're interested, because you might end up being surprised.