The thesis that I've found most convincing is Hanspeter Kriesi's idea that globalization has led to a polarization of European societies between those who benefit from it and those who stand to lose. I like the fact that it keeps voting patterns grounded in a sociological analysis (rather than going full end-of-ideology, voter-as-consumer postmodern) while at the same time acknowledging that different groups can be political allies or enemies under different conditions. The "winners vs losers" (his term) divide is not just the class divide of old flipped around since, for example, farmers and people in former working-class areas now stand on the same side.
I also think there is a lot to make out of the more culture-based theories revolving around the notion of "postmaterialism". Inglehart's original theory was seriously flawed (and even he eventually agreed to revise it), but other scholars, such as Flanagan and your country's own Middendorp, had been pointing out for a while that the emergence of the "New Left" can only be understood along with the concurrent rise of the "New Right", and that, together, those define a new axis of political conflict around cultural issues not related to voters' pocketbooks. The objections I'd make is that a lot of the issues the "New Right" talks about have a lot (or at least are framed as having a lot) to do with voter's pocketbooks. Still, I believe that the globalization thesis and the postmaterialism thesis both have solid arguments on their side, and I'd like to find a way to reconcile the two if that's possible.
This is something I totally agree with, which doesn't surprise me too much, both because this has obviously become a very common approach in our area and because we seem to think in relatively similar ways even if we have very different worldviews and arrive at different conclusions. I think Kriesi's work has been highly valuable and find it to be a shame that some are inclined to dismiss the importance of class as a factor in voting behavior on the basis of his thesis while I think it simply proves we should find a way to reconceptualize what class nowadays means.
At the same time I think that when looking at voting behavior (as opposed to party systems) it is important to look at multiculturalism in Europe not only from a winners vs. losers perspective (which, to put it crudely, is basically the "economic anxiety" approach when it comes to voting behavior for RRWPs) but rather dig into the way various groups in society (not only the white working class) deal with it -- so I agree with you that there is more to this than just a pocketbook approach. Much research on the new right has focused on supply side factors and the functioning of radical right-wing parties within party systems, but in understanding voting behavior for RRWPs more sociological research related to the demand side would be more than welcome.
Lastly I think it is important to avoid the "Europe is a country" pitfall; in my main research project to date I analyzed several Western European party systems and found that there are profound differences when it comes to political competition and the "direction" in which these countries "move". This should not be that surprising a result, but it goes against the current trend (both in polsci and in journalism) of lumping together political developments in Western European countries. This is not related to what you said, but just sharing my thoughts here
Have you read Peter Mair's
Ruling the Void: The Hollowing of Western Democracy? This is the work that has influenced me most. If you haven't, I'm sure you'll like his approach, which is deeply critical of neoliberalism.
