Here's an axiom for your urban reality: cities are relics of the past that drive people violently insane and we never should have stopped what uncle billy started.
The bar set for urban is not all that close to what the data has to say about the phenomena you're implying.
New York City is something that needs to go, but cities by the modern definition are fundamentally here to stay. "Mid-sized" cities are still growing quite well, despite the mega-cities beginning to shrink, specifically because the hyper-density problems come
well after the line for being urban.
Houston has historically had fairly little of the nonsense because it's been fed by military and industry rather than commerce (and has strongly Republican "minority" precincts, disproving the demographics argument), many university towns will still BTFO the nonsense because the people who
live there want none of it despite the visiting students and faculty, and generally the issue is when you're packing
millions like sardines as with Seattle and New York.
The thing is that the mind-fucking of the mega-cities comes with the people as they're driven out, so the solution is a
generational process of preventing further mind-fuckery by getting people out of the mega-cities while keeping that rot from spreading to the smaller cities that do not produce it from their innate socioeconimic contexts. And Japan proves that the innate issues of the mega-cities lie in causal factors that can have very different results from the modern intersectional cancer currently trying to metastasize into the smaller cities and suburbs.
That aside, I think a very good idea for the Right to embrace is that of National self reliance. Maintain international trade (no need to go full hermit kingdom), but try to at least make globalism not necessary to the economy's survival.
This isn't possible for
most of the world simply because of required resources not being present within most single countries, but a slightly more Merchantilist outlook to international trade, and reversing the hyper-specialization and the
presumption of global supply chains, is something that's very likely to happen soon enough. The moment outsourcing to China dies, the current status quo of globalization falls to pieces, because there just plain isn't anywhere else in the world that can serve that role to the supply chains. Nobody else will put up with that much shit, nobody else has that many people.
The reason why empires dominate history so much is because very few sensibly-cohesive landmasses have been economically self-sufficient, right back to the Bronze Age where no one region that
could be culturally homogeneous had copper, tin, and food. The United States east of the Rockies is flat-out unique for having
literally every single damn thing if you're willing to put up with copious amounts of Thorium in your heavy metal/rare earth deposits (we currently aren't because "muh radioactivity", China is and warehouses the nuclear material while shipping out the other stuff), and the Mississippi and coastline make holding that together once founded downright trivial.
---
An important thing to note about my own personal views is that I'm very much heterodox, with most of my right-wing views being raw pragmatism of my answers to things on the left I don't want. Civic nationalism counteracts pretty much all the corrosion of the extreme left, and maintaining it means a requirement of some degree of cultural acclimation for political significance, so I support those on the basis of not wanting multicultural nonsense,
not because I'm aligned with any flavor of Americanism dogmatically. If the data came up to show the masses
can't understand science enough to keep the demagogues out, I'd back a technocratic mystery cult replacing the current academia in a heartbeat, despite my distaste for religion.
Consequently, my view of what the Right "should be" is entirely a matter of what subsets and adjustments of Right-wing thought seem most likely to attain political success while still respecting what it means to be "right-wing" in some capacity, signaled well by my statement that the Right should find its own solutions, utterly separate from the Left's, to the same underlying drives behind urban politics so as to be
able to win urban votes.
It's not enough to attack the nonsense, you have to offer an alternative
that will actually be accepted. Campaign on attacking the issues of the "behind the mask" politics making city living more hellish, using the tools of the Right to specifically and openly go after the issues of the Left wherever possible, so as to remove as many options of the Left as can be managed, and the Left will likely do the same of answering the issues of the Right's constituencies.
That's my goal. Using the restructuring of the Right to provoke issues-based politics, where both sides address the same problems in different ways, thereby leading to a pursuit of the best possible state for the population at large. Vulnerable to the "Other People's Money" problem, but induction into the proletariat can offer a much greater degree of wealth to work with than simple handouts because
some wealth is generated, so "workfare" systems naturally have larger budgets.