Well, historically Fascism  was the political movement of Benito Mussolini.
It was a nationalist and ultra-conservative movement which included the quest for revival of Italy’s glory of Roman times (Make Italy Great Again). It was similar to Nazism in Germany.

Today the name Fascism has become a shorthand pejorative term for any right-wing authoritarian regime.

I think that many people are more willing to admit that a leader has authoritarian tendencies, rather than fascist tendencies because the latter term is so emotionally laden with the infamous history of the mid 20th century.
If you refer to someone, I'm not saying whom, as a fascist people assume that you are saying that they are the equivalent of Hitler. You are, of course NOT doing that. Yet it evokes strong reflexive emotions nonetheless.

Some interesting reading:
Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism, and Fascism
https://www.thoughtco.com/totalitarianism-authoritarianism-fascism-4147699

Last edited by Goose (10/26/2017 11:06 am)

Just Fred wrote:

Good post, Goose.  Food for thought.  From what I can tell, the lines between totalitarianism, authoritarianism, and fascism can sometimes be blurred.  In the end, all seem to be in conflict with democracy, and that is my concern.

However, my bigger issue is with those who follow and accept any of the three, and maybe not the leaders themselves.  Afterall, a dictator, authoritarian, or fascist leader is nothing without a large number of followers or, maybe worse, a large number of apathetic, disengaged citizens.

Reminds me of a quote from one of our nation's founders:  'Democracy is great if you can keep it.'
 

Indeed, I have been both shocked and saddened to see that so many of my fellow citizens have rejected what I consider to be basic American values to embrace a vulgar cult of personality.
Barack Obama, at a low moment in America, hopefully stated "We are better than this".
Are we?

I would also offer this observation by Thomas B. Edsall
Ideology is not as important as it once was to conservatives.
As was observed recently in American Political Science Review, the most powerful form of partisanship is not principled, ideological commitment to conservative policies. Party loyalty is a visceral, even subconscious, attachment. The evidence is rather clear that the modern hyper-polarization in America is far more characterized by tribal division than by ideological distance. The American landscape seems to be increasingly defined by a growing us-versus-them, in-group/out-group dynamic. So, for republicans commitment to limted government, individual rights, etc is now being replaced by nationalism and tribal orthodoxy.

Last edited by Goose (10/26/2017 2:30 pm)