There have been a lot of internets this week on the question of whether or not neoconservatism is essentially fascist. I think the best one was written by BJ regular Elia Isquire, who concludes:
In truth, it seems to me that any argument against neoconservatism as the long-awaited strain of American fascism can only rest on two pillars:
1. As of yet, neoconservatives do not advocate or condone political violence. (They may look the other way or minimize the seriousness of such acts, but that’s a far cry from endorsment.)
2. Similarly, neocons have yet to explicitly argue that election results that are not to their liking are illegitimate and proof that elections themselves have become either hopelessly flawed or for the time being–due to ACORN and New Black Panthers, no doubt–thoroughly corrupt.
I think Elia and the others discussing this are right to treat this as a serious question. I do not say that lightly: I would certainly not describe George Will or Kathleen Parker as even borderline fascist. Say you what you will about the tenets of paleoconservatism, but most paleos just want to take the country back to what they imagine it was like before FDR, not turn the whole country over to a Mansfieldian “untamed prince”.