A friend of mine once pointed out that whatever the limitations of the US two-party system, the barrier to multi-party democracy it creates does keep the wingnuts out of the government. Without a (somewhat) viable political party, the sorts of organizations that would spawn an American version of the BNP remain fractured, though the underground connections are very active. They also become nascent domestic terrorist organizations complete with bombings and assasinations. That doesn't get into the news much, and when it does, the domestic terrorists usually get framed as lone wackos. This conceals the extent of America's domestic terrorism potential, but it also keeps members of the general public from finding someone to rally around.
Actual fascist ideology (which has never really been fully defined, though there is a Communist Manifesto-type Doctrine of Fascism that came out of the Italian Fascist movement) has some variants, but from what I've read (and I don't just mean Wikipedia) they do seem to share certain features, aside from the from single-party statism that puts national sovereignty over personal freedom.
--An obsession with purity, racial, cultural, and social.
--A belief in a Golden Age of sorts, in which the purity of the nation was intact and the nation was stronger and more prosperous. The shattering of this idyllic unity is generally blamed on some easily identified demographic groups (immigrants, Jews, homosexuals) and some very vaguely defined cultural trends (liberalism, socialism, multi-culturalism). Fascist campaigns often appeal to the idea that the nation can return to this Golden Age (which never existed) by unifying and purifying itself.
--A certain level of anti-corporate populism that blames "decadent capitalism" for profiteering, exploiting or abandoning the "pure" group, and entangling the economy with other impure societies. This false populism is where a lot of their appeal to the general public comes in. "Decadent capitalism" also encourages consumer concepts of individualism and will introduce impurities into the culture for profit, so if you have a beef with the actions of major corporations, the fascists are more than happy to rant about it for you.
--An imperialist drive. While this used to mean geographical expansion, I think current fascism would tend more towards an informal empire, with the state "protecting its interests abroad."
--A belief that the nation is constantly under threat of attack from within and without, leading to a police state internally and a militaristic approach to foreign policy.
--A high degree of regulation of individual behavior, as the individual must always suborn their rights to the state.
The US keeps manifesting components of fascism here and there, but never seems to get them all going at the same time. The two most likely reasons beyond the two-party system, in my opinion - it's hard to get overt racists elected when you have a large immigrant population, and it takes an astounding amount of money to get elected, even to local office, and most of that money comes from "decadent capitalism". When you are a transnational corporation, true nationalism, fascist or socialist, is generally bad for business. Nationalists tend to, well, nationalize important stuff, like the oil supply for instance (yes, Hugo Chavez, we are talking about you) in order to secure their position on the world stage. Then you have to fund a revolution, because a single-party government can't really be voted out, and that's such a pain, and expensive too.
If you look at the rise of fascism in various nations, it does seem to pop up when you have a combo of economic failure, military failure, and a weak government, particularly with a weak leader. Fascism's success does seem to hinge on the cult of personality inspired by its leader - Hitler (arguable, I suppose), Mussolini, Franco. In Japan's pre-WWII fascist movement, it wasn't the cult of personality of the leader itself, but the divinity of the Emperor that filled this role.
--An obsession with purity, racial, cultural, and social.
--A belief in a Golden Age of sorts, in which the purity of the nation was intact and the nation was stronger and more prosperous. The shattering of this idyllic unity is generally blamed on some easily identified demographic groups (immigrants, Jews, homosexuals) and some very vaguely defined cultural trends (liberalism, socialism, multi-culturalism). Fascist campaigns often appeal to the idea that the nation can return to this Golden Age (which never existed) by unifying and purifying itself.
--A certain level of anti-corporate populism that blames "decadent capitalism" for profiteering, exploiting or abandoning the "pure" group, and entangling the economy with other impure societies. This false populism is where a lot of their appeal to the general public comes in. "Decadent capitalism" also encourages consumer concepts of individualism and will introduce impurities into the culture for profit, so if you have a beef with the actions of major corporations, the fascists are more than happy to rant about it for you.
--An imperialist drive. While this used to mean geographical expansion, I think current fascism would tend more towards an informal empire, with the state "protecting its interests abroad."
--A belief that the nation is constantly under threat of attack from within and without, leading to a police state internally and a militaristic approach to foreign policy.
--A high degree of regulation of individual behavior, as the individual must always suborn their rights to the state.
The US keeps manifesting components of fascism here and there, but never seems to get them all going at the same time. The two most likely reasons beyond the two-party system, in my opinion - it's hard to get overt racists elected when you have a large immigrant population, and it takes an astounding amount of money to get elected, even to local office, and most of that money comes from "decadent capitalism". When you are a transnational corporation, true nationalism, fascist or socialist, is generally bad for business. Nationalists tend to, well, nationalize important stuff, like the oil supply for instance (yes, Hugo Chavez, we are talking about you) in order to secure their position on the world stage. Then you have to fund a revolution, because a single-party government can't really be voted out, and that's such a pain, and expensive too.
If you look at the rise of fascism in various nations, it does seem to pop up when you have a combo of economic failure, military failure, and a weak government, particularly with a weak leader. Fascism's success does seem to hinge on the cult of personality inspired by its leader - Hitler (arguable, I suppose), Mussolini, Franco. In Japan's pre-WWII fascist movement, it wasn't the cult of personality of the leader itself, but the divinity of the Emperor that filled this role.
