American far right isn't fascist, it's libertarian

[marshwiggle]

The far right is not libertarian. It has libertarian roots, to a large extent, but those roots have grown into a non-libertarian tree and the responses to your OP show that clearly. I would also not describe it as fascist, although it has some elements of fascism (hyper nationalism and authoritarian).

Consider these two options, and which would be more popular with the "far right".

• Increase military spending, even if it requires increasing taxes.
• Cutting taxes, even if it requires cutting military spending.

From all I've seen, #2 would be vastly more popular.

[mahagonny]

I consider myself a centrist, politically,

Lmao, ok bro.

You may call me a conservative. I think we are all conservatives. Some of us just don't realize it. Conservativism is what living produces. You get up, you work, you make breakfast and feed your family with things you've bought and saved. You plan, you sell your labor or start a business. You procreate. you think for yourself. These are conservative values, and we all have them.

ETA: However, if you please, I am not 'bro.' I am gender non-binary.

[apl68]

I'd say libertarian, with fascist elements. 

It's certainly not "conservative" in any meaningful sense.  Conservatives by definition aren't radicals, which is what the far right and far left are.  They can be bamboozled into supporting far-right ideologues if they're frightened enough.  Liberals can by the same token sometimes be bamboozled by far-left ideologues.  I'd call our far left more identitarian than Marxist, though.

[dismalist]

I'd say libertarian, with fascist elements. 

It's certainly not "conservative" in any meaningful sense.  Conservatives by definition aren't radicals, which is what the far right and far left are.  They can be bamboozled into supporting far-right ideologues if they're frightened enough.  Liberals can by the same token sometimes be bamboozled by far-left ideologues.  I'd call our far left more identitarian than Marxist, though.

That's part of neo-marxism.

[Anselm]

It is like generals preparing to fight the last war when people say "fascist".     It was a product of Europe after WW1 where you had utter devastation, monarchy, state sponsored churches, increased urbanization, labor unrest and the threat of communism.  It really does not fit any serious movement today.  I can grant you totalitarian and authoritarian as legitimate terminology.

[dismalist]

Fascism is originally a left wing concept. Mussolini famously said All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. He and fascism were all the rage with the American left during the 1930's. Italy became a model to the American left in a way similar to the Soviet Union. And, of course, Mussolini was a former socialist firebrand. He was a man of the left.

"Fascist" became a dirty word through the efforts of the Third International, fight the Nazi-Fascist menace.

Libertarians the extreme right or the right are not. They are conservatives, though American conservatives once had a libertarian streak. The extremes just wish to conserve more than anybody else. Actually, there are almost no libertarians, no live and let live, no tolerance. Rather, my way or the highway on the left and the right.

It is like generals preparing to fight the last war when people say "fascist".     It was a product of Europe after WW1 where you had utter devastation, monarchy, state sponsored churches, increased urbanization, labor unrest and the threat of communism.  It really does not fit any serious movement today.  I can grant you totalitarian and authoritarian as legitimate terminology.

While there is no real threat of Soviet style communism today, neo-marxism has taken the place of original marxism. That is a threat and it comes form the left.

And, see above, would be happy to call this leftist movement fascist.  All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state

[AmLitHist]

Consider these two options, and which would be more popular with the "far right".

• Increase military spending, even if it requires increasing taxes.
• Cutting taxes, even if it requires cutting military spending.

From all I've seen, #2 would be vastly more popular.

This may be true on the whole, but where I live, out here in rural "God, guts, guns, and Trump country," the majority are perfectly happy to raise taxes, so long as they can maintain and increase funds to Support The Troops^tm. 

Of course, many of those same people in my rural county--with 80%+ of kids on free lunch, a sizeable percentage on SNAP and other aid, roughly 1/3 of adults retired and about 18% of remaining adults on some form of SSI/disability due to drugs/alcohol (according to a recent study by local researchers)--don't have a pot to p*ss in or the window to pour it out, so increasing taxes doesn't mean a damn to them.

The original question is an interesting one. My area might (or might not) be representative, but it's certainly not unique, which is where I think a lot of the distortion of labels and ideologies (at least in the informal/casual sense) might come from. It's easy to spout crazy ideas and scream for the overthrow of a system when you don't have a dog in the fight (so long as your government checks keep coming).

Just my $0.02, and thinking out loud, FWIW.

[downer]

Significant portions of the Republican party support authoriatianism, they are undermining democratic voting in as many ways as they can invent, they are openly anti-intellectual and anti-science, they threaten the free press, they have mobs inflicting violence on the rest of the population, they have militias around the country, and they are openly racist. There's also a large cult of personality, which has long been associated with fascist movements. Some call it proto-fascist, or have other names for it. I think fascist fits perfectly well. It is a provocative term, to be sure. But it is also descriptive.

[mahagonny]

Significant portions of the Republican party support authoriatianism, they are undermining democratic voting in as many ways as they can invent, they are openly anti-intellectual and anti-science, they threaten the free press, they have mobs inflicting violence on the rest of the population, they have militias around the country, and they are openly racist. There's also a large cult of personality, which has long been associated with fascist movements. Some call it proto-fascist, or have other names for it. I think fascist fits perfectly well. It is a provocative term, to be sure. But it is also descriptive.

Show me someone who's openly racist on the right. If you even can I am pretty sure they are marginal and impotent.

ETA: Being is disagreement with what some intellectuals are promoting is not the same as being anti-intellectual. An intellectual is simply someone whose professional product is ideas. These ideas can range from constructive and timely to stupid, fantastic all the way down to pernicious.

[kaysixteen]

'fascism' and 'socialism', hell even 'libertarianism' are overused terms that are often sloppily defined, or even redefined out of all resemblance to their traditional meanings, but at least all three of these do have recognized dictionary -definition meanings, whereas coinages such as 'woke' and 'neo-Marxism', not so much.

Ideas have consequences, and words mean things.   Sadly, in our increasingly non-reader dumbed-down country, more and more people do not have the intellectual wherewithal and knowledge base to credibly interact with people and groups/ institutions who are promulgating lies and half-truths.   And this is getting us people like Trump, and perhaps who knows who worse than him after him....

[Kron3007]

One issue is that the right is not united.  They are not libertarianism or fascism, but include both elements in an uneasy union.

Anti-abortion and the war on drugs are not libertarian, bit staples of the repubs.  The Republicans consistently increase spending despite their stated beliefs, so they are not even conservative in many ways.  As a whole, I don't know that they can be easily defined since they include so many different ideologies that only align together because there is some overlap.

[apl68]

One issue is that the right is not united.  They are not libertarianism or fascism, but include both elements in an uneasy union.

Anti-abortion and the war on drugs are not libertarian, bit staples of the repubs.  The Republicans consistently increase spending despite their stated beliefs, so they are not even conservative in many ways.  As a whole, I don't know that they can be easily defined since they include so many different ideologies that only align together because there is some overlap.

You're right--it should never be forgotten that both the "right" and the "left" in American politics are very heterogeneous groupings.  A lot of alliances of convenience between people who often don't have a lot in common and don't really approve of each other.  Nobody who tries to tar either of these amorphous groupings all with the same brush is being anything like fair.

One thing that should be concerning us is the great rise in the number of people who feel deeply alienated by what they see happening in our society.  I've heard people of all persuasions saying variations of "This doesn't feel like my country anymore."  We've always had people who felt like this wasn't really their country, or like they didn't really belong in our society.  We've never had a time when this feeling was so widespread.  How can a democratic society operate effectively if most people in it feel--for whatever reasons--like they don't have any ownership of it?

[mahagonny]

How can a democratic society operate effectively if most people in it feel--for whatever reasons--like they don't have any ownership of it?

By voting out the party with the unpopular ideas, as appears imminent for next November.

[marshwiggle]

One thing that should be concerning us is the great rise in the number of people who feel deeply alienated by what they see happening in our society.  I've heard people of all persuasions saying variations of "This doesn't feel like my country anymore."  We've always had people who felt like this wasn't really their country, or like they didn't really belong in our society.  We've never had a time when this feeling was so widespread.  How can a democratic society operate effectively if most people in it feel--for whatever reasons--like they don't have any ownership of it?

Both the right and left contribute to this.
The right contributes by opposing immigration, suggesting that this isn't "their country".
The left contribute by talking about "systemic" racism, sexism, etc. so they're (theoretically sympathetically) telling most people "sorry, but this wasn't meant to be 'your country', and the system is designed to make sure it never is."

It's no wonder people feel disengaged. The only reasonable emotions are anger or despair.

[mahagonny]

One thing that should be concerning us is the great rise in the number of people who feel deeply alienated by what they see happening in our society.  I've heard people of all persuasions saying variations of "This doesn't feel like my country anymore."  We've always had people who felt like this wasn't really their country, or like they didn't really belong in our society.  We've never had a time when this feeling was so widespread.  How can a democratic society operate effectively if most people in it feel--for whatever reasons--like they don't have any ownership of it?

Both the right and left contribute to this.
The right contributes by opposing immigration, suggesting that this isn't "their country".
The left contribute by talking about "systemic" racism, sexism, etc. so they're (theoretically sympathetically) telling most people "sorry, but this wasn't meant to be 'your country', and the system is designed to make sure it never is."

It's no wonder people feel disengaged. The only reasonable emotions are anger or despair.

Who are the people that oppose immigration, and what are their methods? I'm not aware of any. Having laws in place for a process of legal immigration is enabling immigration, not opposing it. (Although if you claim you're against illegal immigration, but hire illegal immigrants, well...)