I am working on a comprehensive essay where I am stripping away all 'post-modern' the euphomisms and lay bare the revolutionary rhetoric and political actions of what is called the "conservative movement" which is bull$#!t, they are radicals seeking to force a revolutionary change and reorder society. Political Scientists and historical scholars will recognize this as a deep cultural revolutionary effort by a minority attempting to impose their radicalism by force on the rest of society.
Fascism as studied by scholars recognized it as such a revolution from the political Right attempting to reorder society through a political movement within a representative government at a time of crisis where the legislative governance was dysfunctional in address the needs of a dynamic modern society faced with troubling economics and perceived external and domestic threats. Fascism also requires heightened nationalism and something else a form of social bigotry, be it racism or other ethnic prejudice. It also seeks to go back into time and resurrect the mythical national ideal as the pathway towards purifying society towards the desired utopia.
Don't discount that what manifested itself in 20th Century Europe could not re-emerge in a New World form and style in the U.S. society. Our history and social track is different than the old continent and nationalism can take different shapes and sizes where in America we once had two nations----one free and the other a slave society. The symbols and mystique of the Confederacy still remain embedded in our dual society but are forms of nationalism. Heighted sub-nationalism is also apparent in the Tea Party movement with its own symbols and mythical beliefs. All these actions and words are fascist in reality---an American flavor all its own.
But the most prevalent manifestation is the political one that demands "no compromise". When Mourdock fresh of his giddy slaying of the old guard Richard Lugar that says that his definition of "compromise" meant that Democrats would have to come around the the right's way of thinking he meant that the Democrats and society must be reordered and forced or persuaded to his revolutionary and radical ideology.
"What I've said about compromise and bipartisanship is I hope to build a conservative majority in the United States Senate so that bipartisanship becomes Democrats joining Republicans to roll back the size of government, reduce the bureaucracy, lower taxes and get American moving again," Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock told CNN on Tuesday.
"What I hear you say is you are not going to compromise," CNN host Soledad O'Brien observed. "In fact, the only compromise you'll do is really getting other people on the other side of the aisle to your side of the aisle, which I guess is the definition against compromise."
"It is the definition of political effectiveness," Mourdock replied.
"The fact is you never compromise on principles," Mourdock explained. "If people on the far left have a principle they want to stand by, they should never compromise. Those of us on the right should not either. Compromise may come in the finer details of a plan or a budget."
"We are at the point where one side of the other will win this argument," he added. "One side or the other will dominate."
Fascists never can or will compromise as I will prosecute in detail later but Joseph Goebbels wrote in his memoirs as he defined the nature of the revolutionary in 1945 as Germany faced defeat:
“[I]n common with all fascists, had always condemned half-measures as typically bourgeois and anti-revolutionary…now defined as ‘revolutionary’ those who would accept no compromise in scorched earth policy…”