Given the state of play in the US, it is no coincidence that fascism is being discussed. From my perspective, I agree that democracy is in danger in the US, as a result of planned, orchestrated and sustained attack. I agree that as a result, the ground has been laid for fascism. But I do not believe that the objective of these attacks is fascism, on the contrary. And I do not believe the fascism proper is either imminent or inevitable.
HOWEVER, beware the law unintended consequences.
The rich and powerful have always sought to expand their power and their wealth, at the cost of whoever. That is not new; call it a conspiracy if you want, but if so, it is one rooted in the human condition, it does not require a guiding genius. As Adam Smith put it: People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. Anyway, that is not fascism.
Fascism, Totalitarianism and Democracy
Defining fascism is a mug's game, but key characteristics are its sense of mission (cultural in the case of Italian fascism, ethnic in the case of German fascism) and its totalitarian aspiration (subordinating every aspect of life to the interests of the State). Regimes like Franco's in Spain or the colonels' regimes in Portugal and Greece were not fascist, they were "merely" authoritarian. It matters little to their victims, but an authoritarian regime is content with the acquiescence of the people, it does not seek their support. And an authoritarian regime will easily tolerate individual choices that do not endanger its power - e.g., religious freedom is tolerated or even encouraged (e.g. Saddam Hussein's Iraq), whereas for a totalitarian regime, the ideology IS the religion.
It is the need for popular support that make totalitarian ideologies a product of democracy. Communism - the totalitarian ideology on the left - emphatically believed in democracy; elections were regularly held, and thanks to the principle of "democratic centralism", regularly returned rates of approval of the Party exceeding 90%. Of course, it's not democracy in our understanding, but point is that totalitarian regimes NEED to demonstrate their "democratic" legitimacy.
Preparing the Ground
In both Italy and Germany, fascism was successful because first, democratic government was delegitimised.
In Italy - where fascism took hold shortly after WW I - the task was fairly easy. Pre-WW I democracy was not deeply rooted, only about 4% of the population had the franchise. Since an authoritarian Catholic Church forbade its adherents to vote, only about half of these - Liberals, Jews and Freemasons - actually voted and were elected. The conduct of the war by the elites in power was a shambles, the hoped-for spoils of victory eluded them. Veterans came back from the front to joblessness and economic misery.
Communism is internationalist and egalitarian in nature. It appeals to the labourer, not the bourgeois middle class - the skilled workers, the craftsmen, officials and clerks. Fascism is nationalistic and emphasises the superiority of certain individuals. For the veterans - the proud and patriotic "aristocracy of the trenches" - Communism had little or even negative attraction. Mussolini - who started off an unsuccessful socialist - found that the more nationalistic he acted, the more success he had.
In Germany, the process took longer. The German elites - the industrialists and the aristocracy - resented the democracy of the Weimar Republic, and did everything in their power to prove it did not work. The economic crisis of the 20s threatened the middle class. As in Italy, patriotic and jobless veterans resented the internationalism of the Communists.
But the German elites had no intention of instituting fascism - the totalitarian aspiration of fascism was antithetical to the interests of the industrialists, and its bizarre notion of "elite" was abhorrent to the aristocrats. But due to democracy, they had to win the popular vote, so they had to find a way to make voters vote against their own interests. They thought they had found the solution when they co-opted a rabble-rousing anti-communist no-hoper as "their" figure-head. Only, "their" man had other ideas.
Delegitimising government in America
The process of delegitimising government - the traditional elites in general - in the US is fairly far advanced. The abolition of the fairness doctrine and the rise of the Murdoch media, especially Roger Ailes' propaganda organ "Fox News", have delegitimised journalism. The relentless attacks on the science of evolution and the science of climate change have delegitimised science. Subversive writings such as Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History", or Jonah Goldberg's idiotic thesis that fascism is leftist, or Robert Bork's dishonest musings on the Constitution, or the Hegelian Orwellianism of redefining terms to mean their opposite (such as "Liberal") have delegitimised academia. Political gridlock has delegitimised Congress and the Executive. Defunding of regulatory agencies has led to failures in enforcement and delegitimised public administration. FACTS in general have been delegitimised.
Rove's Clients Don't Want Fascism...
As in Germany, all Karl Rove's clients want is to remove the obstacles to them getting richer. They have been fairly successful in getting voters to vote against their own interests: With Reagan and Dubbya, they had two presidents that fit the bill: They were personable, so with a bit of help from friends, they got elected. They were dim, gullible and easily led, but no demagogues. They obediently cut taxes on the rich, increased subsidies to big business (including military spending), gutted regulation.
But the grand slam - both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court AND the White House - has eluded them so far. Letting a Democrat be president in the wake of the worst economy since the Depression - a situation engineered by Republicans - SHOULD have given Karl Rove a slam dunk.
But things are beginning to unravel for Karl Rove. On the Supreme Court, Justice Roberts is a philosophical fellow-traveller, but apparently seems to have ideas and principles of his own - he is not an authoritarian true believer like Scalia or a willing accomplice like Thomas. In Congress, Tea Party true believers are not as malleable as they were supposed to be - as a result, the GOP has overplayed its hand and is too obviously the cause of gridlock. And in the presidential race, Rove has been saddled with Romney - who is probably also a fellow-traveller, is a junior member of the same class as Rove's clientele and certainly no demagogue, but is also not dim, not gullible, not easily led, and certainly not personable.
... but they might get it anyway
This is neither a prediction nor a dire warning of imminent doom, just an observation: The US right now presents the same fertile ground for fascism as existed in Italy and Germany. The middle class is endangered, there is a large contingent of disillusioned veterans, the traditional elites have been delegitimised. The "Christian" conservatives support authoritarian, reactionary, anti-science, anti-factual obscurantism. The Tea Party and Birthers vociferously delegitimise elected government. The cynical exploitation of Americans' genuine patriotism is there, so is the exploitation of the economic insecurity of the middle class (an insecurity deliberately created). "American exceptionalism" provides the basis for an elitist ideology in the manner of Italian fascism's abuse of the country's Roman history and heritage.
But all that does not mean that fascism is inevitable. Both France and to a lesser extent England suffered similar economic dislocations and - certainly in the case of France - delegitimisation of the elites, but did not turn fascist.
Italian fascism's totalitarianism largely remained aspirational; Mussolini comes across as a cynical power-monger, not a true believer. Mussolini co-opted the crown and re-established the Catholic Church, both core symbols of the traditional elites. Mussolini's military adventures would have ended in failure had Germany not bailed him out - otherwise, he would have been delegitimised himself. Italians never developed the fervour Germans did - as Mussolini said: It's not impossible to govern Italy, merely pointless.
In Germany, fascism did not succeed on its own. The NSDAP never won a democratic election. The traditional elites conspired to put fascists in power, with unintended consequences. Karl Rove is enough of a student of history not to let his clients make that mistake again.
But so far, politically active veterans tend to defend democracy, not question it. There is no obvious demagogue on the horizon. The Republican presidential contender field did not look dangerous, they appeared as a bunch of clowns. But go back and look at the descriptions applied to Mussolini and Hitler before they came to power: clowns.