The Moderate Republican

I think Jeff missed the point of the question. He is mostly correct in what he says about the neoconservative views and I agree with his arguements.
However, the question is about the republican party and not just the neocons.
Where I disagree with Jeff's view is that I think the neocons view government as a means to their foreign policy goals. That is another "good" about government.

If you asked me 3 or 4 years ago if I thought the Republican party was approaching facism I would have said "No."
But after watching the Republican Party Convention this year filled with lots of anger and hate add to that, that the moderates like Guiliani, McCain, Schwarzenegger were blindly following "the leader" and spitting out the party talking points like Rove-programmed robots made me think they were getting pretty close to facism.
The idea of a moderate Republican is all but gone. The mainstream party, which is now a fundamentalist christian/ neo conservative party, has basicially told those moderates to walk (and talk) the party line or else shut up and so far they've done it.
I used to consider myself a moderate, bluestate Republican but after seeing the people who made me choose that designation so blindly fall in line behind Bush changed my mind. The Republican party and the White House has become increasingly more hostile to any forms of dissent which has all the trademarks of a facism. I'm not saying the Republican party wants to start hauling off people to concentration camps, not at all, but the "fall in line or leave" mentality is very similar to what you see in totalitarian politcal parties like Saddam's Baath party, the East German SED, and yes even the early Nazi party.
For a party that has grown in power and supposedly broadened it's constituency and become more inclusive, it has unfortunately narrowed it's idealogy/message to the point where hearing a Republican is like hearing a tape recording. You rarely hear any criticism or expression of doubt about the leadership's policy.

We're not there yet but it seems we're moving towards it.

It seems to me that there are two parts of the fascism question: 1. is the neoconservative's worldview similar to that of a fascist, and 2. is the neoconservative's method of achieving ends in keeping with that worldview similar to that of a fascist. I would argue no to both counts.

A fascist worldview, in which the state is seen as the highest expression of humanity, is not in line with the axiomatic faith in market economies that neoconservatives hold. Many of them view the federal government as an expression of the lowest parts of humanity, and only good insofar as it protects the free market.

The area of overlap is in terms of fascism's authoritarian methods of motivating individuals and institutions to act for the ends of the state by positing a dangerous 'other'--common to authoritarian nationalist regimes on both Right and Left. But while the current administration is able to galvanize support in this manner, the power of public scrutiny still is too strong to allow another defining method of authoritarian regimes, namely, the continuous purging and promotion which keeps mid-level officials in goose step via capital carrot-and-stick incentives. What's more, (waxing and waning) congressional oversight of the executive branch continues to prevent true authoritarian methods from emerging.

So are we minimizing a threat? I would argue that while radical neoconservativism is neither fascist nor authoritarian in the historical sense, it uses methods common to nationalist movements throughout time. Unlike Weimar Germany and Czarist Russia which had no tradition of democracy as a means of governing competently and so slipped into authoritarianism when faced by real and perceived threats, our republic has withstood nationalist silliness before (Mexican war, span/american war are glaring examples).

The immediate and likely danger is that our nationalist silliness will engender more international discord and unrest before it subsides--let us not minimize that threat by being distracted by more vague fears.

Dennis, we have been having trouble posting. Something is wrong with the site.
In response to your questions; Yes. The Republican Part is becoming fascist. Or is showing fascist tendencies. The extent that you (and the American people) are ignoring or denying it is the minimization.
Remember these things are an evolving process. it starts with government secrecy. This Whitehouse is the most secretive in memory.
Then throw in a common enemy.
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Hermann Goering
Does this sound familiar?
Stir in a leader who doesn't tolerate dissent and bake for 8 years.
I don't think the Republican Party is fascist yet, but is on its way to becoming so.

I don't think the party as a whole is fascist. I think there are elements that are. The 'if you disagree with us, you are unpatriotic terrorist appeasers' crowd. Though I guess that's closer to McCarthyistic. I think the whipping up of scapegoats and boogeymen is closer to a fascist tactic because of its appeal to base populism.

I find this more dangerous than mere corruption because the McCarthyist mentality prevents any accountability that would fight against corruption.

I think the next few years will show us which option it is. There's a significant element of the party advocating the "ram it down their throats while we can" after winning a 51% majority.

"Screw the 49% who didn't vote for us because they're [immoral/unpatriotic/appeasers/hedonists/insert other appropriate invective]": if this is the mentality that prevails, then it's a lot closer to Franco than to Harding. The Harding way would try to buy off some of the 49%.