Hmm... Fascism is an emotionally charged word that doesn't hold very much meaning these days. Really, all it takes is to call someone a "Fascist" and immediately images of nazi concentration camps crop up in the mind of the listener.
I studied italian fascism and did three reports on the subject at St. Mary's university. I'll admit, my understanding of the subject is far from that of a PhD professor's, but I do know a few things.
Italian fascism didn't get it's start as a specific political ideology, but rather a blending of extremely energetic patriotism and a glorification of conflict between nations in the form of war. At the time, Italy was not a unified nation state like england or germany, but rather a backwater amalgamation of different leaders in different areas.
It followed that the climate of the time was when other nations were undergoing rapid developments in patriotism, and there was also the whole "new world" movement that declared that the new world was about competition between nation-states.
It was under this atmosphere that italian writers picked up on the idea of a newly unified italy. The idea was reminiscent of a resurrection of the Roman Empire, and thus a resurrectioin of italian greatness.
At the time, there were many groups representing political ideologies such as marxism and liberalism(which, at the time, were diametrically opposed to each other). Historically, the rise of the fascist party happened in itally because of the lack of appeal of the other ideologicaly based groups in italy.
For example, communism appeals to downtrodden workers in a capitalistic environment. And liberalism required a much more educated populace than was current at the time to take root. Thus, neither of the major ideologies were elected to the newly unified italy 5 years later.
Fascism, on the other hand, did not appeal to an actual ideological structure as much as it appealed to sentiments of the greatness of the italian people, and the glory of war and strife. Such a populistic platform quickly gained popularity, and to make a long story short, mussolini rose to the top.
Some other aspects of italian fascism were it's reflection of mythological motifs in the modern world. This was mirrored in Nazism, with the glorification of the swastika, which was a rune used in druid-like cultures, I believe. There are other pieces of mythological imagery on the other side, as well, such as the color red and the myths of tabula rasa in communism.
But like I was saying, Fascism in itself never ammounted to a de-facto embracement of either left or right ideology. Sure, italian fascism applied what would today be called conservative capitalistic policy upon italy. But this was contingent upon the capitalistic system serving italian supremist goals and war policies. If not, mussolini had no problem with collectivising an industry to suit his needs, though this did not happen due to the police state and culture of fear in the country.
Now then, I do not think we should be wary of fascism as an ideology, but it is without a doubt harmful to american democracy to believe in the supremacy of one group over the other, as well as to believe in the elimination of minority rights, both of which were aspects of italian fascism.
Both this conservative talk-radio host and the democratic Fred phelps seem to identify with just such populistic and harmful diatribes. I would not want either one of them to have much sway in the government.
It is important, however, to allow minority rights, which is the basis of a democratic system. That is the inherent danger in allowing the common people to decide who get's elected and who doesn't. Because it is perfectly legal and possible to elect people like Fred phelps into office. The danger is always there, and that is an inevitable consequence of allowing minority rights.
I think, thus, that it is important to allow conservative talk show hosts to speak their mind, even if they are in the minority. There is always the danger that their ideologies will become the majority. But that is what america is about: debate, and supporting the right of opponents to express alternate views. It is a serious undermining of democratic processes to arrest someone for speaking an alternative viewpoint.
And while I understand that he was inciting violence, it would be very easy for the politicians in power to eliminate any radio host or dissenter under the pretext that some people might take it as a call to violence.
