> By what measure were Spain, Italy, and Germany "mature democracies"
> before WWII?
I agree with this, but I think this whole argument has sort of lost the plot. Why are we arguing about the Tea Baggers' potential for "fascism" in the first place, rather than, say, their potential for "Reaganism"? Presumably because fascism is scarier than Reaganism, since it means destroying constitutional democracy.
So that's the real issue. None of us doubts that Tea Baggers, if put in power, would do a lot of awful things. But it only makes sense to call those things fascist if you believe that given the opportunity, they would cancel elections and carry out a Gleichschaltung. Does anyone believe that? Can anyone name a single prominent politician or writer associated with the Tea Baggers who's said we should dispense with elections and install a Great Leader because elections divide the volk or because the wrong parties might win? If not, the fascist warnings ring a little hollow.
SA