H Res 888 and fascism in todays politics...

Was watching Fox News yesterday, and they had a piece on fascism. Last week, (I think it was last week) I heard someting about H Res 888. Wasn't exactly sure what the ideology entailed, or the gest of the House resolution, so I looked 'em both up. Pretty interesting, and very insightful. (if you can muddle through all of that text, with no pictures.)

GovTrack: H. Res. 888: Text of Legislation
"Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history and expressing support for designation of the first week in May as `American Religious History Week' for the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith."

Daily Kos: [updated w/action item] STOP HOUSE RESOLUTION 888 !
"So, this new resolution - which I'd characterize as "hard Christian nationalist" might just have a shot because Democratic Party politicians are terrified of being tarred as "anti-Christian" and they lack the political advisers who can tell them how to effectively deflect such attacks. So, they tend to vote as, at least, "soft" Christian nationalists regardless of their personal religious views."
Yeah, it's not like democrats would ever be christians.

http://www.angelfire.com/tx5/ara/pde/facism.html
Fascism:
"Scholars disagree over how to define the basic elements of fascism. Marxist historians and political scientists (that is, those who base their approach on the writings of German political theorist Karl Marx) view fascism as a form of politics that is cynically adopted by governments to support capitalism and to prevent a socialist revolution. These scholars have applied the label of fascism to many authoritarian regimes that came to power between World War I and World War II, such as those in Portugal, Austria, Poland, and Japan. Marxist scholars also label as fascist some authoritarian governments that emerged after World War II, including regimes in Argentina, Chile, Greece, and South Africa.

Some non-Marxist scholars have dismissed fascism as a form of authoritarianism that is reactionary, responding to political and social developments but without any objective beyond the exercise of power. Some of these scholars view fascism as a crude, barbaric form of nihilism, (Nihilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) asserting that it lacks any coherent ideals or ideology. Many other historians and political scientists agree that fascism has a set of basic traitsâ??a fascist minimumâ??but tend to disagree over what to include in the definition. Scholars disagree, for example, over issues such as whether the concept of fascism includes Nazi Germany and the Vichy regime (the French government set up in southern France in 1940 after the Nazis had occupied the rest of the country).

Beginning in the 1970s, some historians and political scientists began to develop a broader definition of fascism, and by the 1990s many scholars had embraced this approach. This new approach emphasizes the ways in which fascist movements attempt revolutionary change and their central focus on popularizing myths of national or ethnic renewal. Seen from this perspective, all forms of fascism have three common features: anticonservatism, a myth of ethnic or national renewal, and a conception of a nation in crisis."

"Anticonservatism
Fascist movements usually try to retain some supposedly healthy parts of the nation's existing political and social life, but they place more emphasis on creating a new society. In this way fascism is directly opposed to conservatismâ??the idea that it is best to avoid dramatic social and political change. Instead, fascist movements set out to create a new type of total culture in which values, politics, art, social norms, and economic activity are all part of a single organic national community. In Nazi Germany, for example, the fascist government in the 1930s tried to create a new Volksgemeinschaft (people's community) built around a concept of racial purity. A popular culture of Nazi books, movies, and artwork that celebrated the ideal of the so-called new man and new woman supported this effort. With this idealized people's community in mind, the government created new institutions and policies (partly as propaganda) to build popular support. But the changes were also an attempt to transform German society in order to overcome perceived sources of national weakness. In the same way, in Italy under Mussolini the government built new stadiums and held large sporting events, sponsored filmmakers, and financed the construction of huge buildings as monuments to fascist ideas. Many scholars therefore conclude that fascist movements in Germany and Italy were more than just reactionary political movements. These scholars argue that these fascist movements also represented attempts to create revolutionary new modern states."

"Myth of National or Ethnic Renewal
Even though fascist movements try to bring about revolutionary change, they emphasize the revival of a mythical ethnic, racial, or national past. Fascists revise conventional history to create a vision of an idealized past. These mythical histories claim that former national greatness has been destroyed by such developments as the mixing of races, the rise of powerful business groups, and a loss of a shared sense of the nation. Fascist movements set out to regain the heroic spirit of this lost past through radical social transformations. In Nazi Germany, for example, the government tried to "purify" the nation by killing millions of Jews and other minority groups. The Nazis believed they could create harmonious community whose values were rooted in an imaginary past in which there were no differences of culture, "deviant" ideologies, or "undesirable" genetic traits."

These are but a few paragraphs cherry-picked from the text. I would sincerely love to hear from those among us that have actually read the text from the links provided.

I am not a political scholar, and my views are slanted by the reality of the history of the United States of America.
Having said that...Is it just me, or does the national democratic party seem to preach the fascist neocon bullshit, when in fact they themselves are practicing fascists? As I am sometimes confused by facts, please use links to support your statements. (if you can find them.) Original and intellient debate encouraged, lol.