Yes, let's do that side-by-side comparison of the two political parties.

Merriam-Webster defines fascism as:

"A political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascist) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, enforceable suppression of opposition."

Let's take those one at a time:

"exalts nation" – Would that be the same as "patriotic" or, dare I say, "America first"? Yeah, I think Republicans can claim that mantle. It's hard to find one policy of the Biden Administration that has been better for America than other countries. Our main adversaries, China and Russia, have benefited the most. I'm sure Putin couldn't stop smiling when President Biden gifted him what may turn out to be the most beneficial geopolitical weapon of the early 21st Century. The Nordstream 2 pipeline enriches the Russian economy, denies our Ukrainian allies valuable transit fees, and allows Putin to threaten Western Europe with freezing to death if they oppose some policy/threat/action of Russia.

China maintains a stranglehold on rare-earth metals necessary to power the batteries for electric cars anthropogenic global warming theory believers imagine in our future. There has been little to no pushback from the Biden Administration over China's human rights abuses, specifically their treatment of the Uighurs. Nor has President Biden had any success (if he's even tried) at determining the origins of the Wuhan Flu and China's culpability (or not) in the worldwide pandemic so destructive to the planet. Speaking of the planet, the Biden Administration is so concerned about that "existential threat" they were willing to sign on to an agreement that allows China to continue to pollute at or more than current levels until 2030. Sure, China made some "agreements" to get green sooner. While at the same time they are investing in NEW coal-fired power plants. One would have to be pretty naïve to think they would make that investment and then abandon them.

"and often race above the individual" – Rarely does any policy, law, or discussion championed by Democrats NOT involve race. Joe Biden LITERALLY made race (and gender) a criteria for his Vice President. Qualifications of being beneficial for the country apparently ranked down the list. I mean, look at how she's performed.

Republicans, on the other hand, put individual rights first without regard to race. They pay reverence to our "Bill of Rights" regardless of race. Democrats would deny individuals exercising their right to practice their religion (if it conflicted with some "woke" agenda item), deny the people the Right to Bear Arms for their protection while Democrat politicians and celebrities surround themselves with armed security. Ironically (or maybe intentionally), Democrat policies when it comes to enforcing the rule of law harm individuals, possibly the races of which they are so obsessed and they claim to support, the most. Democrats celebrate censorship by their "Big Tech" allies when it helps their candidate get elected (I know Big Tech isn't government; but they operate with government protection because they promised NOT to censor).

Democrats OWN that one.

"and that stands for a centralized autocratic government" – Republican policies tend to push decisions down to the state. You know, "federalism" as envisioned by the Founders. Democrats have never met or proposed a policy that didn't grow government or empower Washington bureaucrats to make supposedly better decisions than tens of millions of American citizens. Do you want an incandescent lightbulb. Too bad, government says you must buy an LED. Do you want that healthy turd to go down in one flush? Too bad, government says you must buy a low-flow toilet. Do you want to become an entrepreneur and start your own business? Too bad, the government says "render unto Caesar" and pay your license fee, attend a "certified school" to teach you to do what you already know how to do (no, I'm not writing about doctors, architects, etc.). Do you like your health insurance coverage? Too bad, the government says your covered needs to include services and items you will never need or use.

Democrats LITERALLY just this Congress passed legislation on an absolute if not near partisan basis to strip states of their power to manage elections (as stipulated in the Constitution) and empower politicians and bureaucrats in the federal government with that responsibility.

Name the Republican policy or law that centralized and autocratic. I'll wait…

Democrats OWN that one as well.

"headed by a dictatorial leader" – Oh, I know, Donald Trump was a wannabe dictator. It's an absolute truism for the left. But, if he was a "wannabe", he wasn't very successful. Can you name an aspect of dictatorial powers President Trump used to make the country do his bidding? Did he try to make everyone wear MAGA hats? Did he decree that ALL golf courses were now Trump golf courses?

No, and any moves he wished to make were countered by those who were tasked to implement and refused. The system worked.

Who counters President Biden's dictatorial mandates? Well, the Judicial Branch has had something to say about vaccine mandates. You can't get much more dictatorial than President Biden trying to mandate that businesses employing more than 100 people must mandate the jab and face daunting testing costs or fire their employees who refuse the jab (regardless of reason).

I will call that one a tossup.

"severe economic and social regimentation" – It's hard for me to get a handle on what this means. I will go with it to mean complying with economic and social "expectations" and punishing those that do not comply. It's sort of like when the Obama/Biden Administration tried to use the banking community through Operation Chokepoint to deny banking services to unfavorable (to Democrats) business activities like gun sellers, payday loan shops, etc.

But there is no better example of the "regimentation" demanded of Democrats than cancel culture. Contradict "Saint Fauci" and Democrats demand Big Tech limit your social media reach or include "caveats" to ensure the Party Line reigns supreme. Are you a Conservative/Republican of color? Democrat allies in the media smear your good name with unfavorable labels while Democrats in Congress deny your inclusion in the "Congressional Black Caucus". If you dare challenge any aspect of the LGBTQ agenda, Democrats and their media allies will attack relentlessly. If you once liked a Tweet that someone "warps" into being racist or had anything questionable in your social media even if years old, Democrats will forever stain you with the label "racist" or "homophobe" or something similar. Unless, of course, you are a Democrat ally like MSNBC's Joy Ann Reid who issued non-apology apologies for such comments and was quickly forgiven.

Another one for Democrats…

"and forcible suppression of opposition" – I know Democrats will hit Republicans with the bogeyman of alleged "voter suppression" here. I'm just unclear of what things when it comes to voting Democrats WOULDN'T consider suppression. A state can't have voter ID laws because of Democrats soft bigotry of low expectations that POC are generally incapable of acquiring a type of ID they need to get many jobs, to access many social services, to buy alcohol, to board a plane, to attend one of Michelle Obama's book signings, to enter any federal government building, etc. Similarly, states can't require voter ID to request an absentee ballot. States can't limit the length of time to vote to less than weeks or even months for those same soft bigotry of low expectation reasons. If states want to limit the number of drop boxes to areas that can be secured to better ensure chain-of-custody of those ballots, not allowed, suppression. This isn't about the Big Lie. But, with both sides ramping up rhetoric that EVERY FUTURE ELECTION is about "the survival of the Republic", aren't policies to ensure only legal votes are counted and a citizen’s ballot reaches election officials unchanged worthwhile?

I know the mantra is "no SIGNIFICANT [emphasis mine] voter fraud exists"; but how much is significant? Al Franken was elected to the Senate from Minnesota in 2008 on the slimmest of margins and credible investigations revealed he was most likely lifted to victory by felons voting illegally. Insignificant? Franken provided the vote margin needed to pass Obamacare.

But, what about Democrats "forcible suppression of opposition". An excellent current example is Nancy Pelosi denying participation by Republicans appointed to the committee investigating January 6. Can't risk upsetting the narrative. Can't risk uncomfortable questions being raised. How about Democrats trying to forcibly silence Senators Manchin and Sinema from voting against bills they feel are bad for their constituents?

I've already discussed Democrat's general glee when their Big Tech allies forcibly suppress conservative positions or opinions that are counter to the Democrat's preferred narrative. The media malpractice of suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story prior to the 2020 election was egregious. Conservatives are de-platformed, de-monetized, and their reach is artificially (yet DELIBERATELY) limited by Democrat's social media allies for violating nebulous "community standards". Terrorists, dictators, and race baiters are given free reign to spout their hate on those same platforms.

How many times have prominent Democrats called for packing the Supreme Court because ostensibly Justices appointed by Democrat Presidents have completely different interpretations of the same Constitution as those appointed by Republican Presidents. This is partially explained by originalist Justices generally appointed by Republicans and "living document" Justices generally appointed by Democrats. But which are more intransigent? The "living document" Justices almost always vote as a bloc, whereas the "originalists" sometimes judge with the "living document" crowd. Even still, some Democrats wish to suppress opinions of the "originalists" by court packing.

Similarly, because Democrats are unable to garner the 60 votes in the Senate needed to invoke cloture by compromising on legislation with their Republican counterparts, they want to end the Senate filibuster and suppress that opposition. I've heard the arguments: we control both houses of Congress and the Chief Executive therefore we have a mandate. Control in the Senate is by definition the slimmest of margins and Democrat's majority in the House was NARROWED in the last election, not expanded. That's no mandate.

It's hard to find a desire to use raw power to forcibly suppress opposition more insidious than those two examples.

I will generously call that one a tossup as well.

So, what's the final tally:

Republicans – outright ownership of one definitional fascist characteristic

Democrats – outright ownership of three definitional fascist characteristics

Republicans and Democrats – display similar fascist characteristics in two categories

According to my analysis, Democrats are the actual party of fascism.

Change my mind.