I appreciate your response. I agree that these are important discussions (even between mere mortals as ourselves) but I enjoy them. It's a relief not to be labeled and dismissed after presenting disagreement.

Perhaps I painted too broadly with 'A movement rooted in nationalistic pride, xenophobic fear, Christian relativism, and bigoted culture hardly exemplifies the Liberal mindset, regardless of what Age you pluck it from for inspection.' While Italy's original brand of fascism wasn't strictly xenophobic, the propagandists did employ the glory of the Roman Empire to justify (or whatever you may call it) their ascent to power which is nationalistic and those concepts are adjacent. It's also true that Italy didn't seek and remove 'undesirables' until Mussolini deferred to Hitler, but that didn't change the identity of the ruling party, did it? In the end, you're right. Fascism is difficult to concisely pin down and I'll admit my understanding comes from various sources with contradictions.

I agree there were other factors which gave rise to Fascist regimes in Europe in the 1920's and 30's. For instance, the looming threat of Stalin's USSR in the midst of worldwide Depression most certainly kept much of Europe awake at night. Indeed, Fascists regarded Communists as their mortal enemies, politically speaking. And the Spanish Civil War gave both ideologies the opportunity to demonstrate this.

My point is that culturalism is a complex machine and there is no one specific cause for society's descent or ascent. However, in the instances you're highlighting in your post, I cannot agree that university dissidence holds a candle to those other factors. Yes, it's interesting to note, but I wouldn't label them as 'important' in their relationship to the rise of fascism.

I like your point about Christian America in the 1960's being nearly absolute though somewhat divided, but that does not change the fact that White, Christian America held a sense of 'Mandate of Heaven' when it came to their policies of oppression at worst and exclusion at best when it came to non-whites.

In my view, the parallels you attempt to draw between the 'then and now' is interesting but has little solid footing. Now, I'm in complete agreement that today's angsty youth have essentially lost their minds when it comes to protecting the rights and feelings of others at the expense of freedom of expression and speech, regardless of how vile or baseless. It's disturbing.

And I will agree that it is contributing to the attitudes of nativism and anti-intellectualism growing among Trump and the Far Right's base. But I'll disagree that it carries any more weight than a manufactured excuse for Reactionaries. Afterall, the Far Right's been moving the needle further and further from the Center for a while now, ever since the rise of Evangelicals and their Conservative Coalition back in the 80s and 90s. The outcry against PC culture has been around a long time. These are all conditions already in place and primed for a cult of personality like Trump to rise to power. 'America First' resonates with the nativist/isolationist impulses of those who proudly subscribe to 'alternative facts' and refute substantiated news outlets. This is much more disturbing than some angry kids who've yet to earn a living.

While Trump may not be a nativist, per se (I believe his Rhetoric suggests he is), his base has at least embraced the nativist innuendo. He's done little to clarify his message but to simply attack his opponents with simplistic, antagonizing language via Twitter. You'll have a difficult time convincing me that his goal isn't to consolidate his support. The immigration question is a fascinating one and there are legitimate, opposing viewpoints on how best to approach the issue. And the issue as well as wretched sentiment of bigotry and disdain for The Other has been around for a long time. But there's been a consistent rise in acts and rhetoric stemming from this base that summons the recollections of many survivors of those Fascist regimes you referred to in the original post.

Trump's economic policy is irrational. Sure, there may be some short and even long term benefits for some, but he's ignoring reality, or at least pretending to and duping his support. Automation has cost jobs. Technology and innovation has rendered the frail and inefficient hands of humans obsolete and costly. Yet he's implemented tariffs to save 30k jobs while industries supporting over 200k jobs suffers (not to mention the consumer). That's not rational. That's appealing to the basic instincts of his base after he's discredited any institution or organization that opposes him. The United States can either participate in the world's economy or retract from it. He's in favor of isolationism, at least in sentiment. And while I'll certainly agree that previous policy has created the conditions for his 'unbelievable strategy', his solution is folly.

I grew up in North Jersey. My family and friends' families were in the trades and unions. They despised him for the simple reason that he hired people to do work then stiffed them on the bill. He could outspend them in court so recourse was limited. Forgive the anecdotal note, but that's relevant to his personality which holds little regard for consequences to others. He opened a casino and went bankrupt (honestly... how the hell does that happen?). Twice. Then he stiffed his creditors. He revived his real estate dealings, mostly overseas, and developed relationships with others in the oligarch class where little regard for the law or scrutiny was possible and easy. The point being that he's more than capable of this amateur hour real politik he's attempting to play.

Granted, I'm no economist nor a sociologist, or a historian. But I'm a pragmatist. I don't strictly adhere to any one particular ideology. I try to balance compassion with common sense. While your assertions have heightened my awareness of these dangers from the youthful Left, I've also realized that there's more work to be done to highlight the much more substantial dangers of Trump's conservatism.

Again, thank you for your response and I look forward to more of your posts.