Stupid Article: Neo-Fascism

I'm going to start writing about stupid articles: articles with multiple issues, that I don't know where to start debunking them. Often these are extremely biased, to the point of simply being wrong.

Here's the first one:
http://observer.com/2017/05/what-is-neo-fascism-democrats-mussolini/

1. Since when is Donald Trump "progressive"?
   
2. The author likes to use the original definition of fascism: All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. Sounds like the perfect summary of Donald Trump's "America First" inauguration speech.
   
3. Does this sound more like American traditionalists, with their focus on small government, or the Democrats, who seek to unconstitutionally centralize and aggregate ever more power? This is flawed in so many ways:
   
   1. Democrats didn't do things like the PATRIOT act that expanded government powers, the Republicans did.
      
   2. Democrats want corporations to be held accountable, but give humans autonomy and choice.
      
   3. Republicans want to control facets of human lives, such as who they can marry and what forms of contraception are appropriate, whereas letting the corporations do whatever they want without punishment (the BP "spill", anyone)?
      
   4. Whistleblower protection act, affordable healthcare: Democrat. Protects individuals.
      
   5. NSA spying, CPB unconstitutional searches, bans of traveling from other countries: Republican. Harms individuals.
      
4. Mussolini also once said, "I declare that henceforth capital and labor shall have equal rights and duties as brothers in the fascist family." Is this reminiscent of American conservatives and their emphasis on economic freedom or the class warfare and regulatory tyranny of our left?
   
   1. see above on regulations on people vs corporations
      
5. The Italian additionally stated in 1924, "God does not exist—religion in science is an absurdity, in practice an immorality and in men a disease." Does this sound more like a party known for its "Christian Right" or one whose standard bearer once derided Middle America for clinging to "religion"?
   
   1. Religion and science have entirely different purposes, they neither contradict each other nor can be substituted. Anytime you try to use one where you should use the other, you're being ridiculous. The Republicans seem to think the two are interchangeable, while Democrats recognize the difference.
      
6. He’d hung up the phone. And that’s what happens when you’re hung up on an ideology that may not be quite as "liberal" as you’d like to fancy.
   
   1. He probably hung up because he was tired of trying to reason with people that can't; to use logic with those who are incapable of thinking logically.