EDIT: after thinking about it for a couple of hours, my take was really bad, and i'm gonna clarify:

There is significant difference between the republicans and the non-republicans in the US, which is that the republicans are extremely racist. And that's not just a "little bit of racist", but a "fucking huge bit of racist", on top of that. So there's a clear distinction.

As a side fact, i'd still like to point out that "fascism" as a term is surprisingly difficult to define. Everybody likes to be "against" fascism, but it's an emotional catch-phrase without a cut-and-dry definition. That's why i tend to avoid it in discussion, or if i do use it, i give it the following meaning: "Fascism is an illegal way of seizing power in order to do something that you want." Note that illegal does not inherently imply immoral. There can be moral causes for why somebody does something illegal, such as with slave uprisings as happened around 1800 in northern america. That, according to my definition, is illegal (in the sense that the law said it's illegal), but not immoral, but since the definition of "fascism", according to me, concerns whether it's illegal to do something, not immoral, it would have been fascist too, by that definition. That's to show that fascism is not inherently good or evil, but it depends on what you do with it.

the original comment is below for historical purposes

I used to think that "left" and "right" were diametrically opposed terms, but i don't see it that way anymore:

• imperialism: Imperialism means to conquer other countries for the sake of imposing your own norms and values on them. That's actually what the northern states of the US did to the southern states of the US before they became the US. sure, lots of people argue that the values were worthwhile (being against slavery), but it's still imposing your values on somebody else.
• fascism: at this point, i'm not sure what "fascism" even means anymore. isn't it just to do something illegal to get what you want? isn't every change in human history illegal, before it becomes the new norm? wasn't it illegal for gay people to stand for their rights in the 20th century?
• because it's a recent topic, i'd like to give another neat example: liberals from the coastline will loudly proclaim that the conservative "child marriage" (starting at age 14) laws are a monstrosity (because that's, idk, child abuse or sth), but at the same time, you will find in many schools in the coastside a subject called "sex education" where people learn to use condoms and such. such classes are typically held at about age 13 or sth (well, it was for me). guess why they do it? because they recognize that teenagers do in fact have desires to experiment with sexuality, and offering the courses is simply recognizing that and making the best out of it. [EDIT - ok nvm this point, i don't actually know exactly what the "child marriage" laws say precisely, and i'm not aware how they're actually interpreted in practice, so i guess this point is void.]