Gary,
 
the point is that "Fascism" as a political and economic philosophy has no  
relation whatever to conservatism or classical liberalism, but its emphases 
are  more consistent with Progressive thought, especially as it developed in 
the  early 20th century.  You mention the provision of health care, 
education,  etc., but neglect eugenics as a method of social "betterment" -- and 
the  appeal was far from superficial.  Commons, Ely, Ross, to name three,  
were unabashed racists.  And remember that many Progressives favored  entry 
into World War I (John Dewey, for instance) precisely for its "cleansing"  
effects.
 
Militarism and nationalism are not defining characteristics of Fascism, any 
 more than genocide is a characteristic of Communism/Socialism in its 
various  guises (recall Stalin, Pol Pot, and others), but rather are characters  
attributable to person, time, and place.
 
To clarify my point made earlier, I return to Einzig:
 
"In the sphere of production both Fascism and Socialism aim at  planning.  
From that point of view their interests are identical, and their  common 
foes are the remaining adherents of laissez-faire.  They seek to  attain their 
end by different means.  Socialism hopes to achieve planning  by the 
nationalisation of the most important branches of production.   Fascism aims at 
planning by a combination of dictatorship and voluntary  co-operation, without 
changing the private ownership of the means of  production..  Socialism 
hopes to be able to dispense with the driving force  of individual initiative.  
Fascism regards that driving force as  indispensable as far as production is 
concerned, but it endeavours to curtail  and supplement individual 
initiative in accordance with public interest.   From this point of view, again, 
Fascism is nearer to Socialism than to  laissez-faire with its principle of 
unhampered individual initiative."  (pp.107-108)
 
My concern is with the abuse of language.  I am sure we can agree on  that 
point.
 
Charles McCann