Since Huey Long is so often mentioned in connection with American fascism, it might be worthwhile to quote the judgment of James Weinstein: "Of all the 1930s radical politicians, Louisiana Governor Huey Pierce Long Jr. was by far the most successful. A charismatic figure, he is often mistakenly remembered as the first American dictator or the first great native fascist. As his biographer T. Harry Williams wrote, Long was in fact a uniquely democratic politician who had nothing in common with the dictators except their popularity. As a consistent champion of working people and an implacable enemy of the corporate monopolies and Eastern banks, he commanded one of the largest mass followings in the country. "
https://books.google.com/books?id=pYHeUBZzCDYC&pg=PT105
Indeed, Long was truly a populist, but calling him a fascist or quasi-fascist displays a lack of understanding of what fascism truly is. He pursued heavily populist policies, and he did brake some typically "democratic system" rules, but politicians do that all the time, just in more conventionally accepted ways (meaning ruling minority-friendly, like gerrymandering).
Sarahz & all,
My oh my, but it seems my observation did strike a nerve or two.
Note please, that I did not call FDR a Fascist. I did however, observe the number of things which the public accepted during those years which even today still seem an exceptional overreach of government control and intrusion of the rights and freedoms of individuals.
Thus it's apparent how "ripe" the nation was then for such a regime to arise - if it was "properly" framed / sold to the American public.
The way you frased it realy made it look like you were saying his government was akin to fascism in its policies. However, now that you explained what you meant, I can say I agree with what is quoted here.
-----
IMO any break with the system of the rule of said-democratic law in the united states would require the heavy involvement of elements of the military and ideologically-friendly big business (henry ford is the classic example). Any attempt by populist fascist militias to seize power one way or another would be crushed by the institutions of the system, as it would represent a threat to those very interest groups that I just mentioned. So in the way I see it, any fascist or fascist-like regime in the United States would be more of the institutionalist manner, not fully personalist like with Mussolini or specially Hitler. I think american fascism would be highly socially conservative, probably protestant\WASP-dominated, supported by the military and by major financiers and industrialists. Come to think of it, it quite resembles Hitler's rise to power by allying himself with traditional right-wing forces in Germany, only to later eclipse and dominate them (this 2nd part I believe would not happen in the USofA).
To me, the biggest chance for something like that to happen in the United States would be a nastier WW1, maybe a German kaiserreich-like victory, which ends up with the indebted nations of the war breaking their financial compromises with America, leading to an even bigger breakdown of the financial system in this timeline's Great Depression. This could lead to a much more widespread infiltration of syndicalist and communist ideology in the american proletariat, maybe a more legitimately leftist candidate being supported by a major party (democrats I suppose), and then said right-wing elements of the economy and politics conspire with members of the military to create what would initially be called a temporary system of exception, to "cleanse" the nation of un-american, socialist elements. Also, I believe a fascist USA would at first be heavily isolationist, as blame would be placed on international and particularly european political meddling for the ensuing crysis that would gripe the United States ITTL. Actually, I just might write my first timeline based on this idea
