Your essay is a fine compendium of Trump's foolishness, but, with all due respect, you are wrong about this point:
" ... a second plank of the Trump doctrine is that US security interests are supreme and must be achieved at all costs. The main purpose of the state in his view is the provision of what he calls security. Again, this conception of the government is a fascist one.."
This is not inherently "fascist" but is in fact the guiding principle of foreign policy --explicit or not--- of most governments, regardless of ideology. National security was the principle justification for Bush invading Iraq, just as it was for Roosevelt allying with Stalin during WW II. It has been used by modern statesmen to justify torture, spying, and blockades and sanctions that harm innocent civilians abroad. Many a conservative would tell you that government's main role should be to provide "security" for the nation and society. Many a Democratic politician has justified our support of coups and authoritarian regimes in the name of "national security." It is Obama's justification for supporting the government's authority to spy on its own citizens. Most governments, regardless of official ideology, will often put morals, civil rights and fairness aside when it comes to "national security." You may agree or disagree with these policies, but they are not confined to fascists. As a British historian once said, "in the service of their country men will commit crimes that would shame a buccaneer."
Your essay is a fine compendium of Trump's foolishness, but, with all due respect, you are wrong about this point:
" ... a second plank of the Trump doctrine is that US security interests are supreme and must be achieved at all costs. The main purpose of the state in his view is the provision of what he calls security. Again, this conception of the government is a fascist one.."
This is not inherently "fascist" but is in fact the guiding principle of foreign policy --explicit or not--- of most governments, regardless of ideology. National security was the principle justification for Bush invading Iraq, just as it was for Roosevelt allying with Stalin during WW II. It has been used by modern statesmen to justify torture, spying, and blockades and sanctions that harm innocent civilians abroad. Many a conservative would tell you that government's main role should be to provide "security" for the nation and society. Many a Democratic politician has justified our support of coups and authoritarian regimes in the name of "national security." It is Obama's justification for supporting the government's authority to spy on its own citizens. Most governments, regardless of official ideology, will often put morals, civil rights and fairness aside when it comes to "national security." You may agree or disagree with these policies, but they are not confined to fascists. As a British historian once said, "in the service of their country men will commit crimes that would shame a buccaneer."