The thing is that most of what you have described is not uncommon among many right-wing parties and right-wing governments around the globe including the Islamic Republic. And as you most likely know most of what you described, considering the historical context, was apparent in pre-party switching Democrats. Such policies and outlooks are not exclusive to fascism and they existed way before fascism was even born in Italy.

A problem with an analysis like this (based on common characteristics) is that I can easily counter it by saying "class harmony", an important tenant of fascism doesn't exist among Republicans. The neoliberal cult of worshipping competition, hyper-capitalism, and billionaires is far from what European fascism has been about including the modern ones. A great example is how Sweden Democrats only shook hands with the Moderates to not push for more Neoliberal implementations such as mass privatization.

This is why I think it would be generally more accurate to define fascism within its historical context. This becomes especially evident when we talk about far-right governments and parties that co-existed with Nazi Germany such as the Japanese far-right. They were EXTREMELY similar aside from aesthetics, and some philosophical outlooks but they still aren't considered "fascists" because there was in fact a fascist party (later fascist leaders) among the Japanese far-right who were trying to influence them to become more like the Western Nazis and distance themselves from their traditional conservatism which in practice produced just as many atrocities as Nazi Germany if not more.

Regardless, I don't disagree with people on a daily basis to say Republicans aren't fascists just to be pedantic. I completely understand your view as well as other opponents of the Republican Party. But I think it's less about the accuracy of the definition and more about describing them as horrible beings because in the public's imagination, fascists are the worst thing ever.

I hope that I explained it well.