I forwarded the Reason review to a very smart friend. I think his take is generally right:

Hm. This seems a little too evenhanded to me. While others have criticized
your attempt to extend the critique of fascism to contemporary liberalism
(post-FDR) and have felt you go too far in seeing fascist themes under every
cultural leaf, I certainly wouldn’t say you distort the meaning of the term
as much as Wolf and Conason do. What he misses, I think, is the importance
of your central notion of a “liberal fascist” tradition. Like most critics,
he fails to see that you are not “shoehorning” contemporary liberalism into
the fascist mold but tracing an independent liberal fascist tradition. His
final point that most countries in Europe including harmless little Sweden
would fit your definition of fascism is exactly correct: they would. But
this is to be expected from an editor at Reason whose main concern, as he
says at the end, is the protection of civil liberties from an aggressive
national security state. He is in this respect closer to Wolf and Conason
than he is to you.