Since the ideology is built in reprehension of and the polar opposite to the principles endorsed by the French enlightenment period, it makes sense that fascists would absolutely abhore any likening to a system which endorses the conservation of the liberal capitalist status quo, along with the nation-state model which supports it. My argument will be to the contrary, however: that fascists and social conservatives (of the modern western world) have a great deal in common, the only major difference being the revolutionary aspect to which the former is constructed as opposed to the reformist nature of the latter. In a sense, social conservatism is to fascism what social democracy is to Marxism.
i. Economic policy is a dispensable means to an end
What is not so well known is that social conservatism can be found across the political spectrum, because of the modern affiliation to the private property endorsements of large C Conservatives in the western, English-speaking world. This is an egregious error. Social conservatism ought to be understood primarily in terms of the restrictions upon personal liberties pertaining to an endorsement of a patriarchal and moralistic society, often (though not necessarily) with religious motivations.
This explains the rise, then, of self-proclaimed, working class, 'blue collar Labour supporters' in UK, as well as the attempts by Conservative Party leader, Theresa May to rally the support of blue collars by promising a shift away from laissez-faire economics for workers, introducing stricter immigration policies, harsher penalisation of the unemployed 'lumpen proletariat' and a firm 'Brexit means Brexit' policy...at least in political rhetoric terms, anyway. The State Communists, Stalin and Mao were two of the most grotesque suppressors of individual liberty in the 20th Century: indeed their authoritarianism went above and beyond anything resembling the social conservatism of the 21st Century English speaking countries.
In these same countries, right-wing Conservative parties (the 'Liberals' in Australia) pose the greatest threat to personal liberties so of-course it has to be emphasised that the modern cancer that 'social conservatism' has developed into can be found all over the spectrum (calling into question the usefulness of the binary left-right spectrum in the first place but I digress). Christian social conservatives call into question the right women have over their wombs; the right of terminally ill patients to the benevolent act of euthanasia (regardless of their personal choice); and the right of any person with sexual preferences outside of heteronormativity to express themselves, regardless of what may be the consensual nature of these personal choices.
What does this have to do with fascism? Simple: fascist governments have historically only been interested in social economics as a means to an end. Hitler and Mussolini both had in common an apathy for social economics barring the purpose such policies could serve the nation-state. We can see this phenomenon also with the example of authoritarian leaders such as Francesco and Pinochet: in spite of the overall academic consensus that these individuals were not fascist ideologues ( ) we can certainly draw comparisons with the leaders who were.
The latter was an authoritarian leader who contrasted the tripartisan arrangements of fascists like Hitler and Mussolini. Francesco changed his economic policy of a left-leaning national socialism more in line with Hitler towards something more closely resembling the neoliberalism of Pinochet, the bottom line being that all of these authoritarian leaders considered economic policy dispensable to their particular ideology, much the same as it is the case with social conservatism (as I have demonstrated the flexibility of this ideology in regards to the political spectrum).
Consider also, the neoconservative agenda of left wing American Democrat like Hillary Clinton and even Barack Obama and William Clinton before her: compare this with virtually every single fascist government that ever came to be in history and you will discover that the imperialist agenda is not unique to fascism. This is of course provided it serves the interests of the oh so glorious nation-state, and when it does not, paleoconservatism becomes the new foreign policy by the authoritarians in charge.
ii. The restrictions upon personal liberties
As mentioned, the social conservatives have always been keen on suppressing voluntary behaviours - i.e. the personal liberties of the individual. We could see this, for example with David Cameron's unpopular calls to regulate perfectly legal internet pornography consumption; the prevalent belief in English speaking countries that even mild drug possession like marijuana should not be decriminalised; and Tony Blair's Big Brother plans to introduce an insidiously expensive id card system (not to mention the totally useless system the 'under 25?' id system is for preventing antisocial and underage drinking).
All of these are socially conservative measures and all of these have a great deal in common with the totalitarian practices of former governments, e.g. Mussolini's authoritarian systems to make sure the trains ran on time and that Italy would speak only one language (although you have to commend the man's success on the latter, even if you disagree with the methods). Hitler's suppression of personal liberty extended beyond his own personal xenophobia of jews and blacks but he also destroyed the lives of communists and homosexuals (anyone he didn't like, basically). He also burned all the literature he disagreed with and installed an authoritarian state school system that was not a far cry from the prisons schools we have in English speaking countries thanks to social conservatism (an exaggeration but not without reason).
iii. The abhorrence of the internationalist agenda in all forms
Thanks to social conservatism, we now have a UK soon to leave the EU (and not in a manner that would involve greater international trade relations than just US and an left wing exit strategy from the insidiously corrupt common market that we are all still part of and still have to pay membership for); an orange goonie who wants to build an expensive war around Mexico and an Australia that is extremely reluctant to open it's borders to foreigners in spite of the vast swathes of uninhabited, unused land. Once again, we have plenty of parallels to draw here with the racialist policies of fascism: Mussolini's attempts to segregate blacks and turn over citizens of the Allied countries to Hitler, not to mention Hitler's own genocide.
Fascism and social conservatism have more in common than either would care to admit. With the immersion of increasing tensions between nuclear powers like China, Russia and the States, 'backdoor fascism' even in the English speaking world could easily be around the corner with growing prejudices towards racial minorities, a patriotic sentiment that has lead to middle eastern invasions and suppression of the Palestinian peoples and a xenophobic attitude that has destroyed Britain's relationship with the EU, severely impacting our future international trade relations.
Consider this an alternative viewpoint to Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" in which the steady growth social democracy is not the threat to civil liberties everywhere, but instead the public's failure to get a grip and abandon the limiting perspectives of social conservatism is. The principles of the French Enlightenment could soon face a serious undermining again as history repeats itself. I know some people will point out the historical and semantic (ideological) inaccuracies in my own post but you have to bear in mind that my own comparisons between social conservatism and fascism are just the tip of the iceberg. The truth is far uglier and to deny this is to indulge in the most perverted of self-delusion.