The problem with your reasoning here is that your two options are replacement by "a taliban-equivalent", or a slight limitation of their power. I think you've vastly overestimated the risk of a naïve population to government while underestimating the benefit. In my view, the U.S. government's propaganda system is essential to its survival in its current form. It uses it to maintain the war industry, to justify its spending power, to preserve the stability of the currency, to ensure the election of tame officials — there's a lot to lose.

The stability of the currency is mainly decided by countries outside the reach of the US's internal propaganda, because of the enormous debts and reserve currency status. I agree that a population which wouldn't go for Qanon would also make them quit invading countries in the middle east and south america, but depending on how this crazy business plays out, leaving Iran alone may be a small price for them to pay.

I hate to invoke Godwin's law, but business people loved Hitler all around the world right up until his propaganda machine shut out their influence and he started invading the other half of their markets and supply chains. If the people running our country have learned anything from history they will quit encouraging irrationality and gullibility some time before the curtains close, so to speak.

Maybe you are right. I'm not as confident as you that the U.S. government has learned from history, though; it spends a lot of time explaining that it has made historically-attested consequences of its actions impossible. But I'm not a fan in general, and that may color my perceptions.

GP told about "a government". You rephrased to "The people running our society". If we accept the fact that this people is, simply put, the rich and the giant corporations... they have a lot to gain from some kind of fascist society. That's the heart of fascism: a strong government serving the rich. They do have to gain a lot from the masses ignorance, irrationality and short sight. Not that I'm saying they all adhere to fascism, people may have principles that contradict their most direct interest.

Multinational corporations don't like nationalism. I think the idea that big corporations benefit from fascism is an interesting one, but it doesn't square with capitalism's need to keep borders open to trade and capital flow. If you're proposing that someone is going to invent a non-nationalist version of fascism, that's again an interesting idea, but I'm having a hard time imagining it.

If it's successful it won't get a name, it won't be a "thing," it will just be the new normal.