I like to use the political classification system put forth by Political Compass. I agree with your descriptions in your first few paragraphs but this system is simpler. (There is also  another one by the Liberatarian Party of USA but I don't like it as much).

I agree with most of what you say so I'll just pick stuff that I disagree with.

Actually I'd probably prefer a Facist state if that latter possibility came about. It would be the lesser of two very nasty evils.

People who go with the "lesser of two evils" doctrine are not idealists. They are pragmatists. Needless to say, I am not one. I will oppose both (yes, I realize your implication is if you ONLY had those two but if we ended up with those two, we FAILED :( ). I just hate it when people use the "lesser of two evils" doctrine because they are generally being manipulated. USA, for example, is in the mess it is in because of following that philosophy. What ends up happening is that you end up allying with the devil--which is a big no,no. Will Usama bin Laden (arguably the #1 enemy of USA) be as lethal and powerful if USA didn't think he was a lesser evil than Soviet troops in Afghanistan?

In any case, I'm not sure if a fascist state would be better of the two. It depends on the person though. A fascist state, I am sure, will revert to racism and genocide (in the worst case). They will blame immigrants, native Americans, blacks, and pretty much anyone that is "different" (I'm taking different to mean non-white). So, fascism would be horrible for me. The future US state will likely not engage in ethnic cleansing (at least I don't see how that would fit in with Bush or similar views). If YOU were white AND you were lower class, I can see why you would prefer a system that supports the lower classes (as in Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy) over one that supports the upper classes (as in future USA, under your scenario).

I disagree with your assessment of Canada as well. They are almost certainly going socialist, as is much of western Europe.

They are becoming socialist in the sense that they are being progressive on social issues. So Europe/Canada/etc are more likely to legalize drugs (at least marijuana) or give rights to homosexuals, or something. BUT the same is not true on the economic front. If anything, the capitalists are winning. So socialist institutions are under great threat and some of them are losing. For instance, many things are being privatized. Most socialists would not support privatization in general, let alone healthcare, schools, energy, etc. Because of this, I really wouldn't claim Canada is becoming more socialist. To a socialist like me, it seems as if we are further off than ever. Also, workers are weaker than 30 years ago. Unions are becoming corrupted and turning into bureaucratic entities. They are losing their power, businesses literally have a gun to their heads with outsourcing, etc. I really don't think Canada/Europe is becoming more socialist.

Until recently the United States was also going socialist, but the most recent Republican administrations (Bushes and Reagan) have stalled and possibly reversed the momentum in that direction for the immediate future.

USA was hardly going towards socialism. It has been becoming more capitalist by the day. The only time USA was going towards socialism was during the Great Depression with FDR's New Deal. Other than that, USA has hardly be socialist. If anything, USA has always been tending towards capitalism except during the Great Depression (New Deal) and during the independence days (Alexander Hamilton, Tom Paine, et al, can be though to be some sort of a "socialist". Hamilton, in particular, supported UNIVERSAL rights--a concept only socialists and other leftists care about eg. universal healthcare, universal schools, universal freedoms (country over state), etc))

Sivaram Velauthapillai