Nope, the term has a precise meaning, and he's using the term quite precisely. Fascism is the centralising of political power within an alliance of Big Government and Big Business, with a concomitant loosening of the restraints on either. The alternative term is corporatism - it was Benito Mussolini who coined the latter term to describe his type of government. Hitler's relationship with corporations like IG Farben and Krupp illustrated it to a tee. Now, what part of that doesn't apply to current situation in the West?
- Internal surveillance? Check...
- Erosion of a relatively impartial judiciary? Check... (Think here of the ubiquity of plea bargaining (to avoid Draconian mandatory sentences) to convict the less well-to-do elements of society, because they can't afford the chance of losing a court battle - that's an erosion of judicial impartiality before a case even reaches a judge. That's over and above decisions like Citizen's United, etc.)
- Regulatory capture? Check...
- Usurpation of democratic functions by the Executive branch? Check... (whether of the functions of the judiciary when assassinating American citizens overseas, or of those of the legislature when enacting domestic policies through the Office of the Trade Representative by means of treaties like ACTA or TPP.)
- Usurpation of governmental functions by private industry, with the government's full connivance? (Hell, yeah! The privatisation of prisons is a classic example, and that certainly is not having a beneficial effect on society.)
- Policies that favour Big Business to the detriment of the nation's citizens? (Too numerous to count - anything from banking regulatory policies to IP regulations.)
I'm using examples from your country. My own country has similar shenanigans going on, although it's a little harder to see the usurpation of power by the executive in a pure parliamentary system (which doesn't mean it doesn't happen or isn't happening - bien au contraire.)
Right now, most of the exercise of power is soft (and/or sneaky) because there is an entrenched culture of civil rights that needs to be quietly bypassed, but it doesn't mean that we aren't already on the slippery slope. I think we're in the situation of the frog placed in the pot of tepid water, and the burner was turned on a while ago.
(of a proposition) affirming or implying the existence of a thing.
Not quite where I'd use it, but not really used incorrectly either. McCarthy is Icelandic. They don't have a prejudice against sounding intellectual. Unlike a modern French philosophe, however, his language is quite clear.
In either case, I don't think McCarthy is using the words loosely, and I think that refusing to read or listen because you don't like a word is rather foolish. I think refusing to face the possibility that a "not-nice", overused word may well apply to a modern situation correctly is extremely foolish.