State ownership is a socialist policy. State control is a fascist one. It’s a fascist party, but then in that sense so are both of our main parties; the Labour Party overtly so. It would argue with the nomenclature no doubt but its policies and conduct suggest that “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state” is a reasonable summary of its ideology. Precisely what aspect of our lives would it accept as being outside the state’s area of interest and action? I can’t think of one. Our choice of football club to support, perhaps?

Not that the Conservatives are much better, but they do have a classical liberal tendency (represented by the likes of Daniel Hannan) which has been weak for generations because of the corrupting effect of the statist, bureaucratic provider of jobs for the boys and girls known as the EU. Once Brexit is behind us and the Conservatives unite the Hannanites may come back into prominence. Certainly the party’s ideological divisions will become more important because the Labour Party looks like being hors de combat for a generation at least.

Right wing vs Left wing is not a useful shorthand now, if it ever was. Statist vs Libertarian is a more useful axis to track. Not least in a more international world because Left and Right often have a country specific meaning. In Continental Europe most “right wing” parties are some variant of “Christian Democrat”. In Catholic countries, the Church has a big influence. In Poland, where I lived for 11 years, I would be a left-winger because “right wing” means Catholic Nationalist and social conservative. I have neither sympathy with nor interest in either of those tendencies. Not giving a damn about peoples’ personal choices in their private lives there is hugely radical and would make Polish “Conservatives” despise me. I was once half-jokingly asked to be spin doctor for the Presidential campaign of a Polish right winger and gave just one piece of advice - “Fire me”. When asked why I pointed out their voters would despise me as a foreign non-catholic and my appointment would damage the campaign. That was the end of my brief Polish political career - begun and ended during one course of a jovial lunch.

In America, most Republicans are also tied up in social conservatism. I don’t think who “marries” whom is any business of the local or federal state, for example. Nothing could be more private than a marriage contract and I would be perfectly happy for there to be no legal definition of marriage at all; leaving it entirely to individuals and any private organisations (such as churches) they chose to involve. Consider how despised Tom Paine (the original and best) was when he died, though arguably the most influential of the Founding Fathers. He died in ignominy and disgrace because he was merely suspected to be an atheist (he wasn’t, he was a Deist). I am openly an atheist and there will be many women Presidents, Presidents from every ethnic group and even a Muslim President before Americans will elect one of those!

Since Reagan (an historical outlier in many ways, just as Thatcher was in Britain) both mainstream parties in America have been in favour of a big state with a wide sphere of action - as politicians naturally are, given that it increases their job opportunities and earning potential. When you vote there, you are simply choosing on which kind of projects your money will be wasted. In the NASA golden years, I might well have chosen to vote Democrat and waste my tax money on space exploration as NOT wasting my money was not an option and I am a science fiction fan. 

Trump vs Clinton offers no choice for Americans who want respect for the best-written constitution in the world and/or who don’t want to police the planet. Both of them will spend more on the already bloated military and keep Oceana at war with Eastasia. Clinton would be more corrupt and stoke internal divisions with her cultural Marxism. She would probably make US cities more dangerous, while doing more to disarm the people she put in jeopardy. Trump however would potentially destabilise the world. What a choice. People vote on domestic issues primarily, so I will be betting on Trump but that bet will be my only interest in the outcome.

If I were an American, I would vote Gary Johnson without hope of his success. Who knows, most voters in mature democracies with two party systems vote to stop the more dangerous of the two. Since both Clinton and Trump are equally dangerous, there seems to be no plausible defensive strategy so one might as well vote ones conscience! Perhaps Johnson will surprise us.

I would not compare Front National with UKIP at all. I am surprised you wish to do so.