In the US and the UK, conservative parties are marked by their complete faith that the market knows best (and liberals by their belief that the market knows best 95% of the time). In German-speaking countries, conservative parties still believe in the social market, and social democratic parties likewise. Both left and right have leading cadres that are furiously trying to change that, but they still have to justify what they are doing, which exhibits the faith in the social market in relief. That is, they still have to justify the slightest attempt to let the market alone (e.g., letting people shop on Sundays, or letting big companies fail) where in the US politicians have to justify the slightest attempt to meddle with it.
In German speaking countries, complete faith in the free market is still widely considered an Anglo-Saxon disorder, despite endless propaganda for it, and despite the widespread suspicion (whether or not it is actually true) that the consensus system has become sclerotic. The only party in Germany that has the free-market faith that we Americans would normally associate with conservatives is the Liberals. And they are widely despised by both sides, and are always in danger of falling below the 5% threshold.
Now compare Austria. Instead of the Liberals, you have the Freedom party, which combines the same free-market, anti-consensus ideology with extreme right wing populism. And which just happens to be 6 times as popular. Perhaps that's why. Perhaps it's the raw and taboo nationalism that assures people that are comfortable with the social market that Haider isn't an Anglo-Saxon toady, and he's not out to tear their cozy world apart -- so he can be trusted to introduce these "reforms" that they suspect are necessary. But that under him, they'll make the country stronger, rather than even more subordinated to "foreign capital" -- i.e, foreigners and capital.
It might be compared the same thing Putin is trying to pull off in Russia. To reintroduce a term from a couple centuries back, we might call them National Liberals.
Anyway, just a thought. Of course, I'm certainly not endorsing this approach politically. I'm just trying to understand its appeal. And I don't think of this as a replacement for the more obvious sources of Haider's appeal. (I.e., an ethnocultural definition of citizenship that feels itself under threat; widespread resentment at the way the EU and globalization infringe on national self determination; the injured national pride born of constantly apologizing for their past; and anger at the abuse of patronage.) I think of it as complementary. I just wonder if it mightn't explain part of why Haider has gotten so much farther than others of his ilk -- and why his mixed message might appeal to reasonable-sounding people who say they vote for him chiefly for his liberal, i.e., anti-consensus, ideas.
Michael
__________________________________________________________________________ Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com