To be honest, I did hesitate to include Salazar in the same list as even Pinochet, much less Franco or Castro: it was never totalitarian or substantially fascist, less authoritarian than many regimes in Latin America, and certainly far less authoritarian than People's Republic that were setup in its former colonies.

I clearly understand what you said about leftist in US vs. leftist elsewhere as well: both the republicans and democrats in the US would in many countries be more akin to a fairly tiny party that called itself liberal and had only a few seats in the parliament (e.g., in today's Russia the entire US political spectrum would likely fall into Yavlinsky's party/list which hasn't had any seats at all in the Duma since 2007).

Given a choice between communism (even communism under a "progressive" cloak -- Venezuela is a clear example of how that played out!) and Salazar, I also think that most reasonable people would pick Salazar in a heartbeat. Communism and socialism almost by definition require totalitarianism, which is why the last remaining totalitarian state is North Korea, with other states getting progressively less authoritarian in lockstep to them becoming less communist. Chinese citizens are for the most part more free than Cubans -- e.g., Chinese and Vietnamese citizens are permitted to leave their countries, while immigration is extremely difficult for any Cuban medical doctor. Cubans, however, are more free today than my family was under Kruschev and Brezhnev -- my parents couldn't even travel to other communist countries for scientific conferences until 1989.

However, I was not comparing Estado Novo to its alternatives at the time in Portugal or even the current mess (I believe one of the leaders of the coup against Caetano said that he wouldn't have overthrown him if he saw what came out in the end): what I see as an example of "decent" social democracy would be Sweden -- private property and capitalism, but with a somewhat more expansive welfare state. To be clear I do not in any way endorse an expansive welfare state: the taxation needed to sustain such a state chokes businesses (I am not at all surprised that Volvo is owned by Ford and Saab by GM) and the handouts create artificial externalities which ultimately lead to less individual liberty ("we gave you free healthcare, so now we will regulate what you, what you smoke, and force you [as in France] to see a doctor on a routine basis").

I also realize that this isn't a fair comparison: 1930s Portugal was a multi-ethnic state with overseas colonies, yet with living conditions (in terms of literacy, standard of living, but perhaps not infrastructure) even in metropolitan Portugal that resembled today's developing world. To compare it with a highly homogeneous and wealthy Scandinavian country of today is indeed quite absurd.

The colonial wars also complicate things quite a bit -- I personally do find it ironic that Portugal was condemned for them, while France (which acted with greater brutality both in its colonies and against domestic dissent) got a free pass.

I also do not in any way mean to slight the enormous advances in standard of living that happened under Estado Novo, as well as neutral Portugal's role as an escape route for refugees.

Yet, the "neo-reactionaries" are for the most part Americans which is what I find insane: Western-style liberal democracy is an unattainable dream for most. I first learned the word liberalism from my grandmother, who described it as only a faint memories from her grandfather -- a merchant of first guild (highest title that could be held by a Jewish capitalist) in Imperial Russia -- who supported a liberal party in 1905. I find it crazy that any American or North-West European would want to give that system up for the neo-ancien regime.