Interviews with Austrian reporters suggest that they knew about Haider for years but chose to respect his privacy: suggesting that they are either bad journalists or Nazi fellow-travellers. (Probably both.) The hypocricy angle seems to have been one of little interest. In the end there is little evidence of real journalism in Austria anyway (at least according to American or British standards.) If you want to understand the modern Austrian soul you should read anything by Thomas Bernhard. www.thomasbernhard.org

As for the Nazi angle. Perhaps Haider was just in it for the shiny boots. The outpouring of emotion at that drunk- driving, hitler-loving miscreant's funeral shows just how distastetful some groups of people can be.

"Kentucky of the Alps" is a nice patronizing epithet, but also not true; the two are incomparable. You're 45 minutes from the Italian border, 45 minutes from the Slovenian border, 2.5 hours from Vienna, 3 hours from Germany and Venice. I would even rate those from the extremely small towns as less provincial than typical American suburbanites. Most there have been to many neighbouring countries, learn 2 foreign languages, have numerous people from other religions (Islam) and asylum seekers from the Bosnia and the Slovenian minority in their neighborhoods. And they get along fine.

Perhaps your version of social conservatism means abhorring people who are bi/gay, but that's your (American? Over 50?) social conservatism; hard to imagine, but in other countries, being socially conservative might mean something else. Even in America you've got Andrew Sullivans.

I hold the line that journalism about domestic politics is more rigorous and informed in Austria than it typically is in the U.S. Comparing, for example, the presidential "debates" with an Austrian debate makes the American debate look like a burlesque. Perhaps they have meandering essays, but Americans have meandering, 24-hour TV news. And having confrontational interviews is a form of speaking truth to power; Haider was regularly interviewed, in a patronizing way, by people who disliked him. (Can you imagine Bush giving a truly confrontational interview?). And remember, his party received practically nil support (<2%) from most states in Austria - so in any case, holding up Haider to represent Austria is incorrect. It seems to me that Americans more often speak power to truth. Here's one Haider interview in English:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akkXPmyHTYA

It certainly isn't your judgement that Haider was a crypto-Nazi - that's the whole point. You are not thinking for yourself, merely parroting what others say. I took a look at the employment quote. Referring to unemployment in the 90s:

-"Na, das hat's im Dritten Reich nicht gegeben, weil im Dritten Reich haben sie ordentliche Beschäftigungspolitik gemacht, was nicht einmal Ihre Regierung in Wien zusammenbringt."
-"No, you didn't have that in the Third Reich, becuase the Third Reich had a decent employment policy - something that your government in Vienna can't even do." (My translation)

This certainly was abominable, and 30s/40s "employment policies" did of course involve slave labour, death, torture. But I think the comment was clearly intended to say, our government is even less competent than the Third Reich. If you're going to call someone a neo-Nazi, follow Orwell, don't dilute the word, find things in their policies that warrant the name. Find a racism-based autocrat who abhors press freedoms, promotes genocide, economic and social regimentation, and the suppression of opposition. That might be someone, but I don't have evidence it was Haider.