Salazar offers little to truly emulate to the right. Domestically, Salazarism was personalism, of a diligent and relatively benign sort compared to other dictators. 1/ https://twitter.com/Joshua_A_Tait/status/1327345722413367297

Authority came from early success stabilizing Portugal and the support of the army, which followed from fear of return to chaos. Over time, his regime calcified, his guild system became indistinguishable statist bureaucracy. His stultifying regime became its own justification. 2/

He made no real plan for succession because, again, Salazarism was personalism. So what do you get? Intense social conservatism, depoliticization and stability (more relevant for immature democracies and achieve through prolonged if softish repression),...

...Portuguese independence on the international stage, remnant imperialism linked to Portuguese independence. Salazar is a curiosity, not a model.

If this is the premise: "If we Americans lack the self-discipline necessary for self-government, if liberalism is off the table, the only alternative to a tyrant like Lenin or Hitler may be a man like Salazar: a paternalistic traditionalist, a philosopher-king." My response is...

The United States is not Portugal in the early 20th c. But more importantly, in the annals of history, Mussolinis, Mobutus and Pinochets far outnumber Salazars, whose flaws are understated here.