from the right in the US. Since parties like the National Front (or the Freedom Party in the Netherlands or the True Finns or the Sweden Democrats or any number of others) are not "pure right wing" (at least using an American definition of "right wing"
in areas like trade, immigration and the importance of the safety net, the author seemed to be looking for more accurate description of the parties than "far-right".
She used quite a few other terms to find something more descriptive: nationalist, ethno-communitarian(?), populist, traditionalist patriotic, conservatism and statist, protectionist, mixed economics. To an Australian "nativist populist" may not have any perforative value like it does here. The term "nativist" may be an objective description of a party which favors "a favored status for certain established inhabitants of a nation as compared to claims of newcomers or immigrants". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativism_(politics)). And "populist" simply means "favors "the people" over "the elites", or favors the common people over the rich and wealthy business owners". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism)
Given the National Front's history she should have used the term "racist nativist populist" party. Some of the other "nativist populist" parties in Europe do not have the racist history that the National Front has and actually do advocate (proudly so as far as I can tell) a "nativist" and "populist" agenda. I doubt they would even shy away from being labeled as such.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
