Neopopulist Blog

Dear Friends of Neopopulism.org:

I am forwarding you the neopop pro se self-help kit to defend against Minnesota seat belt violation charges. Feel free to share it with your friends who are charged with seat belt violations based on a police stop for a seat belt violation only. Of course, my personal advice is "wear your seatbelt." Best regards.

egk

-----Original Message-----

From: Erick Kaardal

Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 8:11 AM

Dear all:

This email and attachment is a pro se self-help litigation packet to defend against Minnesota seat belt violations based on a police stop for a seat belt violation only. Currently, the defenses explained herein are being argued by myself on a formal motion to dismiss in Dakota County District Court. Pro se defendants, however, are now making the arguments and winning in at least 6 counties.

Here is my advice to you:

My understanding is you will be representing yourself at a hearing in your County on a seat belt violation based on a police stop for only a seat belt violation. If your circumstances are different than those described, then my advice is not intended for you.

In preparation for your hearing, you should print off the official law that is stated below in my letter below. Tell the judge at the hearing the following:

1. The charges should be dismissed because the official law is that the police can not stop for a seat belt violation. (The critical sentence is in the note section.)

2. According to Minnesota statute 3C.11, subd. 1 (quoted in the letter below), the court needs to rely on the official law which is published by the Office of Revisor.

3. The official law states in the note section that the statute was amended to prohibit the police from stopping for a mere seat belt violation.

4. Because the police violated the official law, you should go free.

As you know, I have given you this advice; but, I decline representation in your criminal proceeding.

Now, you promised that you would call me after the hearing, to tell me how you did. I would appreciate it. Thanks.

egk

LETTER USED IN REAL COURT CASE:

Dear Judge Moynihan:

            This correspondence is a short reply to Mr. Porter's correspondence of June 3, 2010.  Mr. Porter's arguments regarding the session laws fail to cite or overcome the presumption expressed in Minn. Stat. 3C.13:

Any volume of Minnesota Statutes, supplement to Minnesota Statutes, and Laws of Minnesota certified by the revisor according to section 3C.11, subdivision 1, is prima facie evidence of the statutes contained in it in all courts and proceedings...

1984 c 480 s 13; 1984 c 655 art 2 s 19 subd 2.  Since the published Minn. Stat. § 169.686 favors my client on the disputed law, the burden shifts to the State to show that the statute is something other than what the Revisor has reported as the law.

            The Revisor of Statutes under the authority vested in Minn. Stat. Ch. 3C published Minnesota Statutes 2009 Supplement which states in relevant part under Minn. Stat. § 169.686 (copy attached):

Note: Subdivision 1 was also amended by Law 2009, chapter 82, section 2, to read as follows:.... A peace officer may not issue a citation for a violation of this section unless the officer lawfully stopped or detained the driver of the motor vehicle for a moving violation other than a violation involving motor vehicle equipment...

Nowhere in Minnesota Statutes 2009 Supplement is there reflected the State's position that this language has been amended or deleted. 

             The State has only pointed to a session law which has an earlier effective date -- June 9, 2009 versus July 1, 2009.  On the basis of the session law with the earlier effective date, the State argues that this session law deletes the Revisor's published law which became effective on July 1, 2009, three weeks after the effective date of the law purporting to delete the later-effective law. 

             The most reasonable court response to the state's arguments is "not proven."  My client deserves a lot more from the State than what she is receiving in this particular case as to what the law is.  The Eagan citation indicated that she violated Minn. Stat. § 169.686.  She has argued that the stop was illegal based on the Revisor's published Minn. Stat. § 169.686.  After the hearing, the State produces a letter attaching session laws stating a law with a later effective date was repealed by a law with an earlier effective date.  Meanwhile, hundreds are being ticketed statewide without this issue being resolved one way or the other.  The way the State has handled this matter of "law" should be unacceptable from the Court's point of view - prosections based on a contradiction of the Revisor's published laws.   Fundamentally, the people are entitled to rely on the Revisor's published laws - and the law enforcement agencies are expected to.  If there is a problem with the Revisor's published laws, it is incumbent on the state, not a criminal defendant, to fix them prior to prosecution.

            Since Minn. Stat. 3C.13 shifts the burden of proof onto the State, the State in this particular case has failed to meet its burden showing that the Revisor's published law on Minn. Stat. § 169.686 is not the law of the state.  Accordingly, the seat belt charge against ____________ should be dismissed.

Very truly yours,

 ________________

Comment (0) Read More...

THE JUDICIAL ELECTIONS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IS CONSTITUTIONAL MALPRACTICE

The Star Tribune in its March 7, 2010 endorsement of the legal establishment's judicial elections constitutional amendment tragically deferred to the experts - rather than applying its own common sense. A fair reading of the legal establishment's proposed constitutional amendment shows it is constitutional malpractice.

Under the current democratic judicial election system, judicial elections serve as the only moderating influence on Governors making purely ideological appointments to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Ideological packing of the Minnesota Supreme Court is standard policy for both DFL Governors (think Perpich) and GOP Governors (think Pawlenty). In fact, the Star Tribune on February 27, 2010 ran an article　 -- "No Doubt, the State's High Court Tilts Right" -- detailing how Governor Pawlenty's 4 appointments to the Minnesota Supreme Court over the last 7 years has created a right -wing court.

The proposed constitutional amendment sponsored by prominent Republicans like Chief Justice Eric Magnuson, former Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz and Former Governor Al Quie eliminates the moderating influence of judicial elections on judicial appointments to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Under the new system of retention elections, if a Governor selects a judge that loses a retention election because of ideology, the Governor will have the unilateral opportunity to select the replacement with the same ideology.　 Under the current system, the attorney who wins the election against the Governor's ideological appointment fills the seat; the Governor does not appoint the replacement.　 So, the constitutional amendment would remove the only moderating influence left on purely ideological appointments to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Predictably, Governor Pawlenty has jealously protected the Governor's prerogative to make ideological appointments to the Supreme Court.　 According to the constitutional amendment's sponsor, St. Louis Park DFL Rep. Steve Simon, provisions for merit-based limitations on the Governor's judicial appointments were dropped out of concern that it would draw the opposition of Governor Pawlenty.

In the view of new populists, judicial elections are important because the Minnesota Supreme Court is the final word on interpreting the Minnesota Constitution, Minnesota statutes and the common law which affects all Minnesota legal disputes.

On these issues, there is no appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Unlike their federal counterparts on the U.S. Supreme Court, the Governor's appointments to the Minnesota Supreme Court do not need to be confirmed by the Senate. So, the Minnesota Supreme Court is much more prone to ideological packing by the appointing executive than the U.S. Supreme Court is.

Because the Minnesota Supreme Court is the final word, there is a special need for judicial elections at this level that does not exist for the lower courts. If a Minnesota Supreme Court justice goes exotic, there needs to be a fail-proof safety valve. The current judicial election system's fail-proof safety valve is the public can replace an exotic justice by voting in another lawyer to take the exotic justice's job. Unfortunately, the proposed constitutional amendment does not have such a fail-proof safety valve.

For example, under the new system, what if a maverick (think Jesse Ventura) were elected Governor with a bare plurality of votes? What if that Governor (think Tim Pawlenty) received four appointments to the Minnesota Supreme Court? What if that Governor (think Jesse Ventura) had exotic constitutional views such as unicameral legislature, gay marriage or a constitutional ban on affirmative action? What if the Governor's four appointments judicially impose unicameral legislature, gay marriage and a constitutional ban on affirmative action? What then?

Under the proposed constitutional amendment, the people could vote against retaining the justices who voted for these exotic constitutional views. But, the problem with the proposed new system is the same Governor who appointed the non-retained justices gets to appoint their replacements. The Governor could then appoint replacements with the same exotic views of the original non-retained appointees.

The proposed constitutional amendment's flaw of encouraging ideological judicial appointments is a major, not a minor, flaw.　Over two hundred years ago, the framers of the U.S. Constitution recognized the danger of ideological judicial appointments by the President and required U.S.

Senate confirmation of judicial appointees.  The proposed constitutional amendment has no such protection against the Governor making similar ideological judicial appointments. Chief Justice Magunson, Chief Justice Blatz, Governor Quie and, regrettably now, the Star Tribune editorial board recommend that the people ignore this long-identified constitutional danger.　 These "experts" recommend eliminating the last moderating influence on ideological judicial appointments by the Governor.

So, there is only one question left to be answered.

Should the public jump off the cliff holding hands with these experts?

Erick G. Kaardal is general counsel of Neopopulism.org.

Erick G. Kaardal

495 Ridgeview Circle

Hamel MN 55340

763-478-3583

Comment (0) Read More...

Letter to Members of Republican Party of Minnesota Judicial Elections Committee

February 18, 2010

Dear all:  

Greetings.  

This email does not address the work of the committee -- but what's going on in the State Capital to terminate judicial elections as we know them.  I refer to the bill as Senate File 70.  

As indicated in my 2009 speech to the Minnesota Senate Judiciary Committee which I earlier sent to you, this organization -- the Coalition for Impartial Justice -- by supporting Senate File 70 supports constitutional malpractice.  If the Coalition can't be trusted to get its constitutional amendment done right, why should we listen to these elitists and experts at all?    In fact, in the people's view, it is all an elitist veneer to lead the people astray to deny themselves the right to elect their judges.  

If you are interested in more accurate information, I suggest neopopulism.org. 

Particularly, in my speech to the Legislative Evaluation Assembly last week posted on the website, I point out that Greg Wersal, Minnesota's judicial elections champion, is a new populist hero.  

The choice could not be more clear on this issue:  populists oppose Senate File 70; rationalist, elitists, experts support Senate File 70.  Who are you?  

As citizens, we should each choose.  Then, contact your state legislators accordingly.  

Best regards.  

egk  

P.S. Please feel free to distribute this to your Republican friends.

Comment (0) Read More...

In his recent Wheaton Alumni article Dr. DeSoto of the physics department implies that it is "scientifically literate" to believe that scientific theories can be falsified.  But this Popperian falsificationist criterion is as dead as the verificationist principle that Dr. DeSoto quite rightly dismissed.  Falsificationism died at the hands of Quine, Kuhn and Feyerabend, among other contemporary philosophers of science.  How do I falsify the statement "There is a unicorn" (a statement which is both meaningful and a hypothesis for explaining trace evidence) or, similarly, "There is a God"?  If falsificationism is the test for rationality then belief in God, like belief in any "scientific" (I put it in quotes because there is no longer any clear meaning to the word) theory,  must not be rational since it cannot be falsified.  Darwinism is hardly falsifiable, even though some call it science.  The same is true of Freudianism, and any causal theory in science that appeals to some hidden thing-in-itself.  This kind of rationalism is, fortunately, dead in our post-modern age.  

It is important for Christians in general, and Christian scientists in particular, to reject the scientific illiteracy of falsificationism because this just prolongs the life of rationalism in our culture -- including our Christian subculture.  The primary mission of the Christian academy is not the promulgation of any kind of rationalism or even intellectualism.  The idea that just because A is thought about more than B, A is more likely to be true than B, is a logical fallacy.  Or even if we adopt a more sophisticated view of intellectualism -- say Popper's "critical rationalism" which Dr. DeSoto considers literate, Christian intellectualism would mean integrating faith with any so far unfalsified nonsense, since everything, including the pretense of the social sciences (and its political representatives) to knowing what's best for everybody, is so far unfalsified.  Christian intellectualism becomes little more than the precious attempt to accomodate nonsense that violates ordinary language and common sense, let alone orthodox theology.  

The failure of intellectualism and rationalism to preserve an open society which does not relegate Christianity to the cultural ghetto is apparent when "falsificationism" (which Popper argued would preserve an open society) is applied by American courts to the question of whether or not intelligent design theory, or for that matter, creationism, should be taught in public schools.  Sure enough, the courts see Darwinism as "falsifiable" and intelligent design and creationism as not falsifiable.  They are correct about the latter; wrong about the former.   None of this is falsifable, or verifiable, and when professor DeSoto endorses this kind of rationalism he is helping to perpetuate the closed society -- the closed society of rationalism.

We have made no progress in making this culture more Christian as a result of succumbing to the vague requirements of intellectualism let alone rationalism, promoted by those who continually bemoan the lack of intellectualism in the evangelical subculture.  

The job of the Christian academy is to hold rationalism by the nose and kick it in the ass -- right in our own subculture, and then in the larger culture, precisely so the religious world view can be revived culturally.   

Secular relativists like Paul Feyerabend have done more in our age to liberate religion from the tyranny of rationalism than Christian intellectuals intent on impressing the world with their "literacy".

Tom Dahlberg '75  

Comment (0) Read More...

SPEECH TO LEA

FEBRUARY 11, 2010

BATTLING BUREAUCRACY:

(PLEASE DO NOT DISTRIBUTE)

©Erick Kaardal 2010

Introduction (Gordon)

Preface

I am a messenger of bad news: death.

Rationalism's enlightened search for objective truth is dead.

The government's enlightened search for the truth in every area of our lives is dead

Political science is dead. Its enlightened search for studying politics to maximize its usefulness for the people's utility is dead

Economics is dead.  Its enlightened search for a maximization of the people's utility is dead.

Ideology is dead.  Its enlightened search for the perfect ideology to serve the people is dead.

Partisanship is dead.  Its enlightened search for the perfect political party and political candidate is dead.

Expertism is dead.  The expert's enlightened search for truth is dead.

Politics is dead - reduced to an ugly garbage dump of dead rationalism:  political science, economics, ideology, partisanship, expertism - uhhh, it's messy, ugly, stinky.

Concurrently, the great conservative myth of the statesman searching for objective truth as an independent moral agent, affirmed in Edmund Burke's Letter to the Sheriff of Bristol County, Russel Kirk's Conservative Mind, George Will's Statecraft is Soulcraft, on and on and on, is dead.

Dialogue between the people and government is dead -- reduced by expertism, ideology and partisanship to meaningless chatter between experts with intermittent changes of volume preceding and following regularly-scheduled elections.  Dead.

Debate among the people is dead - replaced by misplaced deference to cultural and political experts and misplaced loyalties to fellow ideologues and partisans.  Dead.

Even more disturbing, in this intolerable situation, the people choose to continue to defer as slaves to the rationalist "enlightened search for objective truth" and its various manifestations. Dead.

The people continue to defer to the government's experts, the political scientists, the economists, the ideologues, the partisans, the experts, the politicians, the statesmen.  Dead.

In so doing, the people worship a messy, ugly, stinky garbage dump of rationalist death.

In so doing, the people have lost their knowledge.

In so doing, the people have lost their virtue.

And, above all, the people's culture is debased.

Listen, carefully, to the words of American Revolutionary Patriot Samuel Adams from the grave:

Samuel Adams quotes: 

A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.... While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader....

No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.

We are, my brothers and sisters, a universally ignorant and debauched people, we have sunk under own weight without the aid of foreign invaders.  We have succumbed to the devil in the Modern Rationalist Tradition.

Again, from the grave, Samuel Adams speaks to us:

Samuel Adams quotes:   The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.

We, my brothers and sisters, this present generation risk an everlasting mark of infamy because we are allowing this nation to be cheated out of its American inheritance by the artifices of false and designing men - and without a fight as we sit and worship a garbage dump of rationalism. 

Are you, are we, going to do something about it?

Again, from the grave, Samuel Adam writes:

Samuel Adams quotes:  

If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.

Introduction to New Populism

Good evening, my name is Erick Kaardal.  I am a new populist -- an evangelist.  I am not here to inform you, educate you, or persuade you.  I am here to save you from the damnation of the government's and our culture's rationalist tradition.

The Rationalist Tradition is based on a search for objective truth separate from any tradition - a tradition-independent truth.  New populists hold that rationalists have a tradition despite their claims to be tradition-independent.  There is no objective truth separate from a tradition. New populists identify rationalism as a tradition determined to kill America's broadly understood democratic and religious tradition. 

By neopopulist definition, a tradition is merely an agreement to use language in a certain way to describe human experience.  Thus there are many traditions: a Democratic tradition, a Socialist tradition, a Rationalist tradition, a Christian tradition, a Muslim tradition, a Jewish tradition, etc.  I suppose it only takes a few people to start a tradition.  But, the more important traditions appear to be those that have been around awhile and have many adherents.

At a meta- or national level, traditions can differ on meta-values such as freedom and equality.  America's broad democratic and religious tradition is very respectful of other traditions.  The U.S.S.R's communist tradition violated the meta-values  of freedom and equality for other traditions.  America's rationalist tradition also fails on the test of freedom and equality because it is hostile to America's broad democratic and religious tradition.

Sometimes the references to traditions are referred to by neopopulists as the Moses Principle.  The Moses Priniciple is that a person has a duty within their tradition to identify when another tradition is trying to kill and suppress that person's tradition.  Moses in Biblical times represented the Jewish tradition.  The Pharaoh had his own religious tradition.  When Moses asked Pharaoh that his people go to the wilderness and pray for three days, Pharaoh refused, increased their workload and commanded them not to stand and around and listen to glib speeches. Moses recognized that Pharaoh was trying to impose his tradition on the Jewish people. 

Similarly, the Rationalist Tradition in the United States is trying to kill the broad democratic and religious tradition in the United States.  The government does not want patriots of this Tradition going to the wilderness to pray. The government does not want the patriots of this Tradition to be organizing - or standing around and listening to "glib speeches." (perhaps like this one)

So, as a neopopulist, I am a hyper-realist.  I am here to tell you that the Rationalist Tradition as a tradition has ruined our nation, ruined our culture and ruined our people.

Our biggest mistake would be to continue to operate within this paradigm. You need to understand that the Republic is dead.  There is no representative democracy any more. The people have lost control of their representatives - their government - their culture.

Consequently, the people are losing democratic hope - losing hope than they can govern themselves.

Something dramatic must be done.  So join us.  Leave the old rationalist paradigm and join the new populist paradigm.

The moment we begin to understand that it is crazy to dialogue and debate with the Modern Rationalist Tradition, our tradition's mortal enemy, the sooner the phoenix will rise from the ashes: new populist counterculture.

It's the counterculture, stupid!

Creating Counterculture:  The Neopopulist Hypothesis

     We as neopopulists have a simple hypothesis.  If the people separate their minds from the experts, it will lead to America's first renaissance:  a new counterculture.  "Hypothesis" according to the storebook dictionary definition means "tentative explanation."  The neopopulist hypothesis, thus, is a tentative explanation of how to fix America.  

    The neopopulist hypothesis is simple.  American culture is riddled with fallacies - false ideas.  Our culture is particularly impaired by rationalistic, ideological, partisan and intellectual reductionism.  Such reductionism has deformed the people, their language, their knowledge, their democracy and their culture.  Our culture and government should mirror who the people are - in the best sense.  However, today, when the people look in their cultural and political mirrors, they are embarassed of the mediocrity that they have allowed themselves to become -- the ugliness.  The people are embarrassed by the "mediocrity" they see - the "mediocrity" they have created.

    The people understand that they are responsible for the cultural and political leviathan they created.  But, how did it happen?  It happened because the people have deferred to "experts" in every cultural and political subject matter.  The people believe that the expert's technical language is to be preferred over the people's ordinary language.    The people believe, with the experts, that knowledge is personal and occult and inaccessible to those on Main Street.  The people believe only the government has the required expertise to manage the people. 

Ultimately, that is what the people have come to want in our modern world: to be managed. But do the people really want to be managed by their government?  Or is this result caused by their weaknesses -- exploited by the experts?  If the people could have it, would they want to manage the government into compliance with their shared values?  

            It is in this cultural and political environment of ambiguity that neopopulist counterculture is necessary.  The manly question to be asked is not "What is the objective truth?"  No, it is "Who is making the decisions around here?"  The neopopulist demands that the people - not the rationalist experts - make the cultural and political decisions.  The neopopulist asserts his tradition against the rationalist tradition - knowing it is a duel to the death. 

After all, what if one-by-one, people rejected the experts?  If one-by-one, a person declared the Neopopulist Declaration of Independence from Experts.  First, I will separate my mind from the minds of the experts.  Second, I reject the expert's technical language.  Third, knowledge is not personal and occult - it is accessible to all and should be diffused.  Fourth, I embrace the people, their ordinary language and their shared knowledge.  Fifth, I work with my neighbors against the government and against the prevailing culture to bring to bear my neopopulist view of the world.  Sixth, ultimately, what each of these neopopulists wants, nay, demands, in the post-modern world, is that the people manage the government -- not the other way round.

    The neopopulist counterculture will succeed or fail based on whether it matters that the people have separated their minds from the experts.   The neopopulist hunch is that if the people separate their minds from the experts and if the people manage the government instead of the government managing the people, America's first renaissance will occur. 

In this way, neopopulists are progressives. The storebook dictionary definition of "progressive" is "favoring progress, reform, etc."  Neopopulists are all of that definition and more because neopopulists believe that the neopopulist hypothesis will lead to grand reform --- America's first renaissance. 

    In fact, if neopopulist counterculture succeeds, America will experience its first renaissance -- rivaling the renaissance experience in Europe.  The people, their culture and politics, will flourish.   The ugliness of all of the expert's technical language will give way to the beauty of the people's ordinary language.  Poetry will be restored to its proper place.  The technical manual will be put in its proper place.   The ugliness of bureaucratic personal and occult knowledge will give way to the beauty of the people's shared knowledge.  The people will be restored to their proper place.  The bureaucracy will be put in its proper place.

     The key pre-condition to test the neopopulist counterculture is democracy.  Because without democracy, the only option - as Samuel Adams knew - would be an armed populist revolution --- as this nation was founded in 1776.  So, with neopopulist counterculture, it is important when people separate their minds from the experts, there must be means of democratic participation available -- "democratic means" -- to test the efficacy of their neopopulist will against the government and against rationalist culture.  The democratic means allows a person to assert his or her neopopulist will on the government and on the rationalist culture.

The government controls so many - to partially borrow a Marxist phrase --  means of cultural production that  it is a manly exercise of neopopulist counterculture simply for the people to assert control of government-funded and operated means of cultural production - including the government schools.  The people must take the means of cultural production away from the experts and away from the government.  Instead, the people must manage the means of cultural production by their own lights - and stop deferring to the lights of rationalist experts.

Will government and culture change if the people assert their neopopulist will peacefully upon it?  Yes, but to do so, the people must have democratic means to use to assert their will against the government and to change culture.  If there are no democratic means, there is no experiment.  Armed revolution, as in 1776, is the only choice.

            That is why neopopulists hate democratic deficits.  Democratic deficits exist where procedures preclude the people managing the government.  The battle over democratic deficits is between the experts who want democratic deficits and the people who should hate democratic deficits.  By way of example, the European Union operates on a model that the European Parliment "advises" the expert-laden Commission on what laws and regulations should be put in effect.  It is impossible to see under such a model that the neopopulist hypothesis would have any effect.  The laws are so rigged with democratic deficits against the people managing their government that such management would never happen.

            The United States has democratic deficits, but Congress is still "making" laws -- not "advising" on laws as the European Parliament does.   Nonetheless, America has huge democratic deficits relating to the federal government -- where mere election of a President and Congress are taken to represent the people's consent to the whole of federal government.  As a consequence, virtually all people are precluded from meaningfully asserting the  neopopulist hypothesis against the federal government because there aren't democratic means available to the typical citizen to use. 

However, at the state and local level, there are democratic means so the neopopulist hypothesis can fairly be tried.  A person can go to a city council meeting, county board meeting or state legislative hearing to be heard.  A person can attend these meetings and test the neopopulist hypothesis.  So, because democratic means are available there (althought they should be expanded there as well as with the federal government), the experiment of testing the neopopulist hypothesis should begin at the state and local level one person at a time.

 Neopopulism as a Rhetorical Platform Opposed to the Experts

        Neopopulism is a risky, dangerous, yet chivalrous choice.  It is also a radical choice against the governmental establishment.   The choice is between something new and something old, something true and something false, something holistic and something reductionistic.  The choice is between the people managing the government or the government managing you.  This revolutionary approach requires you to separate your mind from the bureaucratic dragons, their experts, their politics and their culture. 

        Let's use one example of a neopopulist to illustrate the point.  This example includes all the requisites to test the neopopulist counterculture.  There was a neopopulist named Greg Wersal of Minnesota.  There were bureaucratic dragons embedded in the Minnesota Supreme Court, Lawyers Board and Judicial Board.  Wersal, while running for state judicial office in 1998, found he had a disputed issue with these bureaucratic dragons. The disputed issue was the government's bans on judicial campaign speech including a ban on lawyer-candidates announcing their views on "disputed legal and political issues." Wersal relied on the people's ordinary language and shared knowledge about elections to make his constitutional arguments against the bureaucratic dragons.  Minnesota's judicial experts used every bureaucratic dragon available to them to win over the public and court.

        Wersal's actions in 1998 were revolutionary acts.  Wersal separated his mind from the experts -- a revolutionary act.  Wersal adopted the neopopulist hypothesis -- a revolutionary act.  Wersal obviously had a neopopulist hope in 1998, perhaps a fool's hope, that he might make a difference. Nonetheless, Wersal engaged in the neopopulist experiment.  In doing so, Wersal witnessed his own neopopulist revolution.  Success or failure of the neopopulist hypothesis, of course, depended not on Wersal, whose involvement was necessary, but rather on how the government responded to Wersal's claim. But, regardless of how the government responded, Wersal was a neopopulist -- that is a winner.

         Minnesota's judicial experts responded horribly to Wersal's claims -- basically denying that the First Amendment applies to state judicial elections.  Wersal, thus, sued in federal court.  He lost in the U.S. District Court and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.  But, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2001 granted Wersal's petition for writ of certiorari, heard oral argument and decided the case.  Wersal won the case by five votes to four votes.  The U.S. Supreme Court found that Minnesota's bureaucratic dragons violated the U.S. Constitution.  Wersal's neopopulist arguments carried the day in the U.S. Supreme Court.

        The point that neopopulists would make in the Wersal case is that Wersal not only fixed Minnesota's judicial elections; Wersal also redeemed the American political system.  For the years the lawsuit was pending, Minnesota's judicial experts, establishment and press claimed that Wersal was ruining Minnesota's judicial system by challenging its rules.  Again and again, they pilloried Wersal for bringing his "frivolous" case.  Wersal was considered the proverbial "crank."  Not only did Wersal persevere, Wersal used the democratic means available -- including courts and the media -- to make his case against the bureaucratic dragons.   By acting the way he did -- as a neopopulist -- he changed his government, our government, permanently.

        As this example illustrates, neopopulism is a post-modern, fallacy-free rhetorical platform for use against bureaucratic dragons and experts in the political and cultural arena.  Neopopulists believe that American politics and culture suffers under experts and their fallacious reasoning.  The fallacious reasoning has been spawned by a modern brew of ideology, partisanship, rationalism and intellectualism.  

New populism's healthy response is to present a rhetorical platform which is democratically constructive but abhors all the fallacies.  This new rhetorical platform embraces the truth, logic, reason and persuasion, but abhors the modern expert fallacies of ideology, partisanship, rationalism and intellectualism.  These major bureaucratic dragons need to be slayed by our new, chivalrous neopopulist knights.   The new rhetorical platform to slay all the bureaucratic dragons: neopopulism.

Other Neopopulist Cases

Wersal case was fighting against state bureaucrats.  I've been involved in about 30 new populist lawsuits - which can be reviewed at neopopulism.org, but let me mention two others at different levels of government:

Gravel driveway case (fighting against Town Hall bureaucrates): Keith Kieffer

Mdewakanton case (fighting against Federal bureaucrats):  Wolfchild case

Then, let me mention 3 other state cases:

End of Fiscal Biennium

Per Diem

Unallotment

Minnesota Majority

No Political Heroes

        Neopopulists don't believe in political heroes.  It believes in humility.  This fact distinguishes populism from neopopulism. 

        Populism believes in political heroes. The populist political movements produce political heroes.  Populism asks populists to worship its populist political heroes.

        In turn, populist political heroes in our political system eventually become an ideological or partisan "brand."  Those that follow the political hero use the brand to advance their political careers and interests.  Eventually, the ideological or partisan brand is updated or becomes outdated per new political conditions.  In this way, populism is complementary with ideology and partisanship.

        On the other hand, neopopulism is always opposed to ideology and partisanship because neopopulism doesn't believe in political heroes.  Neopopulists are not self-absorbed like populists.  There will never be a neopopulist hall of fame. There is too much work to be done to ponder recognition of work in the past.  There is no time to dwell on past good deeds.  Neopopulism requires relentlessly pursuing progress -- always.

        From this perspective, one can see that populism, unlike neopopulism, can never be a proper foil to the Establishment.  The Achilles' heal of populism is that populist political heroes are always tempted to become part of the Establishment -- despite what they say.  There is an old saying that the people elect the politicians and Washington changes them.  It's true.  The newly-elected populist Congressmen go to Washington and..... join the Establishment.  It is true the populist political heroes become so self-absorbed, so narcisstic, that they willfully join the Establishment.  Populism facilitates these conversions to the Establishment by promoting the narcissim.   

        Neopopulism hates political and cultural narcissim.  Nothing in neopopulism develops political heroes who will eventually join the Establishment.   It's contradictory.  It's impossible.  It doesn't happen.       

Battling Bureaucratic Experts?  What Do the New Populists Do?   A Revolution Based on Laptop Computers and Attitude - Please Join Us.

    The easiest way that I have found to explain the revolutionary tactics of neopopulism in battling bureaucracy is to half-heartedly use the scientific method.  That is it is an easy way to organize and communicate how to battle bureaucracy.  There could be other ways - but this is the best way I have found.

    First, the experiment requires materials.  The first thing needed is at  least one neopopulist and at least one expert.  In our culture and government, everyone seems to be an expert, so there is an abundance of those.  The problem will be locating a neopopulist who has separated his or her mind from those of the experts.  Once a neopopulist is located, then the materials required for the experiment are at hand.

    The second step is locating the laboratory for the experiment.  As mentioned above, it is unlikely that the federal government with its democratic deficits will offer many opportunities.  At the state and local level, however, there are a plenitude of opportunities.  Check for meetings and hearings at the state, county and city level to see what items may be on their agenda.  Relate this information back to the neopopulist to see which issues are best suited for the neopopulist to attempt to assert his will against the experts.

    The third step is ensuring that there is a dispute between the neopopulist and the government's expert.  It is the most difficult step in the scientific procedure listed here.  It also the most important because there must be a dispute between the neopopulist and the government's expert so that the government is put into a position where it must choose between following the neopopulist or following the government's own expert.  The data obtained from the experiment will be of a better quality if the disputed issue is one that clearly presents a choice between truth and fallacy.  So, the government will be put in the toughest position if the government's expert has embraced fallacy and the neopopulist has embraced truth.  The best data for the experiment will come from these situations where the government will either (i) follow its expert and embrace fallacy or (ii) follow the neopopulist and embrace truth.

    The fourth step is preparation.  Every issue to come before a governmental body requires some sort of reading, analysis or thought.  The neopopulist must be prepared to speak on the issue chosen.  The neopopulist must be as prepared as the government expert on the issue chosen.   The neopopulist must be prepared to make an excellent presentation.  The idea is that there be a clash between the neopopulist presentation and the government expert's presentation.  The government must be presented with a difficult choice.

     The fifth step is execution.  The hearing or meeting is the experiment's moment.  The government expert presents his or her case to the government. The neopopulist presents his or her case to the government.  The governent deliberates on the presentations.  Then, the government makes its decisions to embrace or reject its own expert. The government makes its final decision.  Done.

     The sixth step is collection of data.  The observer collects data on the presentations by the government's expert and by the neopopulist, the government's reactions to the presentations and the government's final decision.  Most scientific experiments also collect data from a control group.  However, this experiment does not need a control group because the assumption can be made if the neopopulist had not shown up at the hearing, there is 100% probability that the government would follow its own expert's advice.  The point of collecting the data here is to record under what circumstances the government will still follow its expert.  For example, when a neopopulist has made a presentation showing that the expert has relied on fallacy to make the expert's case, what does the government do?  If the government, under these circumstances, `rejects its experts, it tells us one thing.  If the government, under these circumstances, does not reject its experts, it tells us another thing.

    The seventh step is analyzing the data.  Is the neopopulist hypothesis true?  If a person becomes a neopopulist by separating his or her mind from those of the experts and challenges a government expert on a disputed issue because of fallacious reasoning, will the government ignore the government expert and embrace the neopopulist?  If the data supports this proposition, then the neopopulist hypothesis is true.  If the data shows, even under these circumstances, the government still defers to its own expert, then the neopopulist hypothesis is false. 

    The eighth can be the most humbling.  If the government rejects the neopopulist's position, the neopopulist must also consider all possible causes of failure.  Basically, the neopopulist needs to do an autopsy on what killed the neopopulist effort.   Was the neopopulist's position the right position to take?  Was it argued well?  Were there mistakes made in the presentation or in the arguments?  If these and other questions are all resolved in favor of the neopopulist's argument and presentations, then the neopopulist can conclude it was the government's fault that it could not separat from its experts and fallacies -- but this conclusion should only be made after the autopsy is concluded.

    Under these circumstances, if the neopopulist hypothesis is proven false once, then more experimentation would have to be done.  Too many questions would remain. Why would a government defer to an expert engaging in fallacy?  Is there any bases upon which a government would not follow its experts' advice?  How did the experts obtain so much power over the government?  Future neopopulists then must  design the next experiment to determine whether again the neopopulist hypothesis is proven false.  If it is, then another experiment. If proven false again, then another experiment.  This cycle will continue until the dispute between new populism and the Modern Rationalist Tradition is resolved.

   The final step, really an afterthought because a neopopulist by definition is humble, is publishing the experiment, results and analysis in appropriate ways.  Sharing in this way builds the new populist counternarrative and supports the counterculture.

   Any of us can be a neopopulist hero.  Just ask Greg Wersal, Keith Kiefer or the Mdewakanton Indians and the other neopopulist clients I represent.   It's fun and it's definitely not boring.

Conclusion

            Here are 7 last neopopulist pastoral admonitions before I conclude.

• 1. Separate your mind from the political and cultural experts
• 2. Do not dialogue with the Modern Rationalist Tradition. It wants to kill America's broad democratic and religious tradition
• 3. Not "What is objective truth?," "It's who's making the decision here?"
• 4. Build neopopulist culture by manly asserting your neopopulist will on the bureaucrats
• 5. Keep democratic hope alive
• 6. Be irate
• 7. Be tireless

Now, Samuel Adams will speak one last time from the grave:

Samuel Adams quotes:  

It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.

Now, from my view from the podium, I see many neopopulist brush fires in people's minds - now, that represent in the words of President Bush the elder - a thousand points of light - a thousand points of light which I can believe in.

Comment (0) Read More...

Readers of this website are aware of the criticism that neopopulism.org has of the wikipedia definition of "neopopulism."  Recently, dictionary.reference.com came up with a more reasonable definition of neopopulism. 

The definition from dictionary.reference.com can be found here.  

The definition isn't perfect, however.  Neopopulism.org points out that the origin of the word given is 1975-1980, but neopopulism goes back to 1920's U.S.S.R.  Neopopulist was a phrase used in 1920's Soviet Union to describe economists who were critical of the centralized plannig involved in Soviet Collectivized Farming -- particularly in the Ukraine. 

The definition from dictionary.reference.com is reprinted below to show its vast superiority over the current Wikipedia definition:

ne-o-pop-u-list

Comment (0) Read More...

Tom Dahlberg

When political "scientists" argue that an election "should" have resulted in an outcome unlike the one it actually produced, they become mere pundits and their opinion should be taken no more seriously by the people than those of obviously biased partisans.

More generally, when political "scientists" argue that pluralities are less desirable than simple majorities, they are expressing nothing more interesting than their own taste in elections; nothing more interesting than a taste for green over blue.  Because they are, by profession, rationalists, political scientists don't happen to like pluralities.  Because Neopopulists are not rationalists, they are perfectly comfortable with pluralities.  Neither preference is more rational than the other in and of itself.  The suggestion that the preference for majorities is somehow rationally binding is just one more sophomoric myth of the age of expertism.

The rationalist does not like it when a communist, a socialist, and a Republican receive 25%, 35%, and 40% of the vote respectively with the Republican therefore winning.  He thinks it is irrational that any political organizational unit would end up with a Republican representative where 60% of the voters are left wing.  He concludes that the "majority" is not being represented, and that this is absurd. 

But what is actually absurd is the political scientist imagining that he, the expert, knows better than the people, what the people want.

Obviously, the communists and the socialists must think that their differences are significant enough to have two parties and run two candidates, not one.  There is no clear majority.  It is all in the scientist's mind.  He thinks he is a better judge of whether or not the differences between communists and socialists are significant enough to warrant real hostility.  Of course, it is not empiricism when the expert imposes his view of what ought to happen when a communist and a socialist can't compromise. 

How might the political scientist fix this "problem" he sees from his relative point of view?

We can only assume that he would not blatantly eliminate the First Amendment right of either of the two left wing candidates to refuse any primary and register as a third party candidate.  In doing so one or the other is saying that the other candidate and his party does not speak for him or his supporters.  And he has every right to do so.

So if freedom, the First Amendment, is screwing things up for the "scientist" in a manner that cannot be fixed with a primary, what can he do?

He can propose a run-off.

But, of course, he'll then be disappointed when the Republican still wins because the bitter communists, who would otherwise come in last, wish to "spoil" the opportunity of the socialists.  Their preference is for ideological purity or bust. 

Or, as it may turn out, some of the moderate socialists just happen to like the Republican more than their own candidate, noticing that his hair is perfectly parted.  Or they may so dislike the way that the socialist parts his hair that it drives them to the Republican.

So, even after a run-off, the election is still screwed up from the standpoint of our rationalist friend.

So what to do next?  Perhaps test people for what he thinks are irrational motivations before he allows them to vote?

The voters, of course, are doing what they want to do.  It's just not what the scientist wants them to do.  He's got to get them to do what he wants them to do.  He has to trick them into doing what he wants them to do.  The voters understand the consequences of what they are doing, but nevertheless need to be protected from themselves.

So penultimately, what our rationalist friend can do, is propose "instant runoff voting" by designing a voting method which is not actually an instant runoff (because it is specifically intended to produce a different result than a real runoff).  He asks voters to rank their choices.  The communists are to rank their communist candidate first, the socialist candidate second, and the Republican candidate third.  The socialists are to rank their socialist candidate first, the communist candidate second, and the Republican candidate third.   The Republicans are to rank their Republican candidate first, the socialist candidate second, and the communist candidate third.  This, our rationalist friend thinks, will clearly elect the socialist consistently and provide the political unit with the obviously optimized representation of the majority's political perspective.  Given the opportunity to rank candidates, the scientist thinks, the people will behave rationally by his lights.

But lo and behold, the people simply will not cooperate with reason.  The communists still rank the Republican second to try to insure that the socialist will not win.  It's still all or nothing for them.  They hate those wimpy social democrats.  In the mean time the socialists are discovering that by ranking their candidate first, due to the strategy of the communists, they are actually hurting his chances of getting elected in the second round over the Republican.  The Republican's hair compares even better to the communist's than it does to the socialist's, and the Republican becomes a somewhat popular second choice among the moderate socialists.  Not only do the socialists consistently lose, they haven't got a clue as to how to vote, election to election, to optimize their candidate's chance of winning!  The Republicans, being rich, hire consultants who help them game the system by actually coordinating the Republicans around a second choice strategy.

Oh what a tangled web the experts weave.  All for the sake of rational outcomes.  This mess almost drives our scientist mad.  Or was he mad in the first place and is now sobering up?

Having created a mess that no one is happy with, our political scientist finally arrives at the best solution.  Too bad it turns out to be the old hat, traditional solution:  The political unit is divided up into more homogeneous districts, so everyone gets represented.   Unfortunately, when this is done honestly, there are more Republican districts than communist and socialist districts that meet all of the redistricting requirements, starting with size. 

Our poor rationalist just can't win and be truly reasonable and fair at the same time.  He hates Republicans.  But even worse, he hates the fact that his inventions are useless, irrelevant in principle, and even damaging. 

Perhaps he can find a way to improve economic rather than political choices.  He calls his parents to see if they can subsidize a degree in economics.

Comment (0) Read More...

by Tom Dahlberg

I am getting the impression that our opponents on IRV are of the opinion that the constitution is satisfied if one's vote is counted, even if it's effect is not predictable.

There's some kind of confusion surviving in this case, some kind of confusion in the debate and the decisions, from an analytic philosopher's perspective. 

The implicit position of Magnuson, for example, is that we are making a category mistake when we suppose that our right to vote is identical with the right to know that that vote is going to have a particular effect.

He seems to be saying that as long as our vote is counted, the right is satisfied.  The effect of the vote is not guaranteed.

But clearly the right to vote is identical with the right to know what effect the vote will have. 

Everyone will agree that if I enter a vote for Jones, who is opposed by Smith, and the electors are allowed to change my vote to Smith, or not, then I could not know the actual effect of my vote and clearly, in this scenario, I have been disenfranchised. 

The IRV folks will immediately respond that this is not analogous since no one is literally changing my vote.  But it is changing my vote, by virtue of making it's effect unpredictable.  And the fact that this is happening to everyone doesn't make it acceptable.  If everyone's vote is subject to change by the electors  (the IRV algorithm) then we are all equally abused.  IRV algorithms, which would count some votes more than others, is changing my vote, altering its effect; making it's effect unpredictable with a complicated algorithm.

It  won't do, of course, to argue that the electors may NOT change my vote even though they MAY.  If they may, in principle, change it, then I cannot predict the effect of my vote.  To argue under these circumstances that I have voted, and that therefore my right has been satisfied, would be absurd. 

If all we have is the right to vote, and not the right to know what effect the vote is going to have, something has gone profoundly wrong.  Under my elector scenario, where the experts go all the way to explicitly changing my vote, the absurdity is absolutely clear.  IRV simply changes my vote -- the effect of it --  implicitly.

The legal doctrine would be that the vote is identical with an intended effect.  If that intended effect is altered against your will, your vote has been changed. 

In any traditional election -- a primary, a runoff, a general -- I do seem to know exactly what effect my vote will have.  What do we mean by the "effect" of my vote?  It is not a probability on the face of it.  We would not say, "Because I voted for Jones, the probability of his winning is higher."  I think if you examine this idea you'll find it's invalid.  Voting does not increase the odds that Jones will be elected; it either elects him or it doesn't.  We do say "Jones was elected ten to one" when ten of eleven voters vote for Jones and only one for his opponent.  But it would be odd to suggest that Jones "odds" of winning are ten to one.  He was elected ten to one.  It is merely analogical and confusing to talk about the effect of voting increasing the odds of a candidate winning.  I am not predicting the odds when I vote.  I am trying to get my candidate elected.

So what is the literal effect of voting which must be predictable?  Remember the all important criteria here for defining the effect of a vote: The effect must be defined literally, univocally, and it must be a predictable effect.  (This is the route to creating a legal doctrine -- a new one perhaps.  At least a clear one.)

Is the effect that I am "associating" with the candidate?  Although true, this is a relatively  abstract effect.  I can associate with the candidate even if I don't vote for him, and associating with the candidate, even by a majority of the people, isn't prima facie what gets him elected.  I think the argument that IRV impinges upon freedom of association, although true,  is not the heart of the matter, not a substitute for this hard core definition of the effect of a vote which needs to be guaranteed.

We know that the Constitution would strike down my elector scenario, even for judges within the Modern Liberal Rationalist Tradition (MLRT) where the effect of my vote clearly becomes unpredictable because my vote can be explicitly changed.  And if IRV can be shown to literally, although implicitly, change my vote -- my clear, as applied intention --  it cannot stand Constitutional scrutiny no matter what the MLRT says.  (Remember, the primary purpose of a tradition is to define what's good, and the primary role of judges within the MLRT is decide what's good from within that tradition.  It's not about deciding what's constitutional.  I'm just saying that even a MLRT judge might conclude that if IRV is changing my clear, as applied intention, albeit implicitly, it's a bad thing.) 

But what, exactly, is the clear, literal, univocal "effect" that I must be able to predict in order to have voted?  

The predictable effect must be that my vote CANCELS THE EFFECT OF AN OPPOSING VOTE, ONE TO ONE.  Literally, univocally, a traditional election is canceling votes against one another until there is no vote to cancel an opposing vote.  This has nothing to do with 51% majorities and the counting could stop right at that point and we would know who won.  In other words, all traditional elections are won, in principle, by one vote (your vote), NOT BY A MAJORITY, because this must be the predictable effect of my voting in order for me to have actually voted. 

We do not say that because Jones won by two votes instead of one, that he has "more won" or "won more".  Winning is NOT something that gets increased quantitatively.  It is a qualitative state.  The state of having won is NOT a matter of degree -- except in the odd mental machinations of IRV proponents.

Having won is a state that obtains whether I win by one vote or ten million.  Won = one.   IRV distorts the ordinary understanding, the ordinary language, of what it means to win.  It is trying to convince people that there must be something more to winning than just having more votes.  This is reminiscent of children proposing that its not fair that the other softball team got the trophy when it only won by one run.  When we teach kids sports, we are trying to teach them that in the real world there are hard edges.  But we live in a day and age where the losing team gets a trophy too.  Failure and risk are evil within the MLRT.

As soon as you take on the premise that winning must be something more than having one more vote than your opponent, there is no obvious, shared meaning for "winning".  And this is why IRV will devolve into controversy and chaos in the long run, alienating even its MLRT candidates (the ones who lose).   It's victory in the MLRT courts will continue (on the grounds that it's nice, it's good) until it's inherently controversial view of what it means to win gets on just about everyone's nerves -- including liberals.  IRV is an entirely relative, merely value based, expert perspective on what it means to WIN.   As soon as we decide that winning means something other than having at least one more vote, we condemn the concept of winning to subjectivity and rabid controversy.   Look at what's happening!  Democracy cannot afford questionable, vague concepts of what it means to win.  IRV misdirects the people on what it means to win.  It subjectifies what it means to WIN.  It makes the definition of winning too complicated and too controversial.

In order to predict the effect of my vote, IT MUST BE POSSIBLE FOR IT TO BE THE WINNING VOTE.  My vote must be able to cancel an opposing vote one to one, and therefore it must be possible for my vote to be the winning vote when there's no other vote to cancel.  If this is not predictable, then I have lost my vote.  My voting, or not voting, may have no effect at all given the complexity of winning under IRV.

If it is NOT even in principle possible for my vote to be the winning vote then why should I vote at all?  If it is not possible for my vote to be the winning vote, then I cannot even in principle predict the effect of my vote.  Everyone who votes for a winning candidate has, in principle, cast the winning vote.  This is literally true in a traditional election; literally predictable.

The effect of my vote, when I cast it, and which must be predictable, is that it can win the election.  If it can't win the election, then my vote has been stolen from me.  The confident prediction of this effect of canceling the other's vote one to one  is quite literally what the Constitution is guaranteeing if it is guaranteeing my vote.  If this does not happen then the protection is unequal.  If I express only one preference under IRV, it may or may not be the winning preference because a plurality is not accepted.  The same is true for each subsequent "runoff". 

IRV will NOT allow my one vote to win the election.  There are other conditions added on.  Therefore the effect of my vote is not literally and univocally predictable.  I cannot know that it will cancel an opposing vote one to one.  I cannot know that my vote can win the election.

So here's the argument which appeals to a compelling legal theory:

1.  In order for my right to vote to be satisified, the effect of my vote must be predictable in a literal, univocal sense.  My right to vote and the ability to clearly predict the effect of the vote cannot be separated.  This is demonstrated by my elector scenario.
2.  In order for the effect of my vote to be predictable in a literal, univocal sense, it must cancel an opposing vote one to one.
3. The predictable effect in (2) is logically equivalent to my vote being able to win the election.
4. But in IRV my one vote cannot, all by itself, win the election.  There are other conditions established for winning besides my casting a vote which is NOT canceled by an opponents. 

5. Therefore the literal, univocal effect of my vote under IRV is not predictable and IRV is no better, morally, than my elector scenario.  If my one vote cannot all by itself, win the election, if there are other conditions, I cannot predict the effect of my vote.

Without question, IRV leads to a despair of voting. 

The alternative to despair is to start gaming IRV to our advantage.  Then we'll see how long the rationalists of the modern tradition continue to think it's a good thing.   Let's manipulate an election, brag about it, demonstrate that it's been done, and then we'll see how happy Frankenstein is with the monster.

Comment (0) Read More...

by Tom Dahlberg 

Comment (0) Read More...

Executive Summary of Neopopulism

Read it and act!

There may be some disagreement about the details of this summary, but I believe most Neopopulists will agree with most of this:

Neopopulism is a post-modern democratic movement that focuses on the rule of law, political and cultural context (relevance) and democratic process.  What makes the shining city on the hill beautiful is not any ideological architecture, but HOW it is built.  It has to be built by the people. 

Neopopulism replaces the question "What is the objective truth?" with "Who's in charge here?" 

This  implies the elimination of discretionary bureaucratic power, the political and cultural demise of the expert aristocracy, the rejection of ideology as a will to power that abuses and even hates the people's language, the rejection of the conservative theory of the natural aristocracy and the statesman as more elitism, the rejection of utilitarianism as rationalist nonsense that perpetuates the myth of expertise and the statesman, and a Neopopulist theory of the politician as being directly responsible to the agenda of the people.  

 At an even deeper philosophical level, Minnesota Neopopulism is a wholesale rejection of the modern, rationalistic, scientistic, reductionist tradition.  Neopopulism is a political movement, but deeply respects the capacity of religion to put reason in its place and assert the intrinsic dignity and worth of the people. The rise of Modernism supported the rise of expert aristocracy.  The death of that tradition now supports the rebirth of democracy.  The critique of the modern tradition is in.  The rationalist roots are dead, and the whole tree has fallen on its utilitarian branch, smashing it.  It's firewood.  The people, not the experts, will now be the measure of what is politically correct.

Neopopulism is NOT a political party and should never become one, because the political parties trivialize politics, turning politics into nothing but a will to power -- an ideological process which is often out of context and simply focuses on electing an elite member of the party.  Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans oppose expert aristocracy, they just disagree about who the experts really are.

Neopopulism is strategic.  It focuses on the creation of political counter- culture.  The right political culture (culture = a belief system [religion, both secular and traditional] externalized, the practical implementation of a world view) will automatically produce the right agenda.

Core Values:

• The rule of law versus the discretionary power of the modern regulatory state.
• Democracy versus expert aristocracy (modern elitism) and rationalism.
• Common sense versus rationalism and  ideology as an out of context will to power.
• Religious faith versus scientism (religion putting reason in its place).
• Respect for the dignity, not just the rights of the people.
• Ordinary language versus technical language as more reductionism.

Core Principles:

• The government should not only respect our rights, it should respect our dignity. It will not do the former if it cannot do the latter.
• There is no objective utilitarian calculator. No expert, no government can measure the net utility of individuals and communities. This can only be decided by the people themselves as a democratic compromise and, as such, is hated by experts who are evil for their ideological perfectionism and who appeal to the utilitarian myth.
• We are "post-modern". The modern rationalist tradition, including utilitarian justifications for giving power to experts, is dead. This also includes the death of modern scientific reductionism, which is the cornerstone of the myth of expertise.
• We reject the conservative theory of the natural aristocracy and the statesman. This is just more elitism.
• The Neopopulist politician is the politician who refuses to play the statesman, but instead remains true to the agenda he was elected on.
• What's new in "neo"-populism is the popular, historical conclusion that the government cannot do for the people what the people must now do for themselves. What we must first of all do for ourselves is liberate ourselves from the expert aristocracy - the excesses of the modern regulatory state (the modern scientific republic).
• The bureaucracy is not an evil conspiracy, it is just inherently mediocre and requires massive surveillance by the people.
• Socialism is rationalism and elitism and cannot be implemented without totalitarianism.
• Private property is power to the people.
• Serve the people or fear the people.
• Ideology is a will to power which has no respect for the common meanings that common people associate with words. Ideology, as opposed to philosophical consistency, is willing to falsify the experience and language of the people in order to achieve power.
• Reason alone has no authority.  But ordinary language, common sense, and the religious tradition have all the authority required to avoid radical relativism.

Core Processes:

• Massive surveillance of the government by the people. We are looking for particularly good informants.
• Bringing suit against the bureaucrats when they violate the rule of law or abuse discretionary power. Force the regulators to either abide by the rule of law or give up their power to regulate.
• Monitoring of all elected officials to keep them on the people's agenda.
• Recall.
• Initiative and referendum.
• Write-in campaigns.
• Civil disobedience.
• Education through the alternative media.
• Coordination through the alternative media.
• The direct control by the people of all educational institutions; the end of government education as a puppy mill for the government's own rationalist tradition.

Basic Agenda:

• Educating the people in the death of the modern rationalist tradition and the need to end the age of expert aristocracy.
• Creation of anti-rationalist, anti-intellectualist counter-culture.
• Direct election of judges. Make the judiciary directly accountable to the people.  Judges and their judgments are all tradition bound.
• Direct election of all state commissioners and police chiefs (as well as sheriffs). Make the bureaucracy directly accountable to the people. Establish the rule of law in the otherwise mediocre bureaucracy. Make the bureaucracy perform for the people; end its wholesale moral and technical mediocrity.
• Bring education under the direct control of the people. Make education directly accountable to the people in order to finally make the people fully free by putting them in charge of the means of cultural production.
• The election of Neopopulist politicians. Make the legislature directly accountable to the people.
• National and state initiative and referendum for deconstructing what the modern scientific republic constructs.
• Recall of any and all politicians including the president.
• Liberate the American worker by liberating him from big business as an extension of the regulatory regime. End the age of the employee by ending the government's regulation of the relationship between the worker and the firm.
• Ordinary language statutes which will control all other law by enforcing the people's common sense meanings for words.
• A constitutional requirement that elected representatives write their own statutes; not experts (lobbyists) or staffers.

Comment (0) Read More...