Neopopulists have  solved the epistemic political problem created by rationalists. The epistemic political problem involves answering the question of how knowledge is acquired in the political process?

Rationalists can not solve the epistemic political problem because they believe knowledge is something owned by the individual mind.  (Recall Russel Kirk's bestseller the Conservative Mind.)  As rationalists, each person works out his own universal set of principles to be applied to humanity and the social order.  Hence, the rationalist brands have evolved:  left, right, center, liberal, conservative, moderate, etc.  By this rationalism, the political process is reduced, like the marketplace, to self-interested politicians pushing their rationalist set of ideas or principles. 

On the other hand, neopopulists solve the epistemic political problem (created by rationalists) by asserting that knowledge is not acquired individually -- but in the context of others.   As neopopulists, each person acquires knowledge in the context of others and then applies it in the context of others.  Hence, the neopopulist brands evolve:  neopopulist, elitist (rationalist).  By this neopopulism, the political process is accurately described as  democratic, deliberative and worthwhile.  

The rationalist and neopopulist approaches to the epistemic political problem can further be analyzed by two tests.  First, how do the two approaches correlate to the truth?  Second, which approach calls for a better politics?

How do the two approaches relate to truth?

The three tests for truth I will use will be:  correspondence, coherence and transcendental truth.

Correspondence:  is the approach consistent with my experience?  A quick historical review of world democracies corresponds with the neopopulist, not rationalist, approach.   Democracies over time acquire knowledge experience by dealing with fact-based reality.   Democracies make decisions and then make more decisions based on the experiences of their past decisions.  For example, when the U.S. went to war in Iraq, the comparisions were made to previous wars in Vietnam, Korea, Europe, etc. -- not to some rationalist universal set of principles.   So, correspondence favors neopopulism over rationalism.

Coherence:  is the approach logical, consistent?  Rationalism is logical, consistent at an individual level - but not at a community level.  Neopopulism is consistent at both an individual level and community level.   Rationalism makes complete sense to an individual because each person is a sovereign onto himself -- working out a universal set of principles to apply to humanity and the social order.  Neopopulism is logical and consistent to an individual because a person contributes and acquires knowledge in the context of others.  At the community level, neopopulism is logical and consistent; whereas, rationalism is not.  Neopopulism is logical and consistent because the community acquires knowledge over time by its experience with fact-based reality.  Rationalism is illogical and inconsistent at the community level because it holds to the illusion that knowledge is only acquired by individuals -- not communities.    This is why rationalism creates the epistemic political problem and why neopopulism solves it.

Transcendental truth:  does the approach meet transcendental truths?   I think it comes down to two choices -- do you speak for others or for God?  Neopopulists speak for others.  That is their motivation.  Rationalists speak for God.  Their motivation is to speak for God's plan.  For my part, it is a transcendental truth that man is not God, and, particularly, no particular man is God, and generally, each man is not God.  Rationalism violates these truths.  Neopopulism incorporates them.

Which approach calls for a better politics?

Neopopulism creates the better politics because its politics are more respectful of people and their dignity.  Neopopulists assert that politics take primacy.   Neopopulists require all rationalist foundationalists  in any sphere -- science, ethical, moral -- to seek verification from others in the broad political process.  For legitimacy, that political process must be ethical and democratic.  On the other hand,  rationalists assert that the individual takes primacy.  Rationalist foundationalists may claim legitimacy whenever they want -- it's available everywhere, anytime.  Legitimacy comes from the fact that the rationalist believes it -- not that anyone else believes it.  The political process becomes a graceless free-for-all.  

We can do better.  We are in a state of rebellion.

Comment (0) Read More...

I have been assigned the task of reviewing the academic literature on neopopulism in the process of writing the Wikipedia article on neopopulism. 

My first observation is that the academics on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean define neopopulism differently.  The Europeon-focused academic literature defines neopopulism as right-wing, anti-democratic, anti-government, anti-immigrant, etc.  The Latin American academic literature defines neopopulism as democratic, constructive, a well-intentioned politics, etc.

 My sense is that the political scientists who are writing these articles defining and describing neopopulism are themselves ideologically-motivated - resulting in ideologically-reductionist writing.

In Dahlberg's and my view, pure neopopulism is free of ideological and partisan reductionism.

Curiously, Dahlberg's and my view on the definition of a pure neopopulism may be congruent with the definition offered by University of Texas Profesor Kurt Weyland in his article "Clarifying a Contested Concept: Populism in the Study of Latin American Politics" published in the Journal of Comparative Politics, volume 34, No. 1, October 2001, p. 1.  The article can be found here.

In the article at pages 14-16, Professor Weyland distinguishes neopopulism from populism in a very important way.  Populists act unilaterally on behalf of the people.  Neopopulists act on behalf of the people's desires communicated through such devices as opinion polls.  In this way, Weyland concludes neopopulists are more populist than populists.

Dahlberg and I agree on this point. But, we would press Professor Weyland further to recognize that neopopulists are systematic, as opposed to populists, in establishing over the long term the people managing the government or, put more in a political science way, a government managed by the people.  In so many ways, today's populist politicians want to manage the people just like the elitists. Today's populist politican becomes tomorrow's elitist ruler. 

Nonetheless, Professor Weyland's article is a valuable contribution to the neopopulist literature.  As a result, we are adding his article to our library.

Meanwhile, I continue the review of the academic literature on neopopulism.

Erick G. Kaardal

Comment (0) Read More...

        As announced on this website, Tom Dahlberg and I are going to submit a Wikipedia article on "neopopulism."  While discussing a process to write the article, Tom and I confronted the issue of what to do with the vast literature written on the topics of "populism" and "neopopulism."

       To us, the academic literature on populism seems easy to deal with.  Populists identify political heroes.  Neopopulists, as you know from this website, do not identify political heroes.  Neopopulists believe that the people need to democratically, effectively manage their government.  You don't need political heroes for that.  Since populism is in the business of identifying political heroes, academic literature on populism won't be helpful in defining neopopulism in the Wikipedia article or elsewhere.

     To us, the academic literature on neopopulism will require a close review.  First, we must look to see how the academic has defined neopopulism.  Is the definition of neopopulism free of ideological and partisan reductionism? Dahlberg would say, is the definition free of the modern rationalistic tradition? Either way, is the definition of neopopulism based in the notion of the people democratically, effectively managing their government.  Second, we must look to see whether the movement described by the author as "neopopulist" is free of ideological and partisan reductionism.   The movement described can only be purely neopopulist if the movement itself is free of ideological and partisan reductionism, or as Dahlberg would say, and free of the modern rationalist tradition.

     This two-step approach for the academic literature on neopopulism will work. Basically, there are two questions.  Is the author tainted by leftism or rightism?  Does the movement represent ideological or partisan reductionism? 

     Quite frankly, the academic articles on neopopulism I have already reviewed have not been that difficult to sort out.   Take a look at this short example to see that the mixing of neopopulist and ideological thinking leads to an unidentifiable hybrid.  To preserve "neopopulism," we must separate it from ideology and partisanship.

Erick G. Kaardal

Comment (0) Read More...

Tom Dahlberg

It is patently elitist and anti-democratic to characterize any candidate operating under a true voting system as a "spoiler".  This rhetoric and the elitist political culture it is a part of should be rejected with extreme prejudice by all Neopopulists.

The preferential voting people, who long to take the vote away from the people, and replace it with an expression of "preference", say that their approach would eliminate the "spoiler" effect - minor candidates taking votes away from  a potential majority candidate and sometimes contributing to his  defeat. 

Some  claim that preferential voting cannot eliminate this effect in any event.

But if it could, it would be direct attack on the First Amendment.  What is the difference between giving government the authority to reduce the impact of legitimate speech (a vote) and giving it the authority to eliminate speech (a vote)?

From a Neopopulist perspective, there is no spoiler effect in democracy.  The elitists have no moral right, and should never be given the legal power, to tinker with the effect of any vote for any candidate, no matter what the effect on other candidates under a true voting system.  They may as well be given the power to keep people from registering for office in the first place!  The effect that any candidate has on any other candidate IS FOR THE PEOPLE TO DECIDE -- not the experts.

Obviously, no one would propose that we keep anyone from registering for office.  So why would we propose to tinker with votes to reduce the impact of any candidacy?  This question surfaces the hypocrisy and unreason of preferential voting's goal of reducing the effect of minor candidates.  It is clearly evil and authoritarian to prohibit anyone's candidacy.  So instead, preferential voting proposes to hide this moral ugliness in a subtle approach that simply reduces the effect of a given candidacy.

Any vote tally for a "minor" candidate is the official, political registration of a point of view.  Its effect is inherently democratic - and more obviously so when it impacts other candidates substantially.  Any denial of this is blatantly anti-democratic and elitist. 

A minority vote in an election is the factored influence of a constituency.  It empowers people.  It expresses their point of view.  If votes for minor candidates can be successfully reduced in their effect by algorithms managed by "experts" the effect is evil.  The whole system is authoritarian and evil.  Hopefully preferential voting cannot actually do this, and its proponents would be better off if it cannot, and if they were to make it clear that it cannot.  Instead, like fools, they promote this effect, real or not.

The successful repression of the so-called "spoiler" effect would be an attack on the First Amendment.  There is no moral justification for any elite management class in the political structure of a so-called democracy to be given the power to reduce the effect of any citizen's vote in favor of any candidate. 

The so-called "spoiler" effect is nothing more than a truly democratic effect, registering a constituency that should be dealt with; one that should be considered by all other comers.  There is no such thing as "spoiling" democracy when we can truly vote, as opposed to simply expressing our preference so experts can decide who should really win.

Neopopulists should completely reject the rhetorical structure of the anti-democratic elitists who are attempting to attack the First Amendment even at the level of the voting process with preferential voting.  This is shocking, and needs to be eliminated by an uprising of the people in defense of their voting rights on a national scale.

Comment (0) Read More...

Tom Dahlberg

The Philosophical Essays

Bureaucrats and politicians are hungry to control culture.  They cannot control politics if they cannot control culture. 

Politics always includes a theory of authority.  More fundamentally, culture is always based on a theory of authority, and the cultural theory founds the political theory.  Culture is religion (including secular religion) made concrete. 

This authority theory is implicit in expert aristocracy because the people find any explicit definition of bureaucratic authority obnoxious.

As long as the people are classically religious -- believing in authority that transcends politics and politicians -- the power hungry will be determined to destroy religion in favor of the phony nonsense of the modern tradition.  The modern tradition attempts to transfer more and more power to the bureaucratic and political elite by arguing that only science is authoritative and they are its representatives. 

In politics, this "science" is utilitarianism - a dead branch on the dead tree of rationalism.  It is a joke.  The politico-cultural elite has no clothes.  We need to laugh publicly at its pretense to knowing what is best for the people.  There is no objective, scientific calculator of net utility.  This is an ideological myth which has mostly been expressed as  the myth of the "statesman" who is proffered as a substitute for the non-existent calculator.  The politician has become an "expert".  He is a government expert, or a business expert.  

Both the Republicans and Democrats believe in expertism and the culture of expertism.  They are all naively modern.  They simply debate about who the real experts are.  This debate is inherently boring, inherently inauthentic.  It has destroyed the real energy, the real passion of politics.  Everything merely technical is boring to the people.  The people are waiting for politicians who deny that they have any expert knowledge better than the preferences of the people, because this is the truth. 

Read the Wikipedia article on utilitarianism.  It perfectly illustrates the rationalist, reductionist, ideological project.  It is a joke.  No adult can take this stuff seriously.  The theory must constantly readjust itself to accomodate moral common sense.  So why try to reduce moral common sense in the first place?  Chesterton said it best.  It is not the people who have lost their reason who are in the mad house.  It is the people who have lost everything but their reason.

In the neopopulist theory of the ideal politician, the politician is not an expert -- just an authentic actor.  He makes no claim to special, occult political or scientific knowledge.  He confesses only to an agenda, a program he prefers and hopes that others prefer.  He is post modern.  He makes no appeal to "science" because it has become ideology in our time.  He despises rationalism and  ideology.  He makes no apologies for lacking "expertise". 

The political and bureaucratic elite attempts to control your culture daily, through the concept of political expertise, and succeeds, in many ways.  Until the people themselves directly control the  media and other processes by which culture is both created and transferred they will never be truly in control, truly free. 

The politico-cultural elite control culture through education; through the government school monopoly where they brainwash students every day in the dead, modern tradition.

They control it through immigration policy, hoping to so thoroughly upset cultural consensus that they can remake culture in the rationalist, ideological, reductionist  fashion that keeps them in power.  They must destroy the original (religious) culture which explicitly denies their expertise.

They control it through competing with the people through "public broadcasting" and charging you for it.

They control it through "hate" speech regulation, both political and adminstratrive, and through every other attack on free speech, including so-called campaign reform which attempted to repress the spontaneous political activity of the people - even on a very small scale.   Was California's rejection of gay "marriage", as a misnomer, hate speech?  Ideologues believe it is.  If they could engage in mind control, they would do it.  It is not the speech of some nazi nut that they are concerned about.   IT IS THE SPEECH (VALUES) OF AVERAGE PEOPLE.  It is the common sense cultural consensus of common people which the ideologues know is extremely dangerous to their power.  They despise ordinary moral language.  They know that this language will result in limits on their power, limits on their ideology.

They control culture through environmental policy, arguing that a culture of consumption must be controlled not by religion, but by the government, by science; not by the people, but by experts.  Ultimately they would control even what you eat on the basis of "scientific" authority.  RATIONALISM IS THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE.  RELIGION is your friend because it PUTS REASON IN ITS PLACE.  Religion is the only thing powerful enough to oppose the all powerful secular state.  A religious culture is inherently resistant to elitism based on rationalism. 

They control culture through commercial policy, setting up roadblocks to any business that would develop a distinctively religious business culture such as a Christian business culture, and trying to control even the products and services that can be produced.  Some products, like private insurance, limit government power by their very nature.  If an insurance company insures smokers, or shooters, it limits the government's power to suppress common forms of behavior -- to create a culture where there are no smokers or gun owners.

The politico-cultural elite understands that controlling the message by controlling the medium is control over culture.  And control over culture is control of politics because culture is first and foremost a commitment to a theory of authority.

As a Neopopulist I do not propose any tyranny of the majority.  Instead I simply recognize that it is always the people who will, or should  in fact decide what and who is truly authoritative.  I don't want the politico-cultural elite making this determination, opposing ideological "science" to the common sense of the people.

The "fairness" doctrine is one of the most blatant attempts on the part of the politico-cultural elite to control culture.  The people decide what is popular and what is unpopular.  They decide what they like -- without the interference of  ideology or "science".

The fairness doctrine is an attempt to suppress this democratic power.  It is not about suppressing the dominance of right wing talk radio, it is about taking power away from the people themselves to decide what they want to listen to.  I wish there were more Neopopulist radio shows.  But I will not attempt to take away the power of the people to decide.  The fairness doctrine is not about protecting the power of the people to control culture and politics.  It is about the power of the politico-cultural elite to control culture and politics.

The first amendment is the most neopopulist enumeration of a right in the US constitution.  The second amendment is a very close competitor for first place.

Neopopulists awake!  The government is trying to control your culture in education, in environmental policy, in the direct regulation of political speech, in the concept of hate (thought) crimes, and very specifically in the "fairness" doctrine.  We must liberate the people's speech, and free their minds. 

We must understand that without control over the media by which culture is created and transferred, we are not free.  Education is first.  But without freedom of the airwaves, the internet and the printing presses, and control over our own borders, we cannot complete the project of controlling our own culture, and subsequently controlling our politics.

It's your culture.  Take control of it by taking the media away from the government.

Comment (0) Read More...

Neopopulism.org recently discovered that the German Council on Foreign Relations has published an article on neopopulism.  The name of its journal is International Politik Global Edition. The article can be found here.  The author is Claus Leggewie.

The general tone of Leggewie's article is negative.  Here is an example:

Erosion of the Center

In practically all European party systems, the shift away from the programmatically-configured broad-based parties of the center-left and center-right continues. This erosion had already happened earlier in the parties of the classical left and nationalist conservatives, and also in religiously-affiliated and agrarian parties. The beneficiaries of this trend were those populist parties that were already geared to attract a volatile electorate, parties that have been propagating a "leftist" and a "rightist" variant since their formation at the end of the 19th century (especially in the United States and Russia).

It is in this fertile soil that the basic neo-populist configuration flourishes, focusing the alleged will of the "whole people" (or "simple people") against the "political class" and turning that imaginary will against established parliamentary representatives. Their leaders and self-anointed tribunes of the people-who as a rule come from the propertied and privileged classes themselves-presume to understand and accentuate the genuine needs of the "little people" better than the established political elite.

(Emphasis added.)

For neopopulism.org's part, Mr. Leggewie's article sounds like elitist sour grapes.  Mr. Leggewie accuses neopopulists of a "faux populism" -- while admitting his own elitist credentials. 

Neopopulists admit "faux populism" exists but "faux populists" are opportunists -- not neopopulists.  Faux populists use neopopulism for  their own ideological and partisan agendas.  True neopopulists never do that.  Democracy is an end in itself -- a good end.

Examine neopopulism.org.  Its rule of law agenda is non-ideological and non-partisan.  Mr. Leggewie forgets what J.S. Mill has taught us.  Without substantial democratic input, bureacracies will tend towards rules and routine -- mediocrity.  Mr. Leggiwie has no plan, except himself, to what the neopopulists cry for -- governmental excellence.  Only people-dominated democracy can cause that to happen.

In summary, Mr. Leggewie wishes to continue a view of government which does not stand up to post-modern review.  Mr. Leggewie believes still that the government must manage the people.  Post-modernists, like neopopulists, understand the people through democratic means must manage the government. It's a huge difference.

Comment (0) Read More...

Critics of neopopulism often say that neopopulists turn "bureaucratic discretion" into a dirty phrase. 

Not true.  Neopopulists believe that bureaucreatic discretion is a necessary part of any government.  But, as British philosopher J.S. Mill teaches us, bureacratic government, left without democratic input, will tend towards rule and routine -- mediocrity.

This is hardly an attack on bureacratic discretion per se. 

Take the zero tolerance policies adopted in Minnesota over the last decade.   These policies leave no discretion to bureaucrats.  Under these circumstances, bureaucrats can not make common sense exceptions to generally applicable rules. The results are absurd punishments for innocent people.

Here are two examples.

The public schools have taken a zero tolerance policy to guns and terroristic threats to such an extent that toy guns and innocuous statements automatically result in the harshest penalties -- sometimes felony charges and expulsion -- for innocent students. 

Neopopulists say such public school "zero tolerance" policies are grossly unfair to these innocent students.  School administrators should have the discretion to reduce the penalties in these cases.

Similiarly, the Department of Natural Resources in an effort to lance the boil affecting deer hunting -- a culture out of control as to deer baiting -- adopted a zero tolerance policy.  Henceforth, the DNR would take the policy that any grain near a closed deer feeder would have to be completely removed -- or it was a misdemeanor.  Criminal prosecutions have now resulted with less than a cupful of grain spread amongst the soil. 

Neopopulists would respond, "Madness!"  The State of Minnesota has left the conservation officer with no discretion to make a common sense exception for the person who cleaned up the deer feeding station -- but not 100% completely.   There needs to be enough room in the law for the conservation officer to make a judgment as to the criminal nature of the suspect's actions.  The DNR's zero tolerance policy does not allow that flexibility.

Minnesota's zero tolerance trend is disconcerting.  Criminal prosections are being made when there are no crimes.  The cost of going to a jury trial is cost prohibitive for many.  The results are unjust guilty pleas and more misunderstanding of the law.

So, neopopulists understand that bureacratic discretion is necessary in government.  The government adopting zero tolerance policies to reduce bureacratic discretion is foolish.  Law will need administrators who make the common sense exception. 

The problem, neopopulists recognize uniquely, is that it is exactly the power to make that common sense exception that can lead to bureaucrats being mediocre when that power is not carefully employed.  The neopopulist response to this bureaurcatic mediocrity is more democracy and therefore more oversight by the exectuive, legislature, courts and, of course, the people. 

Comment (0) Read More...

Published November 19 2008

Instant runoff election ill-advised, misguided

By: Andy Cilek and Matt Marchetti , Duluth News Tribune

In his Local View commentary last week in the News Tribune ("Senate race shows need for runoff system"), Nick Hannula exhibited flawed thinking with regard to how our republic must work.

He began by trying to show that an electoral problem exists in our current plurality voting system because the ultimate winner of Minnesota's U.S. Senate race between incumbent Republican Norm Coleman and Democratic challenger Al Franken won't achieve 51 percent of the vote. He called for instant runoff voting, sometimes referred to as IRV, as a remedy that would ensure a so-called "majority" winner.

While we do not believe a majority winner is really the motivation behind Hannula's remarks, it is worth responding to.

First, IRV does not guarantee a 51 percent majority winner because it doesn't require voters to rank more than one candidate. That allows a winner to be determined with less that 50 percent of the votes. As a student of political science, Hannula should have figured that out.

In addition, the founders of our republic knew that majority rule was just another form of tyranny. This was why they gave us a constitutional republic, not a majority-rule democracy. Ignorance of this simple historical fact is dangerous to our republic.

Benjamin Franklin has been quoted as saying, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner." The Founders knew that a majority could be just as tyrannical as any monarch or dictator; so they created a constitutional republic, limiting the powers of government and specifically preventing majorities from trampling on the rights and property of the minority.

A plurality vote is the duly expressed will of the people. The value of a plurality lies in the message it sends to the winner: "Be careful how you govern because we don't completely trust you."

Our elected officials must understand they are representatives - not rulers! We the people rule, not the politicians. This is the essence of our republic.

We should also distinguish between an election and a governing body enacting laws. A majority is required for the passing of laws. But we also have constitutional limitations on what laws even a majority can pass. Thus, in our republic, there is no legitimate objection to electing representatives by plurality vote. In fact, it's arguably preferable.

However, if people demand majority-election winners, they can have traditional runoffs where the top two vote-getters square off and another vote is taken. But this method has its own problems, including that of getting voters to participate in a runoff if their favorite candidate is not in it. 

IRV is offered as a magical solution: Combine the election and the runoff into one election, and voila! Unfortunately for runoff advocates, a runoff is warranted only when nobody gets a majority of first choices; so any majority created by IRV is merely contrived.  

By far, the worst thing about IRV, or any other form of preferential voting, is that it disenfranchises voters. The Minnesota Supreme Court stated in Duluth's 1915 Brown v. Smallwood decision, "The preferential system directly diminishes the right of an elector to give an effective vote for the candidate of his choice." The court upheld that "the right of the citizen to cast a vote for the candidate of his choice unimpaired by the second and additional choice votes cast by others." This is the key.

Because of the mathematical complexities of preferential voting, the rankings can have unknown effects depending upon the rankings of other voters. When a voter chooses one candidate, he knows he is helping that candidate. But when ranking preferences, a voter can, without knowing it, actually harm his favored candidate by raising him in rank. This unpredictability is what disenfranchises voters, and it is the main reason the 1915 court ruled preferential voting unconstitutional - and why the Minnesota Voters Alliance is suing Minneapolis to prevent its implementation.

IRV advocates like to focus on irrelevancies, such as the alleged simplicity of IRV or its cost effectiveness, that are debatable. But when it comes to the constitutionality issue, all they have is the dubious claim that Brown v. Smallwood only applied to the specific method which was challenged at the time. However, the court did not specify any particular method, but ruled "the preferential system" unconstitutional.

A majority-vote requirement is utterly misguided and ill-advised. This is a constitutional republic, not a majority-rule democracy. The push for instant runoff voting is nothing more than a power play on the part of a ruling-class elite who uses the language of democracy but in truth advocates one-party rule - with them the one party. This ought to be frightening to anyone who believes in liberty and the rights of the minority.

Andy Cilek of Eden Prairie, Minn., and Matt Marchetti of North St. Paul are co-founders of the nonprofit Minnesota Voters Alliance, at mnvoters.org.

Comment (0) Read More...

Mr. Kaardal is correct in the clear implication of his commentary on Tory localism -- namely that  Neopopulism would destroy itself as an organized political party.

All organizations are hierarchical, and therefore engineer processes that are essentially controlled by an elite contingent. 

This explains why people get so frustrated with "their" political party.  They get frustrated because it is NOT their political party.  It is an organization inevitably dominated by a few.  Though the few be elected, this never resolves the moral problem and the process problem inherent in control of the party by an elite few.

Political parties have an inevitable, mediocre place in the political process.  It is the ambition of Neopopulists to dominate the agenda by dictating what is of interest -- or, in Neopop terms, what is in context.  We slap the faces of political parties and demand that they come out of their ideological dream into the present, and VALUE THE PRESENT, RESPECT THE PRESENT. Neopopulist passion is HERE, not somewhere else. It is concrete, focused on the problem at hand; the injustice at hand.

Neopopulism is process oriented, not ideological.  So it cannot be a political party.  It can only exploit political parties and force them to live in the present moment and serve the people in spite of their mediocrity -- just as it forces mediocre bureaucracy to serve the people.

From a Neopopulist perspective, political parties ARE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT, and need to be managed, by the people, as part of the government.  The whole problem with political parties is that they are inextricably intertwined with the government and its elite power brokers.

The people are the police, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner of mediocre government and mediocre parties.  We seize this power aggressively and spontaneously.  It is natural law.  The unnatural law of hierarchical political organization is in direct contradiction to this natural, irreducible, non-ideological process.

The basic principles of MN Neopopulism, established by the Father of Neopopulism (Mr. Kaardal) over the last decade continue to imply the most practical and effective perspective and approach to contemporary political problems -- indeed, the entire crisis: Elitism is not dying fast enough; the government is not responding fast enough in spite of the waning of the whole rationalist, utilitarian  modern tradition -- the expert aristocracy's decrepit  foundation. 

Only the common sense of the common man takes the garbage out quickly, without morbid regret or longing.  We must not let political parties get in his way.  Otherwise the smell becomes unbearable. 

Only the ideologues long for the past or the future, so ossified by either nostalgia or their dream, that they cannot get anything done about injustice in the precious PRESENT.  NEOPOPULISTS LONG FOR THE PRESENT and demand that government serve them justice NOW.

Comment (0) Read More...

Many detractors of neopopulism see little public interest in the use of the phrases "populism" and "populist."  One way to measure whether people are concerned about the misuse of these terms is Google hits. 

I did a Google search on the phrase "Faux Populism" and got more than 89,500 Google hits.  People are clearly concerned about the mis-use of the word "populism" or the word "populist."

Neopopulism serves an important role as an intermediary in these disputes -- identifying elitism, populism and, yes, faux populism.

Comment (0) Read More...