Public interest litigation should be about the public interest.  The public interest is defined by lawyers representing people in litigation to get the best results out of our courts' adversarial processes. 

In criminal matters, criminal defense lawyers represent criminal defendants.  The criminal defense lawyers hold the prosecutors accountable to the law and facts.  In this way, criminal defense lawyers are necessary to hold the government accountable.

Similarly, public interest lawyers should represent the public in civil litigation against the government.  The public interest lawyer in the civil case holds the government accountable for its prior actions based on the law and facts.  In this way, public interest lawyers are also necessary to hold the government accountable. 

The modern problem with public interest litigation is ideological.  The left and the right have law firms which have created an enviroment where the so-called public interest law firm now promotes idiosyncratic views of the constitution.  Each of these law firms patriotically declare their idiosyncratic view of the Constitution is the best and that they represent the "light" in an arena of constitutional "darkness."    In doing so, these ideological law firms select clients on the basis of advancing their ideological cause -- not on individual need.  

To juxtapose this approach, neopopulism proposes that civil public interest litigation is required because American government, sadly, is mediocre.  People need legal help because of bureaucratic mediocrity, bureaucratic mendacity and even bureaucratic meanness.  The need for these legal services is as large and diverse as the government is mediocre. 

Ideological law firms will never serve the greater need of representing people who have suffered from bureaucratic mediocrity.

Thus, the definition of the "public interest" law firm should be returned  to the original meaning reflecting only those firms which are about the "public interest" as defined herein -- not those law firms that are ideological.   

For neopopulists, it's a rhetorical battle worth fighting.

Comment (0) Read More...

British Tory localism is discussed here.   The Tories' policies are sometimes referred to as "direct democracy" and other times as "localism."  Neopopulists are well aware of the priniciples of local decision-making and, of course, approve them. 

Neopopulists are also respectful of context.  The British condition is different than the American condition.  Nonetheless, there are lessons to learn from fellow neopopulist minds.

Thus, this essay is focused on perceived fatal flaws in the British Tory Party's localism approach.  It also juxtaposes neopopulism.org's approach for the reader's benefit.  The differences are quite striking.

First, British Tory localism is party-based.  Neopopulism is governance-based.  Consider that direct democracy got its start with a 2005 book "Direct Democracy - Agenda for a New Model Party."   Thus, localism focuses on building a model political party. 

Neopopulism, on the other hand, rejects the idea that its principles can be the foundation for a political party -- even rejecting the current American Populist Party as odd.  Instead, neopopulism proposes a new approach to citizenship where the citizens attempt to manage an otherwise mediocre government to excellence -- not a mediocre government trying to manage the citizens.   The great obstacles to a citizen-run government are ideological reductionism and partisan reductionism -- but partisan reductionism is the weaker foe. 

If neopopulism were to succeed and vanquish its ideological reductionist foes, all political parties would quickly adapt to the new neopopulist environment.  In fact, those who vanquished the ideological reductionists would become the leaders of all parties as well as the government. 

Second, making "direct democracy" and "localism" political makes it susceptible to being co-opted by ideologues and partisans.   By rooting these sensible ideas in the model political party, not governance, the Tories' new rhetorical platform can be used by conservative ideologues and party hacks to promote their own agendas.  Eventually, the localism "brand" will be corrupted by ideology and partisanship.

Neopopulism, on the other hand, is hard-nosed about ideology and partisanship.  Neopopulism is absolutely opposed to ideological and partisan reductionism.  No reductionist slogans, please. 

Instead, neopopulist citizens set out to use democratic means in specific local contexts to leverage the government to better results for the people.  There is no room here for ideologues and partisans to steal the neopopulist rhetorical platform. 

The people know that ideological and partisan reductionism do not equate to the public interest.  The need here is for the people to will an excellent government through the available democratic means.  Neopopulism is intended to spark that will. 

Localism and direct democracy seem to be indifferent to the people imposing their will for excellent government.  This is localism's and direct democracy's only rationale and possible cause -- yet they abandon it in the time of Britain's greatest need.

So,  the brands of"localism" and "direct democracy" because they are easily co-opted by ideologues and partisans are in peril.  But, neopopulism with its fortifications against ideology and partisanship has a "protected" brand.

Third, it appears "direct democracy" and '"localism" are set up on the premise that democracy needs to be managed.  If this is the case, there are even greater dangers.  Machiavelli's Prince teaches us about the use of political power.  Neopopulism teaches that the latent political power is in the people using democratic means to manage their government to excellence.  Direct democracy and localism seems to suggest a manipulation of democracy to get better results for certain political elites -- perhaps the Tories?   Whereas, neopopulists would view democracy as sacred and never as means to an end -- no matter how noble.

To clarify, neopopulists view democracy as the end of politics.  Whether the City on the Hill is beautiful depends on how it is built.  Did everyone have a constructive role in designing the City?  Did everyone have meaningful work in building the City?  Was everyone treated fairly?  Surely, if the City on the Hill is built in a neopopulist way, the people will find their City on the Hill beautiful because they built it. 

Does Tory localism and direct democracy favor this view of the City on the Hill? 

We don't know.  But, they are off to a bad start by rooting their movement inside a political party and inside politics.  How can the Tories be for a citizen view of politics if the Tories can't rise above politics? 

For these reasons, neopopulists can not be sure that direct democracy and localism are not just a means, i.e. a clever rhetorical platform, to Tory political ends.  If it is so, it is a shame. 

Britain deserves better.

Comment (0) Read More...

Neo-populism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Neo-populism, also known as media populism or new populism, is a cultural and political movement emergent in the early 21st century, especially in Latin American countries. It is distinct from 20th century populism in that it radically combines, or perhaps redefines, classically opposed left-right political attitudes and incorporates various new electronic media as a means of popular dissemination. In Latin America, this shift has been evidenced by various cross-pollinations of authoritarian or centralized government, populist rhetorical strategies, and, paradoxically, free market economics.

Leaders such as Alberto Fujimori and Carlos Menem in South America and Jon Tester in the United States have been identified as neo-populists.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Erick Kaardal responds:

"The Wikipedia definition does not adequately account for the context-driven and process-driven aspects of neopopulism.  Neither does the Wikipedia definition account for its anti-ideological and anti-reductionist aspects.   Thus, the Wikipedia definition is left suggesting that neopopulism consists of things that it is not.  We will work through Wikipedia to improve the definition. 

A good one-sentence definition for neopopulism is 'a non-ideological, non-partisan political movement focusing on processes and respecting context to democratically improve government.'"

You see -- it isn't that hard!

Comment (0) Read More...

The 129^th Debate Caucus of the Antient and Honourable John Adams Society was called to order at precisely 7:30 PM September 17^th 2008.

The minutes of the previous debate caucus were recited.  Mr. Bowman corrected the minutes by noting that after his speech in the affirmative, he realized that he was actually speaking in the negative, once he was further enlightened by the fine speeches that followed his.  Despite very favorable conditions, no motion for a retroactive award of the Badgely Equvocation award was forthcoming.

SSC Kaardal noted that the Neopopulists were organizing in the other room to protest tonight's event.   Let it be noted that a broom closet was nearby.

Former Chairman Stebbins reminded the Society that the Conservative Issues Fair sponsored by the TCRA was coming up on Saturday and urged us to attend.

Chancellor Mewis (Mavis) would have pointed out that there was a fine provostery available in the rear of the room, but unfortunately, no provostery had been provided.

For literary presentations, OFC Rev. Mr. Allen recited from C.S. Lewis' essay entitled "Equality".  Furthermore, showing exactly why he is referred to by his many admirers as a Paragon of diversity in authorship when choosing literary presentations, Mr. Olsen recited from "The Common Man" by Chesterton.

The debate topic was read:  "Resolved: Neopopulism is a fringe movement"

An unenthusiastic call was made by the Chairman for speeches in the affirmative. Without pausing for responses, the Chairman immediately called for speeches in the negative.  Let it be noted that this complete and utter disregard for the traditions of the debate caucus is likely but the first of many usurpations of power in a term soon to be known as "Schilling's Reign of Terror."

Unexpectedly, the normally shy and reserved SSC Kaardal rose to speak in the negative.   In a discursive and prolix speech, he referenced numerous authors throughout history, from Machiavelli to Harvey Mansfield, attempting to define neopopulism.  He pointed out that the people should impose their will on the government, not the other way around.  Citizens must do things otherwise difficult to impose their will on the government.  In a surprising statement for an attorney, Kaardal suggested that citizens needed to bring more lawsuits against the government.  Mr. Kaardal said that the problem with bureaucracies is that geniuses start them, then leave.  The bureaucracy continues forever with mediocre people.  We must have an infusion of excellence via excellent people into government.  The Founders did not anticipate a huge mediocre bureaucracy.  

Then, in a style reminiscent of John Galt, Mr. Kaardal began to restate his earlier points in a multitude of ways.  Out of respect for his status as a founding member, a motion to award Mr. Kaardal for the Augustine Filibuster Award was not brought forth.

In a return to the enveloping comfort of tradition, Capt. Ferguson rose to give the first speech in the affirmative.   The concept is so fringe that he can't even say it.  Use of the word "neo" puts them in a same boat as any other populist.  He posed a question to the NPs - "How do you get people to actually DO something".  It's hard to get younger friends & neighbors involved.  People are too busy.  It's important for Conservative parents to participate in family time, but it's FAR more important to leave a good government for their children.

In opposition, the Reverend Mr. Allen said that there are different meanings of the word "Fringe", and noted the apathy of the general public.  "Many people get a check on April 15^th and get excited thinking that they don't pay taxes".  It seems that they are almost deliberately uninformed, and allow government to grow until it becomes intolerable - and that level is rather high.  SSC Kaardal is correct that we "ought" to be able to change things, and it is not a far step from "ought" to "implementation".  This is precisely how revolutions happen.

Speaking in favor, FC Stebbins said "I've grown fond of Fringe Movements - Fringe Movements are populist".  Let it be noted that it was not clear to many of those in attendance precisely WHICH fringe movements she had grown fond of.  "Fringe Movements are populist!.  There is a lack of political independence and people do what they are told.  We need MORE fringe movements.  For example "Get rid of the Fed!", or "The war is unconstitutional!".   She noted that the Constitution itself today can be considered a fringe movement.

SC Phelan spoke in the negative, and discoursed on the significance of capital letters vs. lower case letters.   "Of course Big N Neopopulism is a fringe movement.   He noted that he was a small n neopopulist small e elitist.   He is against Big E Elitism.    Small e elitism is where some people are considered better than others.   Big E elitism is a specific group of people who happen to think they are better than others.  In the US, we have a self perpetuating Big E Elite where the current members choose new members.  That is why the Big E elite reacted so negatively to Sarah Palin, because she was not in "the club".  Certain male members of the Society, specifically the Chairman and Secretary, thought to themselves that they would wish to join any club that boasted Sarah Palin as a member.

The Secretary, Mr. Colson, rose to speak in the affirmative.  A recognized "pacer", the Secretary moved initially to his left from the head table to begin his speech, a dramatic and dazzling opening that was unfortunately cut off as the Chairman initiated yet another dictate and diverged from tradition, demanding that since the Secretary wished to speak in the affirmative, that he speak while standing on the right hand side of the head table.  So as not to cause a scene, the Secretary acquiesced to this request, but wishes to register his dissatisfaction with these Stalinist tactics by the Chairman.

Having been shaken by the prior events, the Secretary nevertheless gave another in a long line of brilliant speeches, and noted that that Neo-Populism is indeed a Big E Elitist movement.   Mr. Kaardal and his disciples are fine with what the masses want, as long as it is what Mr. Kaardal wants.  SSC Kaardal spoke of empowering the masses to take control of their government via lawsuit.  In the Secretary's opinion, the Kaardal-ian Neo Populism movement was less about empowering the people and more about generating a new and government-funded client base for his law firm.

Mr. Olsen spoke in the negative, and in a rare and bold move, was able to finish his entire speech without mentioning Chesterton.   He stated that he is still trying to understand Neo-Populism, a vast understatement undoubtedly shared by many in attendance.   He noted that he was recently at a Big E Elitist dinner with his wife.  People began making fun of Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin - her accent, her mothering.  They assumed all in attendance at a big E elitist dinner would be supporting Obama.  Mr. Olsen, normally brave and assertive, did not speak up in defense of Palin, and thought "how condescending of these people".  The Elitists are the fringe - a very powerful fringe.  One might wonder how Mr. Olsen's inactions might have changed had John McCain picked G.K. Chesterton as his running mate.  As strange as this might sound, McCain and Chesterton are actually quite close in age, although McCain wears it better.

SC Augustine rose to speak in favor of the resolution.  He noted that there was a 33 word definition on the NP website that included two "and/or"s, a definition that would not likely inspire a groundswell of support.  He read but did not understand Mr. Dahlberg's written submission - it seemed "Elitist" and "kinda weird".   The absurdity of NP is self evident.   At this point, it is clearly a fringe movement - too abstract for a true populist movement.  He noted that another fringe movement that was started about the same time - Ron Paul - had 26 million web site hits.  He noted the distant second place of the NP website.  He also very wittily weaved the proliferation of "and/or" from the NP definition into his response to a query from the floor, a moment of humor unable to be adequately expressed in the written word.

In the negative, Prof. Spry stated that if one were to travel in Mongolia, all the people one would meet would be descendents of "Jen-Gis Khan", because in his travels and conquests, he had the opportunity and interest to reproduce far more than most normal men, present company excepted.  Prof. Spry noted that since Neopopulists like Kaardal were reproducing at Khan-ish rates that he felt that, like Mongolia, Minnesota would soon be overrun with neo neopopulists directly descended from the founder himself.  This must be their goal - to reproduce themselves into prominence and power.

SC, Counselor and Wellstone Republican Wersal rose in the affirmative.  Showing his vast knowledge and experience with the Internet, Mr. Wersal pointed out that if one Google's Neo-populism, one gets hits on Hugo Chavez and information on right-wing political parties in Europe.  Since those who identify with neopopulism cover such a wide political spectrum, the term is rendered meaningless.  He is convinced that there is no such thing as the "rule of law".  The only party that understand this is the Democrats - they realize that the Rule of law is really the rule of men, so they fight to get judges they like.

Mr. John Grzybek (grisbek) rose to speak in the negative.  He stated that NP is not a fringe movement.   We are all NPs - if not, we're in big trouble.   The Common Man has Common Sense.  Bureaucrats on the inside don't have common sense, and you have to fight them constantly to keep them from taking away your rights.  He noted that he took on the Science Museum who did not follow the law regarding sign using around the river, but he lost because the city decided to treat the museum as a "special case".  The law was unequally applied.  The common man can and must do things to help himself that also help the greater good.

A motion was made to thank the gentleman for a very fine maiden speech on the floor of the A&H JAS.  SSC Kaardal made the point that the gentleman was thanked in a prior term.  The motion was withdrawn.  After some lively discussion, a motion was made to thank the gentleman for his very fine maiden speech contingent upon him not having been thanked before.  The motion was seconded, and passed by unanimous vote.  The gentleman was thanked contingent upon him not having been thanked before.

Mr. Downing, ignoring the lateness of the hour, spoke in the affirmative.  Yes, it's a fringe movement.  Big E Elitist pseudo populism is more concerning.  Big E elitists are pretend populists.  Voter drives are really attempt by Big  Es to get the people to vote for E issues.  As a small e elitist , he doesn't want those who can't figure out where to vote to actually vote.  Mr. Downing then noted that he was a founding member and financial supporter of ACORN.

The resolution was read and a vote taken:  The resolution passed by a vote of 12 to 7.

A motion was made to adjourn to Brit's Pub - as is traditional.  The motion was seconded and passed.

Comment (0) Read More...

The neopopulist angle on the financial bailout is procedure-oriented and context-oriented. 

The big question is how did an unpopular $700 billion bill benefititing the financial elite in the country pass so quickly?  --p articularly after the people swarmed the Capitol Hill switchboards opposed to the bill.

First, a neopopulist would point at the democratic deficits in the U.S. Constitution.  All the people have to enforce their will on the government at any given time is Congress.  This power is weakened by lengthy six year terms in the Senate. 

Opposed to the people on the financial bailout were:  the mediocre federal bureaucracy regulating the financial institutions; the financial elite themselves  and their lobbyists; the Washington establishment which is interwined with the financial elite; and the President. 

We the people ... did not stand a chance under these circumstances.  The financial bailout bill passed the House on the second try.

Second, a neopopulist would point at the U.S. Constitution's bias against majority rule in favor of elitist rule.  The framers of the Constitution favored the governing few because they were prejudiced against the democratic masses. 

Whether you agree or disagree with that statement, everyone must agree that the framer's bias in this regard just cost American taxpayers $700 billion last week.  If the framers of the Constitution had adopted the prinicple of "majority rules," the financial bailout bill would not have passed.

Third, a neopopulist would point out that the financial bailout is just another mediocre government plan to fix problems caused by mediocre government.  Neopopulism offers this view to assist the government in changing its ways.  

Further, neither party has adequate tools to analyze the problem as neopopulists have here.  Without neopopulism, the government is bound to continue to repeat the same errors it has committed in the past.

Comment (0) Read More...

The recent Hennepin County hearing in the IRV case regarding admissibility of expert affidavits pointing out the non-monotonicity of Minneapolis' Instant Runoff Voting scheme is instructive as to the courtroom use of mathematical principles in public law cases.

As background, the issue before the Hennepin County Court was whether expert affidavits applying mathematical principles to evaluate alternative voting systems was admissible.  

I believe the expert affidavits are admissible.  

Here are three reasons.

First, in this particular case, the use of mathematical principles to study group behavior, economic behavior and political behavior extends back 50 years in the academy and includes several Nobel Prize winners.  This academic field is often called "game theory."

Game theory, as a mathematical subject, is unusual in that it has direct applications, not only to economics, but to such un-mathematical fields as politics and the social sciences.

Its foundations were laid in the 1940s by John von Neumann and Oscar Morgenstern, and later considerably advanced by Nobel laureate John Nash and Thomas Schelling.

John F. Nash, Jr., ("A Beautiful Mind") and his colleagues won the Nobel Prize in 1994 "for their pioneering analysis of equilibria in the theory of non-cooperative games."

Thomas Schelling and his colleagues won the Nobel Prize in 2005 for their pioneering work in game theory.

Second,  Professor Steven J. Brams of New York University, a professor of political science and one of the plaintiffs' witnesses, stated by affidavit that the use of mathematical principles such as monotonicity have been part of conventional political science and its evaluation of alternative voting methods since the 1970's. 

Third, the particular expert affidavits were describing a fact about Minneapolis' IRV system.  It is non-monotonic.   If votes are moved from one candidate to another, the candidate with lesser votes may win and the candidate with more votes may lose.  This is a fact relevant to the judicial inquiry.

Comment (0) Read More...

This is a short neopopulist essay on ideological and partisan reductionism.  Earlier essays on this website would give greater context to the discussion here. 

Before beginning, it is important to note that neopopulism is, first and foremost, interested in creating neopopulist political structure.

Up to this point, neopopulists have identitied both ideological reductionism and partisan reductionism as modern obstacles to neopopulist political culture.

At the September 17th John Adams Society debate and in subsequent discussions, it was wondered which was the greater danger to neopopulist political culture -- ideological or partisan reductionism? 

After some thought, it was concluded that partisan reductionism is a weak foe.  Its main weakness is it only holds sway over a few.   Consider precinct caucus attendence in Minnesota.  Also, partisan reductionism probably only attracts  weak minds.  Even the university elite look down on partisan politics.

No, the greater danger and worthy foe of neopopulism is ideological reductionism.  Neopopulism's response to ideological reductionism is discussed in length on this website.  There is no need to repeat it her.

This discussion also led to a consideration of how futile it would be  to start a neopopulist political party.  Simply put, neopopulism being a political party would negate its effectiveness in battling ideological reductionism and in creating neopopulist political culture.

Comment (0) Read More...

Neopopulism takes the view that the people ought to run the government.  With a process-driven and context-driven approach, neopopulists look for places where people can compel, force and require better results from bureaucracies that are ever-trending toward mediocrity.

In this sense, neopopulism has had a new breakthrough recognizing the relationship between taxpayer standing lawsuits and government auditors.

Minnesota and many other states -- but not the federal government -- recognize that taxpayers can sue local governments and state agencies for wrongful use of funds.  In Minnesota, the case that established this principle involved a taxpayer challenging a county spending funds for people to have abortions when state forbade it.

Neopopulists have always seen taxpayer standing as an opportunity to critique government mediocrity.  But, winning these lawsuits has always seemed difficult.

The breakthrough has come as a result of the legislative auditor's reporting finding that the DNR has misspent about $300,000.  The DNR Commissioner has admitted to the DNR's errors.  The report and DNR Commissioner's response letter can be found here.

The neopopulist sees opportunities here because the Courts should have the final say on what laws were broken and the appropriate remedies.  The legislative auditor's report and DNR's admission are merely internal governments purporting to be a solution. 

The taxpayer standing lawsuit would focus on the laws of general applicability and remedies.  The idea would be to create case law interpreting the statutes which would be generally applicable to all state agencies and local governments.

In this way, the state legislative auditor, the state auditor, the media and the people become important sources for information leading to evermore effective taxpayer standing lawsuits.

Neopopulism, thus, offers a process-driven, context-driven response to government waste.  Neopopulism's offer is complimentary to additional executive, judicial and legislative oversight. 

What a wonderful neopopulist contribution!

Comment (0) Read More...

Comment (0) Read More...

The United States has a Populist Party. Find out more here. 

The Populist Party may have neopopulists -- but it is not a neopopulist organization. 

Recall that neopopulism is both anti-partisan and anti-ideological in the reductionist sense.  Thus, the Populist Party by promoting partisanship and ideology on its website does not have the context-driven and process-driven attributes a neopopulist organization would have.  

In a way, neopopulist organizations would be more likely to attempt to influence political parties -- than being one.  Of course, neopopulists are free to do what they want.  Neopopulism hates conformity.

In fact, in some ways, it is difficult to imagine a neopopulist organization being a political party because of the conformity required of a political party's members.  I can't even imagine it ever working.  If you're a neopopulist and want it try it, expect to be disappointed.

In a similar way, it is difficult to imagine a neopopulist becoming a politician and remaining a neopopulist.  If you are a neopopulist and you imagine a neopopulist being elected to public office and continuing to act like a neopopulist, you should also expect to be disappointed.

But, that doesn't mean there isn't hope. It's just that neopopulism puts a lot of "pressure" on politicians to perform.  When we get one elected, do you really expect them to meet our neopopulist standards? 

The same would apply to a political party -- but in a different way.  It is a fool's errand to attempt to organize a political party along neopopulist anti-reductionist lines.  Won't work.  Don't do it. 

At least not yet.

Comment (0) Read More...