Neopopulist Blog

The phrase "neopopulist infrastructure" refers to people organized along neopopulist lines to democratically accomplish political results.

A few possible insights into neopopulist organizations which constitute the neopopulist infrastructure:

• A neopopulist organization is process-driven and context-driven while being anti-ideological and anti-partisan. 
• Neopopulist organizations do not look for endorsements from the political elite.
• An organization can be neopopulist in structure without having goals that are neopopulist. 
• Two neopopulist organizations can be opposed to each other on the same policy issue.
• Neopopulist organizations always favor and defer to the rule of law.
• The success of neopopulist organizations is based solely on political effectiveness.

Comment (0) Read More...

At some point, neopopulism took a turn towards political reality and left the ideological and partisan reductionists in  the dust.

Today was the day.  Up to this point, neopopulism has been pretty process-oriented.  We have looked for processes that can be explained and duplicated so that the movement can grow.  With the right processes, anyone can be an effective neopopulist.

Today, we discovered context.  Neopopulism is context-driven.  Some political plans are required in Red Wing but not in Alexandria. 

Let's use an example.  Assume voter fraud is rampant in Indiana.   Under these circumstances, a photo identification requirement may make sense.  On the other hand, if Minnesota does not have voter fraud, then maybe the photo identification doesn't make sense.  In politics, context is not everything -- but it is the most important thing.

Compare the neopopulist project to political candidates and political parties. 

Political candidates are narrower than neopopulists.  Political candidates tend toward me-centered and ideological and partisan reductionism. They generally are not context-driven and process-driven. 

Political parties are also narrower than neopopulism.  They tend toward a self-serving ideological and partisan reductionism.  They generally are not context-driven and process-driven.

Neopopulism's great advantage over political candidates and political parties  is that it is both context-driven and process-driven.  Neither political candidacies nor political parties do context and process like neopopulism.

Comment (0) Read More...

Niccolo is back.  Here is his comment made in response to the news item documenting "conservative neopopulism" in Argentina:

• Comparisons with Argentina generally are not something Real Americans take very seriously.
  
  In my advancing age, however, I am starting to think that is a mistake. What I mean in particular is that much of America, to put it bluntly, sucks. The food sucks, architecture (really non-achitecture) sucks. Combine the food AND architecture of our publicly-traded restaurants, and you get an experience that entirely sucks.
  
  How is it then, that a place like Argentina, a deadbeat country if ever there was one, has managed, on paper, to go from being a first world to a thrid world country in a generation, and yet appears to be so aesthetically superior to the US in so many ways?
  
  The Neopopulist wrote:
  
  "Remember most of the things that people need from goverment agencies are measurable and should be measured."
  
  This is my quibble - Argentina (where I have never been) and it's European lodestar Italy (where I have been) fail on head-to-head comparisons with the US according to the numbers, that is, those things which are "measurable and should be measured." Why then do they seem to suck so much less?
  
  My wife had said that people are more stylish in Italy. I disagreed. What I noticed was that far fewer people were slobs.
  
  In case you haven't noticed, I am working on a new thesis for aesthetics - that beauty and excellence are largely a function of "how much suck" is removed from something. While the Neopopulist typically scorns theory, this one actually has very broad and powerful application.

Kaardal's response to Niccolo:

Niccolo is brilliant.  I think of him -- like but different than Barry Goldwater -- as the conscience of centrists.  He is important, but not necessarily to neopopulists.  Due to his importance and brilliance, I respond to his comments immediately.

Niccolo's new thesis for aesthetics is irrelevant to the neopopulist exercise. Niccolo's "city on the hill" aesthetics is elitism or worse, faux elitism, or even worse faux populism.  Yea, sure, his city on the hill has "less suck "-- but the beauty of the city depends on how it is built.  Surely, Nicolo's city to avoid "less suck" will be built by elite, the few, the annointed.  All will gather to celebrate "less suck."  But, elite ugliness by another name is still elite ugliness.

No, the only way to build a city on a hill is by the people.  If the people build it, there will be no suck.  The city on a hill will reflect the people -- not  the elite.

No, Niccolo, neopopulists are not naive.  Neopopulists are in a life-long struggle with the elite.  It is a war.  For the people to build the city, they must wage war against the elite.  Day-by-day, it is a struggle for the neopopulists against the elite to have a role, to do meaningful work, to build the city on a hill

No one can politically avoid this irresolvable.  neopopulist paradox of imposing your political will on your neighbor at the same time as loving your neighbor.   To think otherwise is politically naive.

That is not to say there is not a supernatural aspect to neopopulist politics.  After all, the neopopulist heaven is populated with people yelling accusations of "elitism" against each other.  What could be more joyful?  What could be more fun?  We should invite the same yelling here on earth.

I would agree, outside politics, freed from the  neopopulist paradox, aesthetics are fine.  Inside politics, particularly neopopulist politics, they are a distraction.

Comment (0) Read More...

Niccolo's Criticism: 

Sounds like a new coat of paint on reactionary governing, repackaging the gasbaggery of people like Russell Kirk.

Looking at the examples of mediocre governing, and then deriving a program to avoid these things is ironically why we get so much mediocre governing. Much of mediocre governing is nothing more than the accretion of reactionary crud - we get a shoe bomber, "let's require everybody to take off their shoes going through security then," and on and on, while so little of this crud ever goes away.

As a Machiavellian, I agree that the politics is primary. But just because that is so doesn't mean that politics isn't largely about managing stupidity: finding ways to get elected, ignoring people, and pretending you're not.

As I said above, much silly governing comes about by not resisting the shoe-bomber problem.

Kaardal's response:

1.  Neopopulists are intensely interested in the question of American government agencies being the result of "reactionary crud."  Niccolo points out one possible source of governmental agency mediocrity the "shoe bomber" problem.   However, Niccolo fails to note that the federal constitution may be the principal culprit because of its democratic deficits:  one elected executive at head of huge  modern regulatory state; little or no congressional or judicial oversight of administrative agencies; and no requirement of transparency for the people.

2.  "Repackaging the gasbaggery of people like Russell Kirk" -- wrong!  For example, Neopopulists recognize a huge deficiency in the founding documents.  Kirk never did.  Neither has the Federalist Society -- or the American Constitution Society for that matter.  Simply put, the Constitution was not drafted for the people to confront the modern regulatory state.  It wasn't even a thought at the time.  These democratic deficits simply weren't obvious at the time because the huge federal agencies had not been created yet. 

Neopopulists accept the American democratic deficits as fact and fashion their politics to serve the people under these difficult circumstances.  Neither American party nor American ideology starts from this starting point.  Neopopulism, at a first glance, has that to offer.  Neopopulism wants to reduce democratic deficits and wants more democrary -- it is a distinguishing feature.

3.   Just because Niccolo is a fellow Machiavellian doesn't make him a neopopulist.  Although we agree that politics is primary, Niccolo believes the people are stupid and need to be managed.  Neopopulists believe people are smart and the government needs to be managed.  Niccolo is an elitist -- the elites need to be feared not loved.  Neopopulists are populists -- the people need to be feared not loved.  It is a difference.

4.  Yes, politics is primary.  Once that is established, we will  know who the elitists and who the neopopulists are.  Niccolo's criticism of neopopulism shows where his allegiances lie. 

Comment (1) Read More...

A Startribune commentary today noted an increase in self-identified "extreme conservatves" and "extreme liberals" to a collective total of 6.6%.

It is obvious to neopopulists that it is these extremists -- left, right, up, down -- that are dominating American politics with their ideological and partisan reductionism. They are ruining America. They are ruining our democracy.

Neopopulism is a thoughtful response to the current situation. We need a rhetorical platform, that appeals to all, and addresses the two critical public issues of our day.

First, America's government has democratic deficits that need to be fixed now. The American Constitution was not intended, was not drafted, to prevent mediocrity in huge, federal government bureaucracies. Currently, there is little or no legislative, judicial or even executive oversight of these federal agencies. Neopopulists want to find a structural way to increase the democratic element in federal government, so that the federal agencies will tend towards excellence and not mediocrity.

(The same is true for the state constitutions and state bureacracies.)

Second, in order to accomplish the first goal, we need to have a new rhetorical approach and new political movement.   The "new" politics must be anti-extremist, anti-ideological and anti-partisan.  We are accomplishing that through this website, the lawsuits, the political movement, the book in progress, the proposed radio show, etc. 

Neopopulism is anti-extremist, anti-ideological and anti-partisan and much more... community-building, constructive and, probably most important, politically-exciting. 

As neopopulists continue this battle, we will politically prevail because, in the end, extremist, ideological and partisan reductionism is morbidly boring.

What could be more exciting that  joining your neopopulist hopes and dreams with the 93.4% of American who are not extremists? 

The 6.6% extremists on the left and right will hardly be missed.

Comment (0) Read More...

Neopopulism was born at the State Capitol on February 11, 2008.  So, it celebrated its first 1/2 birthday on August 11th.

As a populist, non-partisan, non-ideological political movement, neopopulism's first six months shows neopopulism has a contribution to make beyond what the normal ideologues and partisans contribute.

First, what about the IRV case?   Minneapolis has adopted instant runoff voting --which amounts to voters expressing ranked preferences rather than voting for candidates.  Weird and also unconstitutional.  Does anyone doubt that Minneapolis' unconstitutional maneuver affecting the voting rights of tens of thousands of voters would have been challenged but for Andy Cilek, Minnesota Voters Alliance and their supporters? 

Why are the ideologues and partisans silent on such an important issue?

 Second, what about the per diem case?  Minnesota's legislature has used constitutional deception to increase legislator pay by increasing their "per diem compensation."  Minnesota's Consitution states that pay raises can only go into effect after an intervening election.  It didn't matter to Minnesota's Senate or House of Representatives.  The Citizens for Rule of Law and two state legislators have sued to hold the state legislature is accountable to the Constitution.

Why are the ideologues and partisans silent on such an important issue?

Additionally, the other lawsuits and initiatives supported on this website show that neopopulism has useful things to do in all areas of governmental life -- where the self-serving ideolgues and partisans have little or nothing useful to say.

In essence, neopopulism is thriving in Minnesota because it serves the people -- where sadly the ideologues and partisans do not. 

After the birth of neopopulism on February 11, 2008, Minnesota politics is not the same.

Comment (0) Read More...

        Neopopulism is both a political and social critique.   The movie Batman: The Dark Knight offers another glimpse of how cool neopopulism is.

        Recall that a typical neopopulist view of heaven is everyone there yellingly accusingly each other of elitism. After all, the world would be a better place if that were the case here.

       Then consider Joker talking to Harvey Dent in the hospital after Dent being half-burned into Two Face:

The Joker: It's a schemer who put you where you are. You were a schemer. You had plans. Look where it got you. I just did what I do best-I took your plan and turned it on itself. Look what I have done to this city with a few drums of gas and a couple bullets. Nobody panics when the expected people get killed. Nobody panics when things go according to plan, even if the plans are horrifying. If I tell the press that tomorrow a gangbanger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will get blown up, nobody panics. But when I say one little old mayor will die, everyone loses their minds! Introduce a little anarchy, you upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I am an agent of chaos. And you know the thing about chaos, Harvey? It's fair.

Joker's view of "scheming" is not rationalistic.  It's post-modern and neopopulist in orientation.

       Recall that modern, rationalistic reductionists believe each person is a collection of beliefs.  "I think therefore I am."  A person can be categorized by an interview in what they believe.  Partisan, ideological and other labels or brands rule personality profiles.  In some extreme views, the person is simply reduced to the choices he or she makes -- for example, economic choices.

      Neopopulism suggest that it is the "scheming" that is important.  Scheming, unlike rationalist reductionism, includes an emphasis on "doing with others" not present in "I think therefore I am."  This "doing with others" is the foundation of our politics and our culture.

       Another scene in the movie has Joker discussing "rules" with Batman.  Joker doesn't believe in rules.  Joker tells Batman that's the difference between the two of them.  Yet, Batman (after beating up a defenseless Joker in prison) in one of the movie's final scenes violates the rules by participating in Commissioner Gordon's fraud that Batman, not Dent/Two Face, killed the two corrupt cops who arranged for Rachel's death.  So, Joker was wrong.  Batman and Joker are both willing to violate the rules -- it's just a matter of degree.

      Whether neopopulists agree that everyone is violating the rules -- it's just a matter of degree -- is a subject for another essay.  However, the fact the question is important to neopopulism says a great deal about neopopulism.  What does it take to follow all the rules?  Chivalry?  Don Quixote? Greatness? Madness?  Somewhere in-between?  The ideologues and partisans have nothing to say about this matter.  They are boring.  Joker and neopopulists are exciting.

       Additionally, I believe Joker illustrates themes in the battle between elitists and neopopulists in Minnesota over the rule of law.  For example, the elitists with their rationalist reductionism would assert that they don't scheme and they abide by "their" rule of law.  For example, in the neopopulist cases on this website, we have the Minnesota Supreme Court denying that they passed the gag rules on judicial candidates to increase their own chances of reelection and the Minnesota state legislators denying that they increased their per diem payments to increase the compensation for themselves. 

        By these actions, these judicial and legisltive elites proclaim their high-minded intentions and then state in rationalistic, reductionist way -- "I have my view and you have your view." "I have my rule of law and you have yours." 

       The Joker and neopopulists view it differently, "You are all schemers."

        Lacking Batman as far as I know, the Minnesota neopopulists in sort of a Harvey Dent -- pre Two Face - way say, "You must be held accountable for your violations of the rule of law." 

         It's not as fun as being a superhero -- is it? 

         But, at least neopopulists are in the game.

P.S.  After I wrote this essay, I found that this article with the subheading "Life Coach Suggests People Be More Like the Psychotic, Murdering Clown."   For the therapist interviewed, madness and happiness don't seem that far apart.  For neopopulism, madness and greatness may not be that far apart.  Accordingly, the movie includes lines such as you die a hero or eventually live to be a villian.  Of course, this happens to Dent/Two Face in the movie and, arguably or perhaps ironically, to Batman when he participates in Commissioner Gordon's fraud that Batman killed the cops -- not Dent. 

Comment (0) Read More...

I have conversed with Dahlberg about a few points that I want to share with our audience: 

(1)  Christians or anyone else for that matter have nothing unique to offer in politics or science.  All things discovered in politics and science if they have merit can and should be duplicated by non-believers.

(2)  A Christian or other world perspective, however, may counsel against certain errors in politics and science -- however these principles if they have merit can and should also be duplicated by others.

(3)  A reality-based (neopopulist) approach -- inherent in the Judeo-Christian tradition and perhaps other traditions -- avoids the alternative-reality errors of rationalism found in both politics and science.  This point is foundational for neopopulism.

(4)  Currently, Christians or any other religious sub-group are not more or less reality-based (neopopulist) than anyone else when it comes to politics and/or science.  

(5)  Most importantly, the rationalists want you to believe that each person's human reason is the public measure for political and scientific "reality."  The neopopulist response is:  the rationalist reductionism of political and scientific reality to each person's human reason misses out entirely on our collective authentic experience of politics and science -- which neopopulists find a constant source of awe, beauty and joy.

Therefore, the neopopulist movement -- although consistent with Judeo-Christian norms and perhaps other norms -- is a secular project to focus each person to engage in democratic politics.

Neopopulists believe that we will surely be better off if everyone participates in democratic politics.  The alternative is the same old elitist, beaureacratic  mediocrity.

egk

Comment (0) Read More...

The primacy of politics is important.  It is standard rhetorical fodder for the elites to distract the people from desired political actions....philosophy, psychology, economics and even theology are used by elites as substitutes for political action.  By making politics first, we prioritize political results -- and minimize the influence from the "ideas of politics."  Neopopulists engage in politics, not the "idea of politics."

Put another way, should we judge our representatives by how well they do the people's business or whether they say they're ideological or partisan? 

Put yet another way, the people need to manage the government.  The government should not be managing the people or their politics or their world views or their associations or their ideology or their partisanship, etc. ad infinitum.

P.S.  Remember most of the things that people need from  goverment agencies are measurable and should be measured.   Our system's democratic deficits and lack of transparency leads to these things never being measured.  The people, therefore, do not know how mediocre the governmental agencies really are.  They just know they are mediocre.  The  people must engage in surveillance of their government agencies in order to improve them from their natural state of mediocrity.  If the people are not engaged in this surveillance, the bureacracy, as J.S. Mill assures us, is surely mediocre.  Neopopulism focuses on the democratic deficits as a cause of bureaucratic mediocrity.  Mininimizing democratic deficts will reduce bureaucratic mediocrity.  Meanwhile, the ideologues and partisans  and their respective reductionisms offer nothing in this regard.

Comment (0) Read More...

David Brooks in a New York Times column recognizes that the successful British Tories have moved from "Rights" rhetoric to "Societal" rhetoric.   He bemoans that American conservatives are lagging behind. 

Neopopulism, in its own way, is attempting to fill in this gap.

The article can be found here.

Comment (0) Read More...