Neopopulist Blog

Tom Dahlberg's Resolution: 

Erick and I seem to be in agreement at this point that the controversy is an illusion. By substituting a new rhetorical construction, viz. that Neopop is simply "process oriented" (maximizing the participation of the people) and not an attempt to manage anyone's world view and values (a totalitarian impulse) we overcome the confusion otherwise induced by the phrase "primacy of politics". An exciting evolution of the rhetorical strategy. The democratic political process is primary; not the management of the people's world view and values. Influencing world views and values is important but not primary. When this mgt of someone else's mind becomes primary it also becomes evil.

Comment (0) Read More...

The on-line debate between Dahlberg on me on the primacy of politics has resulted in the following summary of insights on the "primacy of politics" hypothesis:

1.  Politics is personal.  It is not abstract. Politics doesn't serve values.  Politicians serve people; the reason neopopulism is necessary is that politicians, more often than not, don't serve the people.

2.  Political action is not subordinate to ideas -- philosophy, economics, psychology, theology, etc.   Neopopulists are not attempting to manage people's world-views.   The Neopopulist politician works day-and-night to avoid mediocre bureaucratic government -- a true service to the people.

3.  Political action is either good or bad -- no other ideological, partisan or academic nomenclature is required.  Of course, a poltician is free to consult any value system prior to acting -- but that doesn't make his individual political action ideological, partisan or academic.  The primacy of politics suggest individual political action is above all political.   In fact, a politician's decision made on ideological, partisan or academic grounds is immediately suspect.  A politician's decision should be judged on how well it addresses the paradox of imposing the will on the neighbor while loving the neighbor.  A good first question would be,  "Does the politician's decision respect or violate human dignity? "

4.  Americans are sufficiently good to have an excellent government -- they simply have not "willed" an excellent government.  Neopopulism is a long overdue movement of the people to "will" an excellent modern bureacratic government.

5.  Neopopulism does not teach "values."  It teaches about democratic processes to improve modern bureaucratic government.

6.  Political leadership is a process that can be learned.

7.  Every American is capable of being a political leader.

8.  Neopopulism is defined by a concrete goal to counteract mediocre government.

9.  Neopopulism counteracts mediocre government by teaching democratc processes to improve government.

10.  Neopopulism is concerned about democratic deficits because they present obstacles to improving government.

 11. Politics necessarily involves a will to power.  A proposed methodology is not political if it doesn't have power as its first aim. That is why philosophy, economics, psychology and even theology are in the first instance useless in politics. 

In summary, neopopulism is not about managing people's world views.  Neopopulism is process oriented in that it is looking for leaders and processes to improve governmental performance.   This proposal does not require people to have convergent world views.  Avoding space shuttles exploding, bridges collapsing and lions jumping out of zoo cages are tasks the people agree with. 

Neopopulism does, however, require agreement as to the primacy of politics.

Comment (1) Read More...

Tom Dahlberg:

Kaardal, by the primacy of politics, you mean that, operationally, politics has its own logic, and that introducing non-political process values (e.g. altruism) will confuse the process and make it less effective. It IS about imposing my will. This is NOT to say that my world view and its cultural preferences will not inevitably determine my political goals. My goal may be a more religious culture, but my political method is not to preach to the political class, but to work through their preferences for an advantage. Even when my goal is to help others, I must impose the goal on others.

But politics is also clearly primary in the sense that politics has to be properly arranged in order to achieve cultural and econonic goals. Above all else Neopopulists must be competent at politics in order to be competent at culture and economics.

Erick Kaardal:

Tom makes a good point here. However, I enthusiastically disagree. My manly Christian political view is "The irresolvable paradox in politics is loving your neighbor while imposing your political will on your neighbor." By proposing this irresolvable paradox as the paradigm for politics, I am already engaged in creating a religious culture. What more manly a politics would Christ require? Come on Tom -- join us in this political adventure, live it, don't overthink it. As Chesterton said, the voice of the people is the voice of God is a heresy we are not in danger of overdoing.

In this context, the primacy of politics simply means that the most important thing a community does is deal with this irresolvable paradox. How does the community go about loving each other while politically imposing their will on each other? Neopopulists prefer democratic, not elitist, means to ensure the best possible results for all the people. Philosophers, economists, psychologists and even theologians have much to offer -- but they don't do politics. They don't try to address the irresolvable paradox because they don't have to; they're not polticians.

Thus, the primacy of politics means to neopopulists that philosophical, economic, psychological and even theological talk is very helpful in some ways -- but not for politics. Politics is not a marketplace of ideas. It is a gymnasium for charity.

Tom Dahlberg:

I believe I was agreeing with the primacy theory. But now I'm not so sure.

I see that the political process has its own nature and that you can't fight nature. I embrace Erick's exhortation not to fight nature. Politics is for the natural man and is required by the fallen nature of the world. We should not idealize the struggle for power. But there is a profound difference between idealizing the struggle for power and demanding that politics serve values outside of itself (instead of just realizing a manly will to power). Erick sees Neopopulism as authenticating politics, much as Machiavelli was authenticating politics. But it is not politically inauthentic per se to recognize that politics needs to import its goals from religion. Politics is just a process.

I cannot even imagine politics existing in a vacuum. The goals of political activity are assigned to it by culture, economics, philosophy and religion. Re: The Declaration of Independence which argues that independence is valuable from a religious perspective at least to those who are declaring it. The revolution is not fought simply to impose my will. I impose my will because I have a super-political and paradoxical goal: more democracy. I am transferring the irresolvable paradox to: I seek power to limit power. That is I love my neighbor while imposing freedom (which is my will informed by religious values) on him. And it IS an imposition. I repeat: My WILL inFORMED by religious values. All of politics is either inFORMED or misinFORMED by religious faith and values, secular (scientism) and non-secular. It has to be FORMED.

Surely it is impossible to be a neopopulist and believe that politics (the acquisition and use of power) is an end in itself. That is liberalism and Conservatism as expressions of the ideological will to power. If neopopulism, I'm sure we agree, is just a will to power, then it becomes elitist.

Politics is a manly art, not a manly goal. All the truly manly GOALS as such are outside of politics. But, Erick may reply, that's according to religion. That's right. We cannot even agree about what's manly and what isn't, what's political and what isn't, without a world view.

Once again, this is why democracy (the least manly approach to power) is so important. It's the perfect fit for a post modern age where the expert is clearly more manly than the politician. After all, the expert won't compromise.

Erick Kaardal:

Obviously, Tom doesn't agree with the primacy of politics.  Let's look at what Tom said.  Tom's remarks are in quotes and underlined:

"We should not idealize the struggle for power." 

Erick's response, "If you are in politics, you should.  Winning is everything." 

"But there is a profound difference between idealizing the struggle for power and demanding that politics serve values outside of itself (instead of just realizing a manly will to power)." 

Erick's response, "I disagree because the basic communal value is loving y0ur neighbor, the people.  How does the politician act, use power, to love the people?  Politicians are not engaged in some intellectual exercise to serve values outside of themselves.  I find offensive Tom's suggestion that politics serve values outside of itself.  People serve people.  Ideas don't serve ideas. "

Erick sees Neopopulism as authenticating politics, much as Machiavelli was authenticating politics. But it is not politically inauthentic per se to recognize that politics needs to import its goals from religion. Politics is just a process.

Erick's response, "Wrong. Neopopulism authenticates politicians who love and serve the people-- not politics.   If the politicians are serving (loving) the people, they are doing their job.  The only way to ensure the politicians are doing their job is for the people, per Machiavelli, to be loved and feared by the politicians.  If given a choice, the people should prefer fear by, over love by, the politician because it is more likely to motivate them to do their job. 

Tom states that 'it is not politically inauthentic per se to recognize that politics needs to import its goals from religion.'  I don't disagree but religion is not relevant to the political questions at hand -- are the bureaucrats serving the people?  Think space shuttles exploding, bridges collapsing and lions jumping out of zoo cages.   We don't need religion to know when a bureaucracy is mediocre and not worth doing.  We simply need an axe of mercy, excuse me, act of mercy to terminate the mediocre bureaucracy."

I cannot even imagine politics existing in a vacuum.

Erick's response, "Politics operates in an intellecutal vacuum.  That's why academics are bored by local, practical politics.   Academics have to create weird theories like rational choice politics to make politics interesting to them.  Politics is always interesting to the neopopulist.  Politics is a gymnasium for acts of charity.  It's not a marketplace of ideas or marketplace of theologies as Tom suggests.  Interestingly, the neopopulist approach puts what the politician says and does under immediate public scrutiny -- is he serving the people or not?  

Tom's approach to politics seems to suggest an associational politics relating to common world views.  For my part, understanding one world is complicated enough; trying to understand different world views is a task I do not have time in this short lifetime to undertake."

The goals of political activity are assigned to it by culture, economics, philosophy and religion.

 Erick's response, "No, the politician is responsible for his political activity.  The people hold the politician accountable by his actions."

The Declaration of Independence which argues that independence is valuable from a religious perspective at least to those who are declaring it.

 Erick's response, "Yes. I agree."

 The revolution is not fought simply to impose my will. I impose my will because I have a super-political and paradoxical goal: more democracy.

 Erick's response, "More democracy doesn't make sense unless it is to serve the people. More democracy is a response, not an answer, to the irresolvable paradox.  I believe 2,000 years of Western history support me on this point."

I am transferring the irresolvable paradox to: I seek power to limit power. That is I love my neighbor while imposing freedom (which is my will informed by religious values) on him. And it IS an imposition. I repeat: My WILL inFORMED by religious values. All of politics is either inFORMED or misinFORMED by religious faith and values, secular (scientism) and non-secular. It has to be FORMED.

Erick's response, "I think this is a mistake.  Seeking power to limit power sounds like you don't trust or love the people.  No political methodology should rest on that approach.  Further, it's not practical.  When you were Mayor of Shorewood, your platform wasn't seek power to limit power.  Your platform was to use power to serve the people. Often, of course, that meant not to use available power because it would have violated or disrespected the dignity of the people.  The reason why "Seek Power to Limit Power" is not a persuasive political slogan is that people won't believe it. They demand certain services from government. If they don't get them, they will demand them and eventually get them.  The Neopopulist slogan of "Democracy" in light of the irresolvable paradox is salable to the people because they know if they don't run the government -- the experts will. 

As to religious values, I still don't see how it is relevant to the battle against the modern regulatory state. The people already have sufficient religious values. The question is do they have the will?  That is what neopopulism addresses.  It is not a religious movement. It is a political movement trying to accomplish concrete goals."

Surely it is impossible to be a neopopulist and believe that politics (the acquisition and use of power) is an end in itself. That is liberalism and Conservatism as expressions of the ideological will to power. If neopopulism, I'm sure we agree, is just a will to power, then it becomes elitist.

Erick's response, "One end of neopopulism is already defined:  a "skilled" democracy with a balance between democratic and bureaucratic inputs.  That is a battle against government elitism and expertism in favor of practical, common sense-based and good results.  Think space shuttles exploding, bridges collapsing and lions jumping out of zoo cages.  To equate neopopulism with ideological reductionism is to miss the point.  Neopopulism find interesting every aspect of government service and want to make it better.  Ideologues are promoting an ideology.  Neopopulists are promoting the people's interests in government.  There is a huge difference in how ideologues and neopopulists define the public interst.  I don't know how neopopulism could ever be defined as a will to power because of its recognition of the irresolvable paradox:  loving the people is a limitation on the use of power.  Every government use of power against someone should be consistent with an act of mercy or charity."

Politics is a manly art, not a manly goal.

Erick's response, "I think a frontal assault on the modern regulatory state is manly.  Now, it may look at times like swinging at windmills like Don Quixote did -- but there is something there chivalric nonetheless.  Otherwise, I don't quite know what this statement means.  To the extent the statement intends to subordinate politics to intellectual goals, I disagree for the reasons given above."

All the truly manly GOALS as such are outside of politics. But, Erick may reply, that's according to religion.

Erick's response, "Why isn't the political goal of reigning in the regulatory experts by practicality, common sense and logic manly?  The bureaucrats have so many advantages.   Are practicality, common sense and logic religious or non-religious exercises?  I believe they are non-religious exercises.  So, the goals of neopopulists are manly and are within politics. Yes, Tom is correct. I assign his view of politics to religion.  If politics is subordinate to religion, then Tom does not believe in the primacy of politics.  Case solved."

Comment (0) Read More...

This essay reflects further thinking about ethical, democratic government and economic development.

First, it is important to reject a right-wing or left-wing ideological reading of history.   Ideological and partisan reductionism, as it deviates from the historical truth, leads the people astray.

For the people, the history is straightforward. America was founded in 1776 by waging a war against a foreign sovereign.  The result, the framed Constitution, was better than rule by a foreign King.  However, the result, due to the Framing of the Constitution, was a republic with certain democratic deficits -- e.g., slavery, no universal suffrage, state legislators elect Senators, electoral college elects president, appointed federal judges, representatives elected by large congressional districts and executive branch agencies. 

Over the next 200+ years, the American story is one of economic development -- including agrarian, industrial and technological phases.  The people through the available means of political participation in the Republic pushed back in several ways against the excesses of economic development over time:  abolition of slavery; universal suffrage; social welfare; civil rights and environment.

The incidental results of these populist push-backs to economic development, over time, has been a huge modern regulatory state with more democratic deficits.  Neopopulists recognize the huge modern regulatory state and its concomitant democratic deficits as the greatest threat to the people's interests -- even more so than conservative and liberal ideologues although they often work hand-in-glove with the elitist/expert class.

Second, neopopulists believe that ethical, democratic government requires a "love of the people."   Love of the people is not a utilitarian exercise.  A government that loves the people requires a hate of democratic deficits and government mediocrity,  requires jealousy to protect the legislative/administrative power from the elitist/expert class and requires a suspicious view of the utilitarian claims inherent in economic development.  Neopopulists assert that any government that does not meet these requirements needs to be more ethical and more democratic.

Third, neopopulists hate democratic deficits and government mediocrity.  Neopopulists believe, like J.S. Mill, that a "skilled democracy" requires a balance between the bureaucratic and democratic elements.  Bureaucracies tend toward rules, routine and mediocrity over time.  Electing officials to run the bureaucracies infuse the people's values back into these bureacracies.

Therefore, Neopopulists want democratic deficits minimized and available means of political participation maximized. Neopopulists believe the broader the scope and depth of the democratic deliberation, the less government mediocrity.  

On this point, it is clear why the liberal and conservative ideologues have missed the point.  Liberal and conservative ideologues believe their opinions should be outcome-determinitive -- so democracy for them is not an end it inself.  

Neopopulists view an ethical, democratic environment as an end in itself.  Neopopulists prefer, trust and demand an ethical, democratic environment to make decisions important to the people. 

Fourth, neopopulists jealously protect the legislative/administrative power from the elitist/expert class.   Neopopulists believe the great battle today is the  people's democracy versus the elites and experts of the modern regulatory state.   Neopopulists criticize the people's delegation of the legislative power to the legislature which in turn delegates the legislative power to the adminstrative agency's elites and experts.  Neopopulists criticize the judicial branch's and legislative branch's lack of oversight regarding administrative agency's elites and experts.   Neopopulists criticize the courts and the system when the courts assume the power to resolve issues that should be resolved democratically.

Fifth, neopopulists have a suspicious view of the utilitarian claims inherent in economic development.  The people, when using the government to push back against economic development, should not adopt the utilitarian approach that grows out of the economic writings of Adam Smith and Jeremy Bentham.   The marketplace analogy simply does not apply to politics.  There is no "marketplace of ideas."  Rather, the people should insist on an ethical, democratic government that deliberates on the excesses of economic development.   The school of utilitarianism provides little guidance on legislating on the excesses of economic development.  The school of neopopulism insists on a democratic process -- an end in itself -- to address the excesses of economic development.

Comment (0) Read More...

            The culture war tit-for-tat fought by conservative Katherine Kersten and liberal Kevin Featherly over Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TIZA), a public charter K-8 school catering to Inver Grove Heights Muslims, is politically ironic. 

            From the commentaries, the reader's first assumption might be that conservatives are against religious-based public schools and liberals are for religious-based public schools.  But, guess again.

             In 1997, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit addressed the same issue - but for Brethren children, not Muslim children.  

            The Brethren children in Vesta, Minnesota are similar to the Muslim students at TIZA in at least one respect -- their parents wanted a different type of public school.  For example, the Vesta Brethren parents, based on their unique Christian beliefs, objected to the Vesta public school using technological devices -- such as computers, television, films and other modern technology and media. The Brethren also practiced separatist and anti-mixing beliefs by not eating meals with persons who do not share their beliefs. Historically, the Brethren children who attended the public school required a separate table at lunchtime.

            Based on the facts of the case, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Davis, a Democrat appointee, found a violation of the Establishment Clause and issued an injunction on August 22, 1996 to shut down the public school in Vesta.  He wrote, "the School District violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and Art. 1, § 16 of the Minnesota Constitution by agreeing with the religious group known as the Brethren to open and operate a public elementary school for Brethren children in space leased for free from a member of the Brethren with a curriculum modified to delete the use of computers and other technology and media in conformance with religious objections raised by the Brethren."

            The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the trial court judgment by a two to one vote.  The majority consisting of Judges Roger Wollman and C. Arlen Beam, both Republican appointees, held that: (1) neither the opening of the school primarily attended by students belonging to a particular religious group nor granting of parents' requests for exemptions from use of technology violated the Establishment Clause; (2) the school district did not improperly endorse religion; and (3) the district's actions did not violate the state constitution.

            However, Judge Diana Murphy, a Democrat appointee, dissenting, thought Judge Davis was right.  She wrote, "Here the school district has done far more than grant individual exemptions to aspects of the public school curricula under state law, for it has entered into a contractual relationship with members of a religious group to tailor a school to their preferences. The district has agreed to limit the use of technology not for pedagogical reasons, but to match the tenets of a single religious group. It also modified the health, music, physical education, and computer curricula normally offered. The district has acted to create a school where a student interested in participating in the standard health, physical education, music, or computer offerings must make a special request and/or commute almost thirty miles during the school day to obtain such regular educational services at Wabasso. It is not surprising that non-Brethren children have not enrolled at Vesta."

            Based on these federal court opinions, two Republican-appointed judges and two Democrat-appointed judges were split on the constitutionality of the Vesta school.

            Ironically, conservative Katherine Kersten's position on TIZA aligns with Democrat-appointed Judges Michael Davis and Diana Murphy.  Liberal Kevin Featherly's position on TIZA aligns with Republican-appointed Judges Roger Wollman and C. Arlen Beam.

            Here is what we know about TIZA from the two commentaries.  TIZA is named for a Muslim general Tarek ibn Ziyad who conquered medieval Spain.  Its co-founders, Zaman and Hesham Hussein, were both imams, or Muslim religious leaders, as well as leaders of the Muslim American Society of Minnesota (MAS-MN).  TIZA shares MAS-MN's headquarters building, along with a mosque.  According to its mission statement, the school "recognizes and appreciates the traditions, histories, civilizations and accomplishments of the eastern world (Africa, Asia and Middle East)."  Students attend religious courses at MAS-MN after the school day ends at TIZA.  Head scarves are voluntary, but virtually all the girls wear them.  During Ramadan, a Muslim religious holiday, approximately half of the kids in the lunch room are fasting. 

            Under these conditions, reminiscent of Judge Murphy's opinion, it is not surprising that non-Muslim children are not enrolling at TIZA.

           Now, you be the judge.  Based on what you know about the TIZA charter school for Muslim students and the constitutionality of the Vesta public school for Brethren students, do you agree with Republican-appointed Judges Wollman and Beam and find the TIZA charter school constitutional? Or, do you agree with Democrat-appointed Judges Murphy and Davis and find the TIZA charter school unconstitutional?

Erick G. Kaardal is general counsel for Neopopulism.org -- an organization that promotes the rule of law.

Comment (0) Read More...

Last night, several critical questions were asked of neopopulist speakers.  These questions were asked in a time where the people hold Congress and the President at historically low levels.  Here is a recitation of those questions and written responses.

Question 1:  What evidence would it require for a neopopulist speaker to admit that the speaker does not speak for the people?

None.  Neopopulist speakers are committed, in the first instance, to speaking for the interests of the people.   

This wonderful question is targeted, like an arrow aimed for the bullseye, on a critical, irresolvable political paradox for neopopulists. 

How do neopopulists impose their political will through government on the people while still loving the same people?  Neopopulists begin with this paradox and admit it is irresolvable.   However, admitting this irresolvable paradox is the start, not the end of the debate.

In addressing this paradox, neopopulists admit they do not speak as moral agents for the people.   Put another way, neopopulists do not speak as substitutes for the people's voice. 

Rather, neopopulists, out of love for the people, speak for the interests of the people.  This is the the way in which neopopulists assert their legitimacy, their political will and their love of the people -- all at one time.

The right-wing and left-wing critics of neopopulism will assert that the neopopulist position then can be reduced to its own ideology -- no different in type than their own ideologies.   The criticism would reduce neopopulism to individual neopopulists autonomously asserting political will by its own ideology or set of ideologies.

There are many neopopulist responses to this criticism.

First, the critics' assertion that neopopulists operate autonomously, politically and  ideologically is not in itself an answer to the irresolvable paradox of imposing political will on your neighbor while still loving your neighbor.  Conservative and liberal ideologues ignore this  political paradox by operating on an ideological level -- combatants on a political zero-sum battleground.   Neopopulists view that political zero-sum battleground as an unnecessary elitist exercise of power.   Neopopulists assert their political will differently.  Neopopulists view the real battle as ensuring our modern bureaucratic state -- including all the branches of government -- serves the people and respects the dignity of the people.  

Second, neopopulists ask the question back to the critics, "Who do you speak for -- the people or God?"  Neopopulists out of humility choose to speak for the people rather than God.  After all, neopopulists do not assert autonomy outside of the context of neighbor and do not propose universal, systematic principles  to explain how humanity and the social order should work.  Conservative and liberal ideologues, on the other hand, act as God when they assert autonomy separate and apart from the context of neighbor and propose universal, systematic principles to explain how humanity and the social order should work. 

Now, to be fair, neopopulists would agree that there should be an all-inclusive democratic deliberation among the people on the principles to explain how humanity and the social order should work.   Neopopulists assert their political will to have this discussion --  separate and apart from the God-talk of the conservative and liberal ideologues.   The conservative and liberal ideologues want to turn the people's discussion about the social order  into a zero-sum political game because of their ideological and partisan reductionism.  Neopopulists disagree.

Third, neopopulists do have a substantive political program addressing democratic deficits in the existing modern regulatory state.  For example, neopopulists support:  more directly-elected executive officials in the federal and state government; direct election of federal and state judges; more aggressive legislative and judicial oversight of administrative agencies;  less delegation of law-making authority to administrative agencies; aggressive facilitation and representation of citizens vis-a-vis federal and state authorities in criminal and civil proceedings to actually effect the rule of law. 

As to foreign governments, neopopulists are also skeptical of the European Union being a stepping stone to a federated Europe because of its democratic deficits including the legislative power primarily being left in the hands of the Commission -- 25,000 experts working in Brussels.  Neopopulists see the American federal government trending towards the model of the EU expert-laden legislative process -- increasing democratic deficits not minimizing them.

In response to neopopulists identifying democratic deficits, conservative and liberal ideologues have little interesting to say.  The ideologues and their political game have become so predictable and dull that not only the newspapers but even the politicians are beginning to become bored of it. 

Fourth, neopopulists appreciate the paradoxes involved in the question of the elusive "I."  Politically, the neopopulists choose to define the elusive "I" in the context of neighbor -- thus diminishing autonomy of the political actor.  Conservative and liberal ideologues have chosen to maximize autonomy of the political actor -- God-talk -- at the expense of the love-neighbor limitiation.  

Neopopulists believe that diminishing the autonomy of the political actor by the love-neighbor limitation will result in more people-oriented results.   Conservatives may object because tradition - the democracy of the dead -- is a sufficient limitation of the politician's autonomy.  Similarly, liberals may object because current constitutional and institutional limits themselves serve to limit the politician's autonomy.  

Neopopulists don't necessarily disagree with these objections, they just go futher with the love-neighbor limitation which politically, philosophically and morally limits the politician's autonomy to... nothing? 

No, not quite, neopopulists recognize the above-explained irresolvable paradox.   If the politician's automony was reduced to self-abnegation, how could the politician enforce his will against another?  That is why it is an irresolvable paradox.

Fifth, on the more humorous side, a colleague of mine who agreed with neopopulist principles as to love of neighbor claimed to be too humble to call himself a neopopulist.   Neopopulists like this type of person but they make lousy politicians.

Question 2:  Which is more manly -- ideological politics or neopopulist politics?

Neopopulists believe that the love-neighbor limitation is more manly than the ideologue's illusion of self-autonomy.   Manliness requires authenticity.  The ideologue's self-autonomy contradicts experience, coherence and transcendental truths.

First, experience show that people are dependent on each other.  Self-autonomy contradicts this shared experience.  The love-neighbor limitation is consistent with this experience.

Second, coherence requires intelligible consistency.  If we are all self-autonomous ideologues, what need is there for community?  Neopopulists, in the first instance, acknowledge community.

Third, the ideologue's automony violates the transcendental truth that man is not God and each man is not his own God.  The ideologue's proposal of universal truths explaining the Universe is God-talk.  Neopopulists acknowledge they are not gods.

 Question 3:  Do neopopulist narratives appeal to emotions?

No. Neopopulist narratives are circumscribed to citizen efforts to counteract government violations of the rule of law.  Neopopulist narratives are hard-headed and document when the government acts in mediocre, mendacious and/or self-contradictory ways.  

Comment (0) Read More...

Time does not permit a complete neopopulist critique of the Europeon Union.  However,  suffice it to say, the organization leaves neopopulists wanting.  

First, the good news, the European Union has done a good job integrating European markets.  If that was its only goal, neopopulists would be satisfied. But,  as the recent failed European Union Consitution effort shows, the pan-Europeans are up to much more.

As a neopopulist, I am not against a federated Europe -- if that is what the people want.  However, I am against this federated Europe.  The European suffers from a democracy deficit -- too little transparency, too many experts, too little parliamentary input.

First, the official history of the Europeon Union starts with the 1951 Treaty Establishing the European Coal and Steel Community.  This official history is disturbing because it does not acknowledge historical antecedents -- including a preference for the democratic ones over the tyranical ones.  The EU should be understood in its historical context.  Remember that those who do not remember the past are bound to repeat it.

Second, the current organization is formed of a council of member-appointed diplomats, a commission of experts and a directly elected parliament.   However, the parliament has few legislative powers.  The Council has some legislative powers.  But,  the commission -- 25,000 civil servants and experts strong -- has the greatest legislative and implementation powers.  This system seems never to require the experts to grovel to Parliament as American administrative experts are required to do for policy changes and funding.

Third, the European Court of Justice has found that community laws are supreme even though no treaty among the nations has never expressly stated that.   It would be better for this matter to be directly democratically confronted.  If it passes, the ECJ would have much more legitimacy in enforcing Supremacy.  In the United States the Supremacy Clause is part of hte U.S. Constitution making federal laws superior to state laws.

Fourth, as a general matter, there is insufficient transparency to the European Union. Too many decisions are made by the Commission without consultation and deliberation among the people.

Fifth, the European Union is struggling with admitting Turkey because it is a populous Muslim country.  What's with that?  If the E.U. hasn't worked out its identity in the last 50 + years, it never will.  The E.U. should stop admitting members and decide what it is -- a trade organization of nations or a move toward a federated Europe?

Neopopulists think the former is more practical for this type of supranational government.  Perhaps, if they started over with something more democrat and less expert-oriented, there could be a hope of a federated Europe.

Sixth, with Europe's birth rate insufficient to maintain its population, where does the European Union stand on immigration?  I am afraid that this is the 800 pound gorilla in the room.  Which way will it turn on immigration will determine whether it is a viable supranational government in the long run.

Comment (0) Read More...

Neopopulists' seriousness about their rule of law cause is often conveyed as the willingness to commit civil disobedience.  To the extent neopopulists talk about civil disobedience, will they be subject themselves to prosecution for their speech?

Over the decades, the United States Supreme Court has considered several cases involving subversive speech.

The first set of cases involved the World War I federal espionage statute.  The United States passed criminal statutes against espionage.  Generally, the United States Supreme Court upheld convictions under the federal espionage statute.  The case names and citations are:  Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919); Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204 (1919); Debs v. United  States, 249 U.S. 211 (1919) and Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919).  The cases involved, among other things, citizens distributing ani-World War I pamplets and being engaged in pro-Lenin activities.

Importantly, U.S. Supreme Court  Justice  Oliver Holmes, Jr. in the Abrams case dissented suggesting a "clear and present danger" test would constitutionally limit prosecutions under the federal espionage act.

The second set of cases, which involved the incorporation of the First Amendment against the states, involved review of state prosecution in New York and California during peacetime.  Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925); Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927).  Both states had passed statutes criminalizing teaching of unlawfulness and/or the teaching of the doctrine of violent overthrow of government.   The U.S. Supreme Court in these cases started recognizing the principle that revolutinary speech should only be punished in emergencies -- not during peacetime when counterspeech is a sufficient remedy.  The seeming rationale of the Court is that criminalizing this type of speech will chill other speech.

In 1940, the United States was back on a wartime footing (continuous through the Cold War) and passed the Smith Act.   The Smith Act was modeled after the state statutes.  The Smith Act criminalized the advocating or teaching of overthrowing government by force or violence; forming such a group to advocate or teach same; becoming a member of such group; or to conspire along any of these lines.

The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed in 1951 the prosecution of American Communist Party officials in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951).   The prosecutions were upheld over vigorous dissents written by Justices Black and Douglas.  The majority wrote that First Amendment considerations required a calculation of the magnitude of the possible harm and the probability it will come about. 

To understand this opinion, recall, in 1951, the Soviet Union was a threat.  The American Communist Party was allied with the Soviet Union which had the A-bomb and soon would have the H-bomb and ICBM capabilities.

The modern test for subversive speech was not adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court until 1969 in Bradenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).  The Ohio statute outlawed advocacy of crime.  Defendant was a KKK member who spoke at a rally.  He said racists things and said "it's possible there might have to be some revengence taken."  Attendees at the convention had weapons, violent past and had made derogatory statements about blacks and Jews. 

In Brandenburg, the U.S. Supreme Court in reversing the conviction held that a state may only prohibit advocacy of use of force where such advocacy is directed to inciting or causing imminent unlawful action and is likely to cause imminent unlawful action.

This is the modern test that would be applied to neopopulists' speech about civil disobedience.  First, I think it is important that neopopulists do not advocate use of force.  Like Thoreau's Essay on Civil Disobedience and King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail, neopopulists advocate non-violent protests.  Second, neopopulist speeches are not directed at inciting or causing imminent unlawful action.  In fact, neopopulists encourage always use of all available means of political participation before the last resort of non-violent civil disobedience.  Third, neopopulist speeches are not likely to cause imminent unlawful action because of its focus on political participation first and non-violence.  Fourth, neopopulist speeches encourage independent thinking -- not an incited group herd mentality.   Independent thinking leads to discernment over time -- not imminent -- regarding the range of political options -- including non-violent civil disobedience.

For these reasons, the federal and state courts should offer First Amendment protection -- under the modern test expressed in Bradenburg -- for neopopulist speeches.

Therefore, I can say, free of threat of prosectuion, "We are in a state of rebellion."

Addendum:  Here are two quotes from dissenting opinions -- one by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. and one by Justice Louis Brandeis -- that eloquently make neopopulist points on the First Amendment protection of subversive speech.

 Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. dissenting in Abrams case (1919): 

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country. I wholly disagree with the argument of the Government that the First Amendment left the common law as to seditious libel in force. History seems to me against the notion. I had conceived that the United States through many years had shown its repentance for the Sedition Act of 1798 (Act July 14, 1798, c. 73, 1 Stat. 596), by repaying fines that it imposed. Only the emergency that makes it immediately dangerous to leave the correction of evil counsels to time warrants making any exception to the sweeping command, ‘Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.' Of course I am speaking only of expressions of opinion and exhortations, which were all that were uttered here, but I regret that I cannot put into more impressive words my belief that in their conviction upon this indictment the defendants were deprived of their rights under the Constitution of the United States.

Justice Louis Brandeis dissenting in Whitney case (1927):

 Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, selfreliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. Such, in my opinion, is the command of the Constitution. It is therefore always open to Americans to challenge a law abridging free speech and assembly by showing that there was no emergency justifying it.

Justices Holmes' and Brandeis' dissenting views eventually became the basis for the modern test first expressed and applied in the 1969 Bradenburg case.

 Neopopulists should be proud of American jurisprudence on this point. 

Comment (1) Read More...

How do neopopulists politically deal with the good, evil and hatred of the good?

To begin, neopopulists must remember that evil is not merely the absence of good  -- it is hatred of the good.  This proposition is the neopopulist starting point.

Neopopulists when fighting for the good -- i.e. government respecting rule of law and honoring the people's dignity -- will likely face four types of obstacles arising from evil and hatred of the good.

The first type is personal corruption.  Neopopulists are, by definition, to politically fight for government respecting the rule of law and honoring the people's dignity.  However, as neopopulists gain political influence and elected office, beware of the temptations of ideology, partisanship and influence.

It will be increasingly tempting for neopopulist temptations as they succeed to be corrupted -- almost inevitable.  But, only almost, there still exists the possibility of heroic virtue.

The second type is tormenting.  If the neopopulist is not corrupted, then  there will be attempts to  torment him.  Friend and foe, high and low will slander and ridicule the neopopulist for who he isn't and who he was wasn't.  Tormenting can lead to neopopulist distraction, despair and abandonment of the cause.

The third type is injury or threat of injury.  If the neopopulist is not corrupted or tormented, then there may be injury or threat of injury.  The purpose of the physical violence or threat thereof is to deter or, with murder, eliminate the neopopulist politician's possibility of neopopulist reform.

The fourth type, if none of the above works, is to discredit the neopopulist politician.  Here, the opponents will practice the BIG lie.  The propogandist's tactic is that BIG lies will be believed by the people if they are repeated frequently and long enough.   Opponents willl use BIG lies and lots of BIG lies to discredit the neopopulist politican before and after his death.

In summary, neopopulist politicians face a difficult task because of these four obstacles arising from hatred of the good. 

Comment (0) Read More...

Neopopulism already has its critics.   See http://greatdivide.typepad.com/ for "Revenge of the Nerds."   A copy of the article is preserved below for posterity.

My sense is that neopopulism will have two types of elitist critics:  ideological and partisan.   Ideologues will criticize neopopulism for not being ideological at all or will attribute an ideology that isn't there.  Similarly, partisans will criticize neopopulism for not being partisan at all or will attribut a partisanship that isn't there.

Interestingly, neopopulism will only be useful for people who are not ideologues nor partisans.  Neopopulist rhetoric won't work for them.  They will be frustrated.

However, it is also important that neopopulists self-regulate -- ridding themselves of all forms of elitism, ideology and partisanship.   It is the only way to assure ourselves of our own neopopulism.

 egk

Revenge of the Nerds.

The words "rule of law" - like "activist judges" and "original intent" - speak to me not just of constitutional principles, but of a world view that kind of creeps me out.

If I may typecast for a moment, the "rule of law" advocates seem to be overly represented by men angry that the cool world fails to recognize their brilliance and that life is not fair for smart, nerdy, white guys who went to law school instead of starting software companies.

And instead of fighting for the poor and the downtrodden or against institutions that take advantage of them, the rule of law-yers argue over issues that don't make life better for anyone that I can see.

A typical such suit was the one resulting in a 2002 Supreme Court ruling that struck down Minnesota's judicial ethics rule limiting what candidates could say when running for election. Greg Wersel, the winning plaintiff in that case, still can't get elected judge, because Minnesota voters look at these things differently than Antonin Scalia.

Now, he's back in the news along with Citizens for the Rule of Law - an "organization" that started its blog on January 31st and filed a lawsuit Monday challenging how the Minnesota House and Senate grant themselves per diem payments. (Or, as one CRW post called them in a Latinate slip, Per Dieums.)

According to the St. Cloud Times:

Minnesota's part-time legislators receive $31,140 in annual salary, a level that has not been raised since 1998. They can receive daily per diem reimbursements to cover costs such as parking, food, dry cleaning and other expenses, but are not required to submit receipts for those costs.

Other reimbursable costs include travel within legislators' districts, communications costs, travel to conferences and workshops and hiring an intern.

Lawmakers who live more than 50 miles from the Capitol can also receive lodging and mileage reimbursements.

A Times' investigation last October found that some legislators' alternate compensation totals equaled or exceeded their 2007 salary.

Another salvo appeared in the Strib Feb. 8th, when Former Shorewood Mayor Tom Dahlberg and Erick Kaardal, self-proclaimed father of Minnesota neo-populism, inveighed against "the elitist ambitions of former Gov. Al Quie to take us backwards into the authoritarian appointment of judges by the elite bureaucratic class."

As far as I know, this is the first time "elitist" has appeared in the same sentence as the name of our former Republican governor.

Kaardal is the attorney in the CRW lawsuit. (That's his partner, William Mohrman, looking ready to bite the head off another nail in background of the 2002 Wersal photo.)

Given the choice of spending the weekend with Mac Hammond or these guys - and assuming suicide was off the table - I'd be singing hymns in Brooklyn Park on Sunday.

But...

But it pains me to say this, though I've said it before. The Legislature ought to get out of the undocumented per diem business as a way to increase pay. Make the case for a pay raise, vote for it, and take the heat. Or do this:

[Sen. Tarryl Clark, DFL-St. Cloud] said she and Rep. Larry Hosch, DFL-St. Joseph, were working on language for a possible constitutional amendment removing the setting of legislators' compensation from their duties and putting it in the hands of an impartial authority.

Wersal and the state's three other neo-populists would no doubt call it an elitist authority. But at least least it would spare me from having to look like I agreed with guys like this.

Comment (0) Read More...