Americans have been called to celebrate the peaceful passing of the Presidential torch from the conservatives to the liberals. This passing will mean more peaceful killings of unborn and newly born babies, more peaceful killings of sick elderly citizens, even if those showing signs of recovery, and more peaceful killings of sick poor people of every age by rich people, even though our history is filled with poor people who eventually became award winning assets to the entire nation; take as an example Henry Ford. Of course Americans celebrate because historically wars have been fought over less, and because the conservatives are planning on peacefully getting the torch back in four year. But, in reality the conservatives don't have a viable plan for regaining the torch at all, let alone in four years. The Republican Party is dying because it has been focused on avarice at the expense of the economy, social justice, and the environment. Even paleo-conservative Republicans, who are for the most part less avarice than the rest of their party, don't even have a viable plan for winning back the torch. This is even though they believe that they have the solutions that can save America from itself. So there is really no reason to truly celebrate and the conservatives need a new party, now.
The Neo-populist Party would be a viable party for conservatives. I believe a candidate that runs on neo-populist principles could win the next Presidential election. He or she would have no trouble winning the rural US's farmers, ranchers, and self-employed. However, if history is any indicator, winning with populist/neo-populist ideas in the urban areas would be more difficult, but not as difficult as winning as a Republican. The Neo-populist Party, itself, is currently so inactive that Wikipedia doesn't even have an adequate page on the subject, and its politicians have joined the Democrat Party. For example, Montana Democratic Senator Jon Tester is a neo-populist. Neo-populism is a new version of the Populist Party. The most active neo-populists belong to the Midwest Populist Party (http://www.midwest-populistamerica.com/articles/a-new-kind-of-populist/). Even they are little more than a few Yahoo Groups that like to post thousands of electronic postings a month. They so far have refused to try endorse a candidate, let alone back their own candidate. They did like Ron Paul, even though they refused to endorse him.
Neo-populists exists in many countries, like Europe and South America. They even have activist working at the United Nations. However, the US has its own distinctive version of Neo-populism. According to those who write books and essays on neo-populism, like sociologist and political scientist, Dr. Aram Ziai, professor at Aachen Technical University, in Aachen Germany, neo-populism is an outgrowth of something called post development theory that seeks to develop solutions to poverty for the people by the people. Post development theory began in the 1980's. It asserts that all of the worlds current problems are caused by what they call development theory, development theory in its most basic form is factories, the government bureaucracies that come along with factories, and the Western mindset that factories make Western people smarter than indigenous people; ie...everything made by a factory is better than everything made by hand, for example all pharmaceuticals are better than all home remedies, brick homes are always better than all huts, and people who own factories and their government bureaucracies always have better solutions to problems then people who live in tribes and huts etc.... Personally, as a side note, I believe that post-development theorist are completely blind to the most glaring accomplishment of development. It may be true that since its conception development may have caused harm to maybe a billion people, though death and dismemberment by fatal environmental pollutants and injury on the job, but those who promote development have at least learned how get very large groups of people to live in peace during the passing of political power from one group to another, and in some cases, like Iceland and Denmark, they have also learned to live with relatively no crime rate. That definitely can't be said for most indigenous societies. They accomplish peace by remaining in small groups. Their peace seems to evaporate when they try managing large and very large groups. US neo-populists, however, are not usually concerned with blaming factories for all of the problems of the world or moving out of their homes into tepees. They point the finger at big government, The Federal Reserve, and even corporations that don't own factories for failing to employ people for a equitable living wage, and hiring immigrants instead. They want financial security for the people by the people, in a pollution-free environment, while staying in their brick or mobile homes.
According Dr. Ziai many neo-populist seek to solve what they see as the biggest problems of our times, poverty of the masses and Global Warming with non-government, non-corporate, cooperative solutions. They see the cause of of these problems as greedy governments and greedy corporations. This is especially true of US neo-populist. Many US neo-populist think government agencies that oppress the common people (the middle class) in favor of the rich, like those on Wall Street, should be closed, environmentally responsible cooperatives should replace corporations, and organic family farms should replace corporate farms. Senator Testor, for example, is an organic grain and vegetable farmer. It should however be noted that since US neo-populist ideas of a just workplace include factory made technology (some neo-populist shun all development technology), US neo-populist ideal workplaces can be even more dangerous than factories. Farming is currently one of the most dangerous US occupations especially farming that utilizes a tractor. As an example of the reality of this conflict in US neo-populist reasoning, Senator Testor is missing a finger that he lost while working in the butcher shop that his family owned when he was growing up.
There are several types of US neo-populists. Examples include, ACORN (www.acorn.org), various labor unions, and various bloggers (www.neopopulism.org), various Yahoo Groups, and various Google Groups. These types are all somewhere on the spectrum between post-Marxist neo-populist, non-Marxist radical democracy neo-populist. Each seeks to return the power from the elite back to the people. US post-Marxist neo-populist have a Robin Hood mindset. They seem to realize that communism has failed but, they believe that it is good and moral to steal from the rich if what they have was gained by oppressing or committing crimes against the poor, such as unethical business practices, like payday loan businesses. They believe that everything in society rightfully belongs to everyone. The question is not whether to give someone a fish or to teach them to fish, but who owns the fish in the first place. Shier answer is; everyone, (so have they really learned that communism has failed). The community organizing group, ACORN, is an example of a post-Marxist neo-populist organization. They were the ones that got in trouble for registering people to vote multiple times. They also were very active in building replacement homes for the victims of Katrina.
US Non-Marxist radical democracy neo-populist, on the other hand, have a cooperative mindset. They believe in democracy, not communism, and sometimes not even socialism. They believe in private property and that if you work hard for it, it should be yours. They believe that a just society should be made up of credit unions, mutual insurance companies, energy cooperative, and cooperatively owned farms, ranches, factories, businesses, and stores. Some would go so far as to propose self-sustaining communes instead of government housing and homeless shelters They are famous for writing a lot of books and essays on the subject, but outside of the family cooperative, very little has successfully been accomplished. Their major hurdle is that outside of historic and enduring success of the family farm or ranch, the family business, energy cooperatives, credit unions, mutual insurance companies, and religious intentional living communities like the kibbutzim (Jewish communal farms), Catholic Worker Houses, Anabaptists like the Bruderhof Communities (now known as Church Communities International), and the Hutterites, few cooperative have enjoyed long-term success. Cooperatives of many kinds have had a very high failure rate, especially cooperative grocers. Spain is the only country that bases its economy on cooperatives and it hasn't worked out that well for them economically. They haven't failed, they are doing better than some others, but they are not wildly successful, as the economy has been under a corporate factory economy. The question for radical democracy neo-populist is whether or not to let the government give someone a fish or to teach a community to organize to fish, (so who is an expert at teaching communities to organize to fish? Not any university that I know) .
The foremost neo-populist writer is historian and sociologist, Professor Micheal Foucault, of University of California at Berkeley. He died in 1984. His focus was on neo-populist theories of power. There are about nine post-Marxist neo-populist writers, of which for time's sake I won't mention here by name. Some of the writers who wrote about non-Marxist radical democracy theory include, retired marine and retired Professor C. Douglas Lummis, who used to teach at Tsuda College in Tokyo, Japan, and retired Professor James Petras, who used to teach in New York and Canada at Binghamton University and Saint Mary's University.
In spite of all of the faltering of the modern neo-populist movement, the Populist Movement of the 1880's to the 1920's came a long way; from a band of complaining bankrupt middle class citizens to an effective political party. They first organized in response to the rural economic Panic of 1873. Eventually, they were successful at getting several laws passed, and saving a lot of common people from foreclosure. Many of the energy cooperatives that the populists organized to save their farms are still in the are still in existence today. In 1896, they almost got one of their Presidential candidates, Williams Jennings Bryan, elected. Incidentally, Bryan ran as a Democrat even though he was from the Populist Party. However, in 1912, their candidate, Theodore Roosevelt, ran on the Progressive Party ticket, gaining enough Republican votes to split the Republican Party. Parties that were a part of the Populist Movement included The Populist Party of 1880 and 1890 aka the People's Party, The Greenback Party of 1874-1884, aka the Independent Party, the National Party, or the Greenback-Labor Party, the Progressive Party of 1912 aka the Bull Moose Party, and the Progressive Party of 1924. Cycles of the Populist Movement rose during hard economic times for the common masses (middle class), but once the economy recovered, and the suffering of the common masses subsided, the corresponding cycle of the Populist Movement declined. However, there was no rise of any populist movement during the Great Depression.
If history is an accurately informed educator, than this is probably America's current course: our government will fall deep into debt by trying to fix our current 'recession' with the solutions that were used to attack The Great Depression. The consequences accumulating unmanageable federal debt (which America did not have during the Great Depression) will cause global unrest, as we continue to live beyond our means at the expense of our international lenders, (and living at a higher standard of living than our international lenders). The dollar will lose its standing as the World Dollar Standard. The solutions that didn't work for the Great Depression will also not work now and we will continue to languish in 'recession' this time with an insurmountable federal debt and international lenders balking at our requests for more credit. Diplomacy will run out between international diplomats, but America will struggle to get the economy running again. Then just as a weak economic upturn begins, an economically devastating hurricane of flood will hit and America will be to economically devastated to respond adequately. Terrorist will sense that America is floundering and strike. War will be declared. Our common masses will begin to suffer as our poor and homeless always do. They will hang our heads in despair feel like everything we touch turns into a failure. Those who live in the urban areas and those who live in the rural areas will feel like failures. Unemployment will soar without remedy. Our factories and stores will close. Prize middle class neighborhoods will turn into ghettos, with few stores, and dilapidation. The common masses will feel ashamed when we look into the eyes of their hungry children. They will not be able to afford health care, no matter how hard they try. And all this while the rich will continue to live in luxury. No matter what solutions the politicians organize, they will never enough. They will feel like they can never get away from the the wolves of failure that will catch up with them every time they stop to catch their breath. But our common masses will not sit still for the suffering as our poor and homeless do. They will organize cooperatives and intentional living communities to survive until the 'recession' is over. When the recession is over, they will save up their money and when war is over each surviving soldier will come home and collect his family from the cooperative living situation, gather the savings, and return to a private home of his own. All the home buying will cause an economic boon. But who knows what else will happen when the war is over. Who know what nation will emerge as the super power, and who know what will happen to the international balance of power.
How far better it would be to avoid all of this by cutting the federal debt and solving the recession at the same time. How far better it would be to do this while not causing the middle class to suffer hunger and homelessness, while the rich continue to vacation in leer jets, and renovate their offices to the latest designs. How far better it would be to give the middle class the assurance that they are not going to continue to be victimized by the rich. Why not make the officers of the Federal Reserve, and Fannie Mae and Freddie mac elected positions? Maybe then they would not keep serving the avarice of Wall Street, and more diligent about protecting the middle class by preventing foreclosures,
(The Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac could have avoided this entire foreclosure fiasco, in 2002, by passing federal regulations that required all building and loan companies, and all mortgage companies to refinance all foreclosing homes according to 25% of the gross income of the homeowner instead of at market rate. They could have advised home builders and mortgage CEO's to cut back on their standards of living. After all most of them weren't in as much danger of foreclosure of their only modest home. They could have sold some of their mansions, their Manhattan condos, their fleets, their yachts, and their leer jets to make up for the drop in income).
How far better it would be to find entrepreneurial cooperative solutions to our problems. How far better to do this now, or in four years, instead of after war breaks out and millions of middle class people fall into the lower classes.
Let's face it. The Republican Party simply doesn't have the framework to produce truly viable solutions. The Republican framework went out on a limb to produce the solution of $600 stimulus checks, but a moderate neo-populist framework wouldn't even have to go out on a limb to produce a solution like the following; a government program that awards homeowners for making the patriotic decision to sell their 4000 square foot house and buy a state-of-the-art high-tech automated 2000 square foot LEEDS certified, zero energy house or a similar low-risk duplex in their same school district and take the extra money to pay cash for restaurants and vacations instead of using credit cards. Instead of just $600 extra to spend they would have at least $1500 a month extra to spend, if not $1700 a month extra if you count the saving from the zero energy house, and $3500 - $3700 extra dollars a month to spend if they move into a profitable duplex. Another government program could recycle the old 4000 square foot house into a 2000 square foot zero energy duplex. This would be an inexpensive way for the government to cause an economic boon to mortgage companies, restaurants, and the travel industry. Some credit card companies of course would close down, but they don't really earn their money anyway. Like drug dealers, they simply get people hooked on credit and then gouge them with ridiculous interest rates and fees when they can least afford them. Those who get laid off from the credit card companies can move into a college dorm and retrain to be medical professionals, accountants, or marketing executives (and really earn their pay), or move in with family, or move back to the family farm or family business, or move into an intentional living community until they can find another job.
While we are at it we might as well say it, the Democratic Party does not have the framework to produce truly viable solutions either. US Automakers can't meet their immediate bills, so they give them a multi-billion dollar government bailout that will probably only delay the inevitable. The auto industry is just not sustainable enough, not in operations or and not their products. Problems:
In the near future, urban dwellers are going to be using less private transportation and more mass transportation as city planners seek to build communities where everything is within walking distance, and better mass transit systems. Computers and cooperatives are going to allow more people to telecommute from home, and less work commuting. Some business people hope that space travel will become an option for the common person. University supported space travel business incubators like the 7th Continent of the Colorado School of Mines, and technology laboratories, like The National Laboratories for Renewable Energy in Golden, are going to need more support from the business community. The auto industry is not addressing these problems.
Commuters who continue to commute have needed cars that get at least 70 miles to the gallon since the 1960's, when Global Warming was first discovered by scientist, and the technology for such cars was first invented. Rural planners hope to install technology along rural highways that can carry cars from town to town, like a giant conveyor belt. The auto industry is almost completely asleep at the wheel in addressing this problem, and when they aren't asleep at the wheel, they have not money to address it. The hybrid cars and SUV's are the only products that are currently being offered to the public that aren't completely asleep at the wheel.
Middle class people, and lower income people with bad credit simply can't afford the auto loan packages that are currently available. While some financial experts have come up with bad credit loans, and auto repair insurance, they have yet to invent anything in the auto industry that is comparable to the reverse mortgage for the elderly that the mortgage industry has invented.
A moderate neo-populist framework could look at all of these problems and propose an auto industry merger with the aerospace industry, and the mass transportation industry, mergers between some of the car companies resulting in some job losses, but not as many as outright bankruptcy, a canceling of every model of motor vehicle that doesn't get more than 30 miles to the gallon in 2010 and no more than 40 miles to the gallon in 2015, and no more than 50 miles to the gallon in 2017 etc..., and individual development accounts or IDA's for bad credit car buyers.
An IDA is a strictly regulated financial instrument developed by the US microbusiness movement by which the rich can voluntarily help the low income by matching their savings dollars. Currently the IDA law doesn't allow IDA accounts to be used to purchase vehicles, unless that vehicle is to be used to run a small business. However, if the law was changed, for every dollar a low income person deposited a rich agency or benefactor could deposit 1 to 4 dollars until the savings was large enough to purchase a vehicle. The average maximum of a IDA in Colorado is currently $5000. Wells Fargo Bank and the United Way administer IDA's in Denver County. So, for example, a single parent could take $1000 of her $1700 earned income credit tax refund and deposit it into an IDA, wait one month for her deposit to be matched by a benefactor; making the deposit grow to $5000. Then she could take that deposit out and purchase a five year old used car in good working condition. This would cause a boon for th auto industry.
How far better it would be to take a neo-populist approach and study cooperatives that have been successful over time, as well as the pitfalls of the populist of Nazi Germany (Nazi Germany had populists who thought that cooperatives had to homogeneous, that is have all of its members be the same race, in order to be successful). How far better to use the knowledge gained from that study to simplify laws so that the knowledge from the study can be implemented. How far better to cancel every government program that we can, and replace it with some type of neo-populist government contract that allows people and communities to operate in an entrepreneurial capacity. Here is one more little example of how neo-populist framework can be applied to create solutions;
...currently under the host home for the handicapped program the government contracts to agencies to place handicapped people with private homeowner instead of an institution. The government awards a very large million dollar contract to the agencies. The agencies pay their staff and in turn pay the homeowners about $1000 a month to care for the handicapped in their homes. This program could be cheaper than letting every handicapped person live in an institution, if administered correctly by the government (institutions cost about $3000 - $6000 a month per person), more healthy than letting them all live in group homes, and more responsible than letting them all become homeless. But what if instead of paying $1000 a month of government money to homeowners that take handicapped people, the government create a program that gave homeowners the patriotic option, of having the opportunity to do their part to save America and forfeit their $1000 a month check in exchange for a government home industry contract that will provide homeowners with everything they need to write books for the new Chinese middle class, and sell them for a profit directly from China. Homeowner with a little writing creativity, business imagination, business acumen could be allowed the freedom to improvise and increase their incomes. Homeowners with no imagination could make the minimum, by say following patterns for making children's pop-up or 3D books, which would be enough for them to remain financially solvent.
The state agencies that oversee these homes could have their staff cut to the bare minimum, say the accountant, a Chinese translator/ consultant who could train the homeowners on what it is best to write about for the Chinese book market, a shipping and receiving manager/consultant, and the case workers who manage the homes that wanted to continue receiving the $1000 a month checks. All of the printing could be done by the nearest federal printing office. The government cut the agencies contract award to only about $300,000. This could possibly cut government costs by 67%. The agency employees who lost their jobs could also enter home industry contracts with the government selling books to the Chinese, or they could try something else, like returning to school, joining a self-sustaining intentional living community, or moving back to family business or family farm, or moving back in with family. This solution would be offered on a voluntary basis. It could cut government costs while still providing for income to the private homes involved, prevent America from needing to ask its lenders for more credit, be used to balance the trade deficit between America and China, cut down on the need for the work day commute, cut down on rush hour traffic, cut down on the strain on our urban infrastructures, and in many cases, cut down on private stress, thus cutting down on medical bills.
There are at least 1000 solution like this that could save America. But we are not even thinking about trying them. No, we are saying 'Celebrate peace,' while the killing continues, and there will probably be even more death and even more destruction, because our solutions much too superficial. Let the wise person hear and understand the times that we are in....
