THE POPULIST SMOKESCREEN

I have known Bud Niekamp for years and I have my own opinion of him. Others have theirs. None of that is the point here. The phenomenon that is going on now is that a large number of people is rising to his defense because he's a "common man."

Populists have always used this sort of shared bond argument to their advantage, From Lester Maddox to Joe McCarthy or, for that matter, Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. The presumption is that the criticism and reservations about the prospective leader are solely based upon his being a "common man". Other people of modest means or education rush to his defense because of the shared bond of "common status." The presumption is faulty and is frequently a smokescreen for mischief or incompetence.

Just look at your normal experience. Are all Democrats good folks? Are all Repubs pure of heart. Are all Italian-Americans mobbed up. Are all Irishmen drunks? Are all Southerners racists? No to all. By now, you know that categories just don't work. If that's so, why should all "common men" be pure of heart, effective or have good ideas.

So when you attack those who oppose Bud, listen to yourself. If you're saying he's being attacked just because he's an ordinary man, you're engaging in a presumption that he's good for our local government solely because hes a common man and you're assuming that educated professional people are classists (look in your own heart--maybe you are.).

Love Bud or hate him. Make arguments which make sense. If he some philosophy you like, identify it. If he has some leadership skill (which, by the way, has not yet manifested itself) that you appreciate, argue that. If you want to make the mass electorate argument, fine, make that one. But please, don't make the argument that Bud is entitled to a presumption of competence just and solely because he's a common working man.