1 The Second-Order Political Thinking of Populism versus Compromise Christian F. Rostbøll The literature often mentions that populism is in conflict with the politics of compromise. However, the opposition remains vague and undertheorized. This article confronts populism and compromise in a novel way by analyzing them as types of second-order political thinking and ideologies of democracy. Second-order political thinking provides a set of ideas and concepts that frames and regulates how we relate to others and ourselves in politics, and how we make political decisions for, with, or against them. By contrasting populism and compromise as types of second-order political thinking, we will be able better to understand each and normatively compare them. Thus, we see that (1) compromise is inherently most attractive as second-order political thinking, and (2) populism fails as an ideology of democracy, because it cannot explain the meaning and value of the democratic system as a set of authoritative institutions and procedures. Keywords: compromise, democracy, ideology, populism, respect, second- order political thinking Core elements of populism such as popular sovereignty, decisionism, the general will, antagonism, and the homogenous people, all stand in contrast to compromise. Thus, Margaret Canovan (2002, 34) writes, “The emphasis on sovereignty [in populism] reinforces the implication that democracy is a politics of will and decision rather than accommodation and compromise; furthermore it is a matter of public decision open to the people, not an opaque practice whereby leaders of factions work out compromises behind closed doors.” Cas Mudde (2017, 34-5) regards “the pure people,” as the core idea of the “thin ideology” of populism and suggests that it therefore “discards societal divisions, denounces social groups as ‘special interests,’ and rejects compromise as defeat.” “After all, compromise can only lead to the corruption of the pure” (Mudde 2017, 34). Similarly, Nadia Urbinati (2014, 151) writes, populism is “the exaltation of the purity of the people as a condition for politics of sincerity against the quotidian practice of compromise and bargaining that politicians pursue.” Despite the prominence of the contraposition of populism and compromise in the literature, the contrast between the two poles remains vague and theoretically underdeveloped. This article argues that viewing Populism and Compromise as rival forms of second-order political thinking and democratic ideologies can contribute to