LATEST FROM LAROUCHE
LaRouche Spells Out How the DLC Is a 'Trojan Horse'
At Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche's July 2 campaign webcast from Washington, he faced questions from leading Democratic Party leaders, including former Senator Eugene McCarthy, a Democratic Party State Senator, and a well-known American political consultant, about the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), which LaRouche has called "Vice President Cheney's protection racket in the Democratic Party." The questions, and LaRouche's answers to them, appear below, in the order they were received. The full question-and-answer session appears on the candidate's website, www.larouchein2004.com
Q: The next question comes from someone who is a well-known political consultant in the United States, and who resides here in Washington. He says, "You've called the Democratic Leadership Council a 'Trojan Horse' designed to guarantee the re-election of George W. Bush. I have to tell you I disagree with you." He says, "It's in the immediate interest of the DLC, and very particularly in their financial interest, to elect someone who is nominally a Democrat, whose policy they would control. It's my view that, in fact, it would be far more difficult to organize any kind of opposition to a Democratic President who is controlled by the DLC. I'd like your thoughts on this."
LaRouche: Well, first of all, I disagree. Let's talk about, where did the DLC come from? Well, down there someplace. But what's its content?
Go back to 1966, Biloxi, Mississippi. That's where it began, when Richard Nixon, running for President, met with the leadership of the Ku Klux Klan, and with Trent Lott. And that's where it started. This was the so-called Southern Strategy, and you had all these racist Democrats who were joining the Republican Party at various stages, along with the so-called Boll Weevils, who came out of the cotton.
All right. Now, in response to that, you had a shift, which occurred around a fellow called Scoop Jackson and Moynihan, these two creeps. Remember, Scoop Jackson was a warhawk, he was out for war. Against people generally. It's called a social democrat. But then you had Moynihan, who was a property of Averell Harriman. And Moynihan went into the Nixon Administration out of Harvard. He was the guy that really invented the Bell Curve. Some of you know what the Bell Curve is? He worked on social policy. He was the guy involved in the area of setting up the replacement of Hill-Burton as a health program, by the HMOs, which took away D.C. General Hospital, among other things.
All right, so what happened is, you had a right-wing evolution, centered around people who had been formerly Trotskyists, especially the Social Democrats of America, that type, some of them had been Zionists, or whatnot, and they became more and more right-wing all along. And this was the emergence of a process which led into a 1975 meeting in Kyoto, of the Trilateral Commission, under the auspices of the Trilateral Commission leader Zbigniew Brzezinski. This featured a Samuel Huntington paper on "Crisis in Democracy." Brzezinski used this in his Administration, of Carter, to put through what became known as the Project Democracy, which was a fascist right-wing program. Averell Harriman's wife, Pam Harriman, put through a step in this thing. So, you had, under Reagan, the establishment of Project Democracy.
Now, both political parties from the top are controlled as party machines by Project Democracy, through the Congress. So, at that point, the right-wing, which had been coming into a takeover of the Democratic Party through Brzezinski and Companythe Trilateral Commission operation of 1975-77now took control. And both parties were controlled from the top, in terms of the party machine; that is, the party machine as opposed to the elected officials of the local states, were controlled from the top by these guys. And that's the Trojan Horse.
You see today. Look, take the policies of Donna Brazile. Look what happened. How did George Bush get non-elected? Donna Brazile was the managershe's part of this right-wing crowdshe was the manager of the campaign for Gore and for Lieberman. What happened?
Now, if they had gone into Arkansas and had campaigned in Arkansas, they would have come out of there with the Electoral College vote, and the election would have been over. But instead, she and her crowd went down to Florida, and began stroking Joe Lieberman's right-wing Cubans, and the election got jammed up. Now, I don't think that Al Gore was any good. And Lieberman was worse. But the point is, that's the way the politics worked.
There is no honest politics in the Democratic Party from the top-down, now. Don't kid yourself. It doesn't exist. The only way you'll get honest leadership in the Democratic Party leadership, is to put it there! There are no smart deals that you can make with the present Democratic leadership around the DLC. They belong to the right-wing. They are of the same inhuman species as the neo-cons. They are neo-cons. They think like neo-cons. They're thugs, they're not even human most of the time, and the thing you have to do is, replace them.
And the way to replace them, is, you raise one issue: Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The problem with some Democrats is they think there's a smart way to play the game. And this is the Hamlet problem I talked about.
Hamlet says, this is what makes cowards of us all. Because they're not willing to risk their neck, they're too much like draft-dodgers. They're not willing to risk their neck by deciding one way or the other what they stand for. They're trying to maneuver and handle the situation, and therefore, they say, "What's the smart way, the no-risk way, to deal with the problem?" And often in history, as in war, the real solutions are only risky ones. There are no no-risk solutions.
And I think the objection to my criticism of the Democratic leadership, from many people in the Democratic Party, is, they're looking for a no-risk solution, and they say of me, "Well, you take risks!" Sure, I took risks. I've taken many risks. My own government tried to kill me three times, at least the ones I know, officially. Yes, I've taken risks. The Soviet government wanted to kill me, Gorbachev wanted to kill me. His wife wanted to kill me. Officially. You should have seen what happened in 1986. Sure, I've taken risks. I'm still alive, but I took the risk.
The problem with the Baby Boomer generation, among leaders, is that they tend not to be risk-takers. They tend to be war resisters. They don't go to military service. "That's for dummies. There must be a better way to handle this situation." Now war is sometimes the wrong thing to do, often is. But if you're not willing to take the risk, you're not qualified to be a leader, and that's what our problem is. We have leaders who are often good people, people I regard as useful, intelligent, and so forth, but when it comes taking a risk for a principle, they fail. They say, we might lose. Yes, you might lose. But if you don't take the risk, you won't win. And that's the problem.
Q: We have a couple of questions from among the elected officials who are here, along these same lines. Senator Wilkins asks, "What can those of us in small-population states, do to reverse this trend of the Trojan Horse takeover of the Democratic Party? If we launch an effective response in our state, won't the national party people who seek to keep you on the sidelines, simply write us off and write our state off as a loss?"
LaRouche: Of course they'll try. That's the way they behave. They're thugs, they're Nazis. What do you expect from them? Once you understand that they're gangsters, no problem.
How do you defeat a gangster? Gang up on him. That's what we have to do. That's what I'm doing.
Yes, I stick my neck out. I have to. Somebody has to. If somebody doesn't stick their neck out and take the leadership, how are you going to get people together? You've got people who represent constituencies, who represent a smaller state, or a group in a smaller state, and you want them to take national leadership? No. Maybe one of them wants to. That's fine. But, in general, someone has to take this cause which involves a number of states, or most of the states, and take this cause and bring people together and spearhead the thing.
Someone has to take the lead. It's as in war. Someone has to take the lead. I'm taking the lead. It's the only way I know how to do it. It's the only way it's ever been done in history.
Politics is risk. Life is a risk. We're all mortal. What the problem of the Hamlet is, as I've emphasized repeatedly, is, people worry about the risk to their life.
You know, true religiosity has somehow gone out of the population, because they cannot cope with the idea that they're mortal. They have no sense of immortality. The person who has a sense of immortality, is worried not about how long their life is, but they're worried most of all about how they spend that life while they have it, and what comes out of it. People used to think about what they leave behind for their children and grandchildren, their community, and others. The Baby Boomer doesn't. Today's Baby Boomer doesn't do that. He thinks about his next change of lifestyle. The fact, if they have children, they say, "What did we do that for? It was a bad lifestyle. I want a different lifestyle."
So, we have, in the Baby Boomer Generation, people who are now in their 50s and 60s, people who are now running the United States in most institutions, are people who don't have intrinsic courage, because in older generations, our dedication was to what came out of our living for our grandchildren's generation. We thought about our grandparents' generation, and we thought about our grandchildren's generation. We said, "What does our life mean?" We said, "Can we be proud of being what we are? Are we pleased and happy to be what we are? Are we doing what we think we should do with our life, this mortal life we have?"
Most people today, in this culture, don't have that sense of commitment to previous and coming generations. That's the problem with youth. That's why I'm organizing a youth movement, because they know that their parents' generation really doesn't want them. And therefore, they know they are the no-future generation. Therefore, they're willing to fight for a future, for themselves and for coming generations. And maybe inspire their parents' generation to get back in the act, of mobilizing
The American people need a shake-up, also in Western Europe. They need a shake-up. They need to face the fact that there has been an economic crisis, there has been this kind of crisis, but there's been a moral crisis. Not a crisis of morals the way that some crazy fundamentalist would say, but a moral crisis in the sense of, what is the difference between man and a beast, between man and an animal? "Why am I different than an animal? What do I do, therefore, as a person who knows he's mortal? How do I spend that mortal life I have?" And that sense of mortality, that sense of immortality, is lacking, as a result of the pleasure-seeking generation, which came out of the post-1964 rock-drug-sex counterculture, and similar kinds of things. And that's our problem.
So in this circumstance, those of us who have the courage to fight, have the responsibility, because only we have the willingness to lead. The others might wish to consider themselves leaders, but they don't have the guts to do the job.
Freeman: When I spoke earlier of the LaRouche Youth Movement, I referenced the Presidential campaign of former Senator Eugene McCarthy. Senator McCarthy has sent a question in to the gathering, which I'd like Lyn to answer. He says, "First of all, Lyn, I'm really sorry I couldn't be with you, and with the Youth Movement today. I applaud your intention to expose and obliterate the DLC. I agree from experience, that the so-called neo-conservatives, these actually reactionary characters, were hiding out in the moist recesses of Scoop Jackson's office, hiding there like mushrooms, or a fungi. They were Dixiecrats, they were Republicans, and in fact, Scoop Jackson wanted nuclear war so much, I used to tell him he glowed. But, I really wonder, how can we save this Democratic Party? And I have to ask you, can this party be saved?"
LaRouche: I think it can be saved in only one way: Because people are frightened enough of what's happening to us, that they will recall the similarity which I've emphasized today, as I have on other occasions: the similarity, despite the differences, the similarity between the crisis that threatens us today, and that which Franklin Roosevelt faced in the beginning of the 1930s.
When people are frightened enough to recognize the problem, they will look for a comparable part of past experience to look for a solution. The people in general will not care what the Democratic Party was before Franklin Roosevelt ran for President; they just won't care, and I don't blame them, because the Democrat Party before Roosevelt was the party of racism, and I don't want to think about that. It was a party of racism and some other things, all the way through from Andy Jackson on in.
But, what they'll think about is Franklin Roosevelt, because there was a time when the United States was a hero. The United States led the world out of the Great Depression, took the world through a war, took a broken nation, the United States, and made it the most powerful, productive force on this planet, and left to the rest of the world, or much of it, the post-war system which Franklin Roosevelt created, the Bretton Woods, which resulted in a great increase in wealth in other parts of the world; recovery in Europe; the growth of wealth in Central and South America, at least many parts of it; an improvement in many parts of the world as the result of what the United States represented during the period of that war.
That was a great period, and therefore, when I say Democratic Party, I mean Franklin Roosevelt, and his legacy. Not everything he did, not what he failed to do, but the fact that in our history as a nation, there came a time when the nation was in great danger, and the world was in great danger, and there came a man who ran for President, and won. He led the country out of a terrible depression, saved the world from Nazism, from Nazi conquest, and left a legacy which in the main part was of benefit to mankind, until people began to make a mess of it about 1964 with the launching of the Indo-China war.
Therefore, today, I tell people, you're in a similar situation. The Nazis are loose again; Cheney's only one of them, or maybe it's his wife, maybe he's just a dummy. But we face the same kind of problem, maybe worse. Therefore, what are you going to go by? Do you want an example from experience, a proven example that will work under today's conditions? Here it is. And Franklin Roosevelt is an example of what it's possible to do, that was proven in the past, that we can do now, to begin to get ourselves away from this hell, and get ourselves moving up again. And get better relations around the world.
Remember, and some of you aren't old enough to remember that, but you should remember the love that the United States attracted from around the world, especially from people in the so-called former colonial nations, who looked to the United States and Roosevelt, as an example of their hope for enjoying also economic progress, for enjoying freedom. And that was a great period; not perfect, there are many things I can criticize about it, but today, for starters, if you want to find an identity of the United States, that you would prefer to associate with, rather than what's happened in the past 40 years, you say, okay, let's call that the Democratic Party, or why not just call it the Franklin Roosevelt Party?
LaRouche Speaks to 'Hour of Truth' Forum in Argentina
The greeting below was read in translation to the July 4 Argentina-Brazil-Mexico Integration: Hour of Truth forum in Buenos Aires, Argentina, which began on July 3. Lyndon LaRouche addressed some opening remarks to the forum and to Col. Mohammed Ali Seineldin, under the title "The Colonel Is Free." Those remarks appear below, and a report of the event, including speeches, will appear in an upcoming edition of EIW. LaRouche wrote:
On July 4, 1776, the U.S. Declaration of Independence changed the history of the world. On July 4, 1863, as the Confederate troops retreated from their defeat at Gettysburg, the efforts to crush out the existence of the independent republics of the Americas were doomed, until that bad turn of events, beginning with the 1982 Malvinas War and the autumn crushing of Mexico, against which our Colonel, Mexico's President Lopez Portillo, and I fought those enemies of humanity typified by the voices of neo-conservative editor Robert Bartley's Wall Street Journal.
Now, the old battle resumes in a new form. The Colonel is free, the 1982 UNO address of President Lopez Portillo resonates throughout the hemisphere, and I am leading the fight against these same enemies, politically stronger than ever before.
This time we shall win, because we must win, not only for the republics of the Americas, but the world as a whole.
Greetings to my old comrade in battle.
|