This transcript appears in the November 16, 2018 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
Use Trump’s Victory in Midterm Elections
To Build Momentum for the New Paradigm
This is the edited transcript of the international Schiller Institute’s New Paradigm webcast with the founder and President of the Schiller Institutes, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, for November 8, 2018. She is interviewed by Harley Schlanger. A video of the webcast is available.
Harley Schlanger: Hello. I’m Harley Schlanger with the Schiller Institute. Welcome to this week’s international webcast, featuring our founder and President Helga Zepp-LaRouche. It’s Nov. 8, 2018, two days after the long-awaited midterm elections in the United States. And I think it’s fair to say that what many—including the Democrats and the media—had projected as a “blue tsunami,” a massive Democratic predominance, turned out to be far less than that. In fact, this looks to be a victory for the forces organized by Donald Trump, and not coincidentally, also for what we were doing.
Helga, why don’t we start there: What’s your assessment of the results from the midterm elections in the United States?
Assessment of Midterm Elections
Helga Zepp-LaRouche: I don’t think it’s a victory for the Democrats at all. It is quite usual that in the midterm elections, the sitting President gets sort of one black eye, because people are always discontented about something. That happened, by the way, to Obama as well. Throughout the campaign, Trump’s jetting from one rally to the next resulted in increasing the number seats in the Senate held by Republicans. That is actually quite unusual and I would say fully a success for Trump, personally.
I think it’s very, very important, because this changes the situation inside the United States dramatically, and it has obviously potential for the strategic situation. Just to comment on that: The pro-Trump Republicans generally won; the anti-Trump Republicans in the House generally lost. I think in two cases, Trump was able to achieve victory for a Republican Senate seat in places where Obama also campaigned very heavily for the Democrats, so basically Trump won out against Obama, and this is really creating a very interesting situation.
One of the most important results, obviously, is that with such a firm Republican majority in the Senate, it’s almost impossible that the Democrats will pursue their intention to impeach Trump, because they would have no chance to get it through the Senate. Then, a reflection of that, is also the invited resignation of [Attorney General Jeff] Sessions, and that now, for the next 200 days, [Sessions’ Chief of Staff] Matthew Whitaker is the Acting Attorney General. In that capacity, he is supervising, or on top of the Mueller investigation. One of the reasons Senator Chuck Schumer and other Democrats were completely hysterical, is that Whitaker is on record saying that Mueller overstepped his territory with a fishing operation into the financial records of Trump and his family; that this had absolutely nothing to do with the investigation into the 2016 election.
So I think that is very interesting. However, obviously, the investigation into the British coup must continue. It would be extremely important—and there should be a public discussion about this—that Trump should go ahead and declassify all the documents having to do with Christopher Steele, with the collusion of the Obama Administration with the British intelligence services. All must come out. Because that is something which absolutely has to be gotten out of the way, to free Trump to do what he has to do with respect to Russia and to China.
In his post-election press conference on Nov. 7, Trump signalled that he is hoping for a bipartisan collaboration with Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats to work on legislation, thus putting the Democratic Party into a situation where either they start to take care of the “forgotten men and women” in the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt, or, if they continue with their identity politics, going for the impeachment—which as I just said, is now almost impossible—that could very well lead to a split in the Democratic Party.
What is needed, and very, very urgently, is that the necessary economic program be installed, which has been lacking to a very large extent from the debates during the campaign, except for what Kesha Rogers, Ron Wieczorek and a few others did. Beginning now we need a full-fledged mobilization on Glass-Steagall, the Four Laws of LaRouche, and a New Bretton Woods system. The LaRouche PAC organization, the national campaign of Kesha Rogers and the Campaign To Win the Future, did impact to a very large extent, large segments of the U.S. population, especially those voting for Trump. So there is a very, very good precondition to escalate that now, and really bring in the necessary economic solutions, especially Glass-Steagall and infrastructure, but actually the whole Four Laws of LaRouche and a New Bretton Woods new credit system to address the urgent issues internationally.
But the outcome of the elections is not a bad result at all. I think this gives us a tremendous opportunity to move on and actually go towards the solution the United States and the world urgently need.
Schlanger: Just to underscore what you’re saying, the mainstream media had been talking about a “blue wave” creating the basis for an impeachment. And instead, we saw a lot of strength in Trump’s initiatives, his campaigning—9 of the 11 Senators he campaigned for won, including 4 who defeated Democratic incumbents; and only 1 Republican incumbent who had not been a very strong supporter of Trump, lost, and that’s Senator Dean Heller from Nevada. Second, you mentioned Clinton and Obama: It looks like the Republicans are going to lose something like 30 seats in the House. In 1994, Bill Clinton lost 54 House seats and 8 Senate seats, and in 2010, Obama lost 63 House seats and 6 Senate seats.
So this goes against the historic trend, and I think that is the result of Trump emphasizing a couple of key points, and one of them that we’ve discussed, is the post-election diplomatic offensive. At all of the rallies he kept talking about becoming friends with Russia and China.
Helga, I’d like your assessment: We have a couple of meetings, and then summits, coming up. They offer an opportunity for a discussion to go beyond merely ending the dangers of war, to actually introducing the economic policies, the New Bretton Woods.
Opportunities in Upcoming Summits
Zepp-LaRouche: Absolutely. The first such occasion will be in Paris three days from now, on the occasion of the centenary of the Armistice ending the First World War, which will be celebrated in a series of huge meetings and conferences in Paris. Originally, there was a plan to have the first summit between Trump and Putin [since Helsinki], but because French President Emmanuel Macron wants to have the centenary events as such not overshadowed by such a huge summit between Trump and Putin, they will only have a working lunch. According to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, important questions will be raised there.
But I think the real opportunity to completely change the agenda and really solve the war danger, solve the danger of a financial crash and go for a completely new kind of paradigm, will be on the sidelines of the G-20 summit, Nov. 30 to Dec. 1 in Buenos Aires, where there is scheduled summits between Trump and Xi Jinping, and Trump and Putin.
This is very important, because despite the fact that you have a complete escalation against China by the think tanks, accompanied by all kinds of completely wrong accusations, there is hope that the discussions between the United States and China are moving back into an orientation to solve the trade war through better means.
Over the next three weeks, during preparations for these important summits, we should have from the Schiller Institute and all organizations we are working with internationally, a full mobilization to make sure that that important opportunity is used to address all the important issues: Like the danger of a financial crash, the various urgent development perspectives for Central and South America, for Africa, for the reconstruction of Southwest Asia. It is my view that now that Trump has his back free, so to speak, he can really go in the direction of a new diplomacy with Russia and China, which he emphasized many times during his rallies.
If these three leaders—Trump, Putin, and Xi—would address the world problem, and not just talk about bilateral tensions between the United States and Russia and the United States and China, but really move to a new paradigm and go for a development perspective so that all parts of the world can actually have a good future—what Xi Jinping always calls “the shared destiny for the future of humanity”—this would really change everything. Then we would be looking at mankind not from the present status quo of geopolitical tensions, but thinking in terms of humanity from the standpoint of where do we want to go and where must mankind be 100 years from now.
This could be a period in which, if things go the right way, we will have a breakthrough in thermonuclear fusion, being able to use it commercially, and therefore having energy and raw materials security. Through the fusion torch method, all “waste” can be separated into isotopes, creating new raw materials. By that time, we will already have the first step in the direction of villages on the Moon, international cooperation in space, and humanity just growing up and becoming an adult species, based on mankind’s nature as a creative species.
Now, should that spirit of a joint future inspire these three presidents, they will have backing from the whole world, because all the nations of the world need these three leaders to cooperate and provide a vision. A vision to outflank the opposition in each country—the neo-con faction in the United States; the anti-American faction in Russia, which I think does exist; even hardliners in China—and move the whole world into a completely new paradigm.
I call upon all of you, our listeners and viewers, to help us in this mobilization. Because this is a period in which we need cooperation among the large powers, especially the Four Powers of the United States, Russia, China and India, with other countries joining them, to implement a New Bretton Woods system and to move away from the monetarist system to a credit system, and thereby usher in international cooperation based on a win-win cooperation of everybody.
This is not a utopian goal at all, but the absolutely necessary next step of humanity if we are to avoid a catastrophe. The potential for such a catastrophe was diminished because of this election result, but the danger is by far not over, and therefore, I really appeal to you: Join the Schiller Institute, become a member, help us in this mobilization to move humanity into a new paradigm. That should really be our main focus for the next three weeks going into these summits.
The China International Import Expo
Schlanger: I think we see the potential of that mobilization in this extraordinary China International Import Expo conference underway in Shanghai, where the Chinese government is hosting large numbers of people from all over the world—businesses, business leaders, corporate leaders, and heads of state. The reports we’re getting show that this is, as you said, a milestone. What is the outcome you expect from this conference?
Zepp-LaRouche: First of all, President Xi Jinping gave a really excellent opening speech. While he’s a Chinese leader, and he speaks with Chinese characteristics, if you look at the substance, it should remind you of my husband’s approach, that the only source of wealth is the creativity of the human being leading to scientific and technological progress, which then is applied in the production process, leading to an increase in productivity, better living standards, and greater longevity. Xi Jinping emphasized the continuous need for innovation to address all the problems of humanity, as the biggest driver, that innovation is absolutely the most important for the well-being of humanity as a continuous process.
I urge those of you who normally don’t read these things in the Western media, go to the China International Import Expo website and actually look at the speech yourself and read it, because you will see that this is absolutely coherent in spirit with the New Silk Road Spirit, and people in the West just don’t know it.
Now, this November 5-10 conference was remarkable. There were 400,000 buyers; 3,600 firms exhibiting there. There were 128 countries represented, 18 heads of state, most of whom had state visits in the adjoining days. China’s announcement that they want to import $40 trillion worth of goods and services in the next fifteen years is really also remarkable. There were some articles commenting on this affair, saying that China responded to an atmosphere of sanctions and trade war, exactly in a different direction, namely, opening up more, opening up the Chinese markets more for imports.
And I think this is really very good, because if you want to overcome the trade deficit between the United States and China, from the standpoint of economics—clearly the two most important countries on the planet—one way is to go into a trade war, which I think everyone should realize will really hurt the American consumer and the American firms, and it’s not a viable way to solve the problem of the deficit.
On the other hand, if China continues to open its internal markets, then because China already has a middle class of 300 million well-to-do families, with the expectation that that will double in the next 10 years (twice the number of middle-class consumers in the U.S., and three times that of the EU), you can see that such an opening is a great opportunity for the U.S. to increase its exports to China, as China increases its imports from the U.S.
There also arises the basis for joint ventures in third countries, which would require the cooperation between the United States, European nations, and other Asian nations to develop and invest in Latin America, in other Asian countries and in Africa, and that way, bring the benefits to every corner of the world.
This Expo really shows that China is absolutely serious about creating a win-win platform for cooperation among all countries.
So I think this was a remarkable thing, and it’s a very good sign of what could happen in the summit between Xi Jinping and Trump on the sidelines of the G-20, because the opportunity to solve a trade deficit by making a new deal incorporating all of what I just said, is really very, very clearly there. And the fact that Yang Jiechi [director of the Office of Foreign Affairs of the Communist Party of China and a Politburo member] was just in the United States, and that the trade discussions have resumed, I think this is a hopeful sign.
I’m modestly optimistic that now, with the new strength Trump gained in these midterm elections, that the road ahead can lead to quite good results. I’m carefully optimistic, but since we are not watching this passively, standing on the sidelines, I urge all of you to help us to get our agenda on the table.
Armistice Day Reflections
Schlanger: Helga, you keep emphasizing, as Xi Jinping does, the importance of mutual benefit. You can look at this other event that’s occurring in a couple of days, and see what happens when there’s no strategy for mutual benefit, only a geopolitical strategy of competition, struggle for markets, control over markets and so on, which was the march toward World War I as a result of British geopolitics. I know you’ve thought a lot about the importance of using this event in Paris, to prevent us from sleepwalking into war once again. I’d like you to give us your thoughts on that.
Zepp-LaRouche: Yes. It’s really a very important moment to reflect on, the launching of World War I, and because the Versailles Treaty was not a platform from which peace could develop, Europe immediately marched into World War II. We must move away from the present, dangerous leftovers of this whole situation.
The 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in Sarajevo was just a trigger. All the preparations, pitting one country against another, and all of them pitted against Germany, was the ready chessboard. And his assassination was just one of a number of possible incidents, any of which could have triggered the same kind of war. I think we should learn the lesson from that, because we have not yet moved away from today’s war-danger chessboard. I am talking about the potential of Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping defining a new paradigm.
But if you look at the actual situation—first of all, this big NATO maneuver, Trident Juncture, which ended only yesterday. But it was a clear provocation, and General Joseph Dunford, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, basically said, “Oh, no, we are not in a new Cold War, it’s just that the United States and Russia are competitors.”
But there is a clear difference. I don’t know what all the Western military are thinking, but I can assure you, and I think I mentioned it last week, that people in Russia and China, and also in some reasonable places in Europe, are looking at this quite differently. NATO has expanded to the Russian border, the U.S. antiballistic missile system has been installed already in Romania and is being built in Poland, something which Russia has responded to, by developing new weapons based on new physical principles. I mean, this whole situation is very far from being stable. And there were some incidents, involving Russians and Americans in the context of these maneuvers. Some retired military said these kinds of exercises are completely useless; they are provocative and they don’t contribute to stability.
I think we should use the anniversary of the end of World War I to seriously reflect on how such an atrocity could happen, so that we really understand that in a time of thermonuclear weapons, we must absolutely move to different relations among nations and not view the other as a geopolitical opponent and the excuse for obscenely enormous military budgets, which really are a complete waste!
We have said many times that you can easily retool all of these military industries to produce useful things. If the United States would move to retool its military industries to build fast train systems, new infrastructure, go into a crash program for thermonuclear fusion, and cooperate with other nations in space research and travel, we could actually use all of these things and everyone could even remain wealthy; nobody is proposing to take the profit away from people who are now stuck in military production. But we could really move all of these productive capacities into a useful situation: The United States urgently needs infrastructure. The United States urgently needs a fast train system connecting all its major cities, and naturally also the subways and the roads, electricity production and distribution, communications—there’s so much to do.
I know that this is going completely against current thinking, but if the United States would really start to think along these lines, it could have a completely different economic policy coming from a New Bretton Woods, cooperating in these large projects. It may sound like a completely far-off idea, but why should we use all our resources eternally for military production which from the standpoint of physical economy is really a waste? Maybe some military research and development does indirectly lead to new technologies, but these new technologies could be had directly, making them much more beneficial for the advancement of civilization.
I know that this sounds very much against the Zeitgeist [the thinking of the times], but I think the United States would be much better off if it would develop its domestic economy, or, as Trump himself has said many times, “Make America Great Again,” by building up modern, new civilian technologies. That urgently needs discussion. LaRouche’s Four Laws provides the context.
The Reaction in Europe
Schlanger: Helga, I’d like to know what you think the implications are for Europe of Trump’s victory in the midterm elections. We’re seeing almost every day a new political shock in Germany with the Brussels bureaucrats. There is the economic crisis, as revealed in the latest round of bank stress tests. Germany seems to be adrift at a point when the rest of the world is moving very deliberately toward this new paradigm. What are the implications of Trump’s success? Is this going to have an impact in Europe?
Zepp-LaRouche: Even the German First TV channel, which, according to some surveys in recent years, reports negatively about Trump 98% of the time, had a pretty objective commentary saying the “blue wave” did not take place or was very tiny, so Trump is now much strengthened. Blogs and news programs are saying that Trump will go to the Paris summit much, much stronger than German Chancellor Merkel and French President Macron, which is true.
There is, however, a complete absence of any kind of new paradigm in the thinking of the German and French governments. Macron came out for the idea of building a European army, separate from NATO, which I think is really a lousy idea. Fortunately, the popularity of Macron is in free fall, so I don’t think that idea will go very far. The idea of a European army at this point, really reflects the same old geopolitical thinking of the EU, which it had already when it supported the plundering of Russia in the 1990s during Yeltsin’s Presidency. This is also the present view of the EU, in blocking the expansion of the Eurasian rail link from Russia to Slovakia to Vienna. The Russians and the Austrians were agreed that the link would conform to Russia’s broad gauge rail specification; however, the EU is insisting that the extension be constructed at standard gauge. So it really is a wrong, geopolitical view.
Yasuo Fukuda, the former Prime Minister of Japan, is presently in China preparing the state visit of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. He made a very, very interesting speech, in which he said that some years ago the Japanese economy was number two [inaudible] we need in Europe. And if the United States and Russia and China can hopefully move together, then hopefully we [Japan and China] can [also] move together, then hopefully we can get the European countries to also change their views.
Now, that obviously will not involve Merkel, as she’s on her way out. So far, none of her proposed replacements has said anything in the direction of what I’m just saying. That is why the Schiller Institute is so absolutely necessary: So, again, join the Schiller Institute and help us, give us your support in any way you can. Because what we are proposing is actually a vision of where mankind should be, and that is urgently, urgently required.
I think the hysteria over Trump is probably phasing out, because people realize he may be here to stay, and not only for the second part of his first term. A lot of Bush Republicans are now out of the Republican Party, and so if Trump can do domestically what is necessary for the economy, he has also a very good chance to have a second term.
So, it’s really the time to change. I think we have an incredible historic opportunity, but we need you, and we need a big activation of everybody who has good intentions for civilization. So join us!
Schlanger: And as Helga emphasized, join us now, because the next three weeks will be crucial in not letting this moment slip away, but building on what happened in the elections on Tuesday.
So, with that Helga, we’ll see you next week. Thank you very much.
Zepp-LaRouche: Yes, I hope so.