|This open letter appears in the February 4, 2000 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
Open up Convention to
Secure Democratic Victory,
The following letter by issued by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. to Joseph Andrew,
National Chair, Democratic National Committee.
January 22, 2000
Joseph J. Andrew
Democratic National Committee
430 South Capitol Street
Washington, D.C. 20003
Subject: Your Letter to Harpootlian
My representative has been issued a copy of your letter,
datelined January 11, 2000, addressed to Dick Harpootlian, the latter as State
Chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party.
I have the pleasure to inform you that that letter, unless
provably a forgery, would define you and your accomplices within the Democratic
National Committee as, variously, consummate liars, Jaybird-style racists, and
generally dishonorable persons.
Notably, the included statement, "Mr. LaRouche's expressed
political beliefs, including beliefs which are explicitly racist and
anti-Semitic...," is, in its entirety, a willful lie by you. It is either a
witting lie, or is a statement uttered in reckless disregard for truth readily
available to you. There is nothing of a mitigating quality to your advantage, in
the remainder of your letter considered as a whole.
The following passage from your letter is crucial:
"In their own publications, in the media, and in paid
advertisements, the LaRouche forces have attacked the DNC for supposedly having
argued, in the course of this litigation, that the Voting Rights Act is
unconstitutional. Nothing could be further from the truth" (your
That denial by you is an outright lie.
What I have said and claimed, is set forth in a statement
composed and issued by me, as this appeared on my campaign's website, and also
published as a report in the December 17, 1999 edition of the newsweekly
Executive Intelligence Review. As my statement clearly and rightly
characterized the matter there, the characterization of the actions of DNC
attorney Keeney, and of the argument foisted upon, and adopted by Judge
Sentelle, are matters of the relevant Federal District Court, plainly set forth
on the official record for August 16 and November 23, 1999. Taking also into
account, the record of hearings on enactment of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and
also the issues of Morse which were heavily emphasized by Keeney in the August
16 proceeding, my characterization of Keeney's actions is accurate beyond the
possibility of reasonable objection by members of the DNC.
There is, similarly, the widely circulated and much-endorsed
letter from the Honorable Theo Mitchell, which reflects a reaction typical of
Civil Rights veterans whose familiarity with the Voting Rights Act plainly
surpasses that of the DNC's legal counsel. Thus, the actions of DNC attorney
Keeney are to be considered baldly racist in character.
I emphasize that the Fowler efforts to coerce state party
organizations into violations of the enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights
Act, is the use of the party-as-a-private-club notion identical to those Texas
Jaybird's Jim-Crow tactics, which were outlawed by the Voting Rights
I also note that your letter states, that "... I will
again, in the next few days, issue to all state party chairs a determination
about Mr. LaRouche's failure to qualify...." Such an emission would be an act
worthy of a Texas Jaybird of pre-Voting Rights Act vintage. If the DNC were to
exploit the "private club" ruse as a cover for attempts to coerce state parties
into violation of the enforcement provisions of the act, would that not make the
conduct of the DNC tantamount to a RICO or kindred conspiracy? Or, would such
use of coercion by the DNC, in 1996 and again now, be proof of the absurdity of
the "private club" argument? Does it not bring us back to the real world,
wherein what one does, is what one is?
In the final analysis, if truth had no tongue, it might yet
speak by some wonderful organ. Not only this Party, but also this nation as a
whole, might pay a greater price than it could ever afford, for what amounts to
a thuggish sort of effort to eliminate democracy (i.e., an open primary process
and August convention), all for the purpose, in 1996 and again today, of forcing
the year 2000 nomination of an intrinsically unelectable Presidential candidate
down the throats of a pre-rigged coming convention?
The only chance for defeating the stone-age, Bush-supporting
faction of the Republican Party, in the Congressional and Presidential elections
of November 2000, is to proceed to prepare for a truly open convention of the
Democratic Party in this coming August, rather than attempting to impose a Gore
nomination by rigging the primary process in the way seen during the several
recent months. For reason of a moral fault within his engrained nature, Gore can
not draw support from the potential voting base of those in the lower eighty
percentile of family-income brackets. Without large support from those whom
Gore's Third-Way campaign ideology regards as our republic's forgettable men and
women, the Democratic Party has no chance in the November elections.
Bush-backers' money and growing political base among the portion of the
electorate in the upper twenty percent of income-brackets, would therefore
ensure an easy victory for the Bush league. Texas Governor Bush may be the
dumbest that notable Wall Street cash could buy, but even a blunt instrument
like Bush could be, and is being employed as a suitable weapon of wickedly
The party bureaucracy rallied in support of the DNC's lies
against me, could, admittedly, ram through a Gore nomination, but Gore is not
only unelectable. His candidacy intrinsically alienates that vast sea of
forgotten men and women of today's America, upon whom Gore turned his back so
shamelessly in the matter of the 1996 welfare reform and other savage proposals
to gut the general welfare of all in the lower eighty percentile of
family-income brackets. The hateful taint of a Gore candidacy would thus drag
the Democratic Congressional candidacies down to defeat with him.
In that case, let us all weep for our poor nation. At least,
my conscience will be clean.
Since what you say against me personally is either the fruit
of lies or kindred misrepresentation, the fact that you have produced no
truthful claims against my candidacy, suggests that you have no honest
objections, but, like any gangster's hit-man, are simply doing the lackey's job
your master has assigned to you.
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.