Reflection on L. LaRouche

The Labor Day Conference 2001 Keynote Speech

Schiller Institute

First; I will acknowledge that I am a federal employee, working in the information technology sector.  I had nothing to do with any of the investigations that led to Mr. LaRouche’s prior conviction and incarceration, and I certainly do not know if he is the subject of any current investigations.  I thought Mr. LaRouche had vanished from the scene.  Little did I know that he is still a perennial candidate for the U.S. Presidency, including the upcoming 2004 race.  My interest in this matter arose when I saw the video of Robert Beltran at the subject conference, which triggered questions about Mr. Beltran’s political views vis-à-vis Mr. LaRouche’s.  I don’t think there should be any cause for concern about any conflict of interest on my part.

Second; in reviewing various Internet links and the related literature about Mr. LaRouche I was struck by how often he is vilified as an extremist, while the fundamental value of some of his ideas is also acknowledged.  In sum, he is his own worst enemy.  His conclusions about the political environment we live in strike me as incredibly flawed since they arise from distortions of reality and history.  Were he to focus on his proposals for change, and drop his assertions about an overarching global conspiracy, I suspect he would be far more successful in influencing the average American citizen.  Instead he is consigned to the fringe of American politics, and only succeeds in acquiring the support of the disaffected looking for a focal point.  Harley Schlanger speaks to this in his own speech at the Labor Day conference when he comments on how Mr. LaRouche influenced some members of his own generation.  Mr. LaRouche is reportedly 78 years old as of this writing so he will eventually leave the political scene, unless there is Divine intervention.  I don’t know of any heir apparent, but if the same tired old theories continue to be spouted, I suspect his followers will remain forever on the fringe.

Third; Mr. LaRouche is a convicted felon, and so far as I know has never been pardoned however, he was released after serving 5 years of a 15-year sentence.  He has portrayed himself as a political prisoner, although his conviction was for securities fraud in conjunction with the fund raising activities of his organization.  As recently as June 9, 1993, Mr. LaRouche’s perceived motivations for fund raising were condemned during Congressional proceedings on campaign finance reform:

We have seen how David Duke, Lenora Fulani, Lyndon LaRouche, and similar candidates who hold radical views that most Americans find offensive have been able to exploit the presidential campaign finance system to line their own pockets with taxpayer dollars. We do not want to allow this bill to become a similar pot of gold for fringe candidates who have no other occupation than running for the Senate. Accordingly, the Bennett amendment would limit the number of general elections in which a candidate may get funds under this bill to run for the Senate to two. Unless our colleagues believe we should enable David Duke-like candidates to live off the taxpayers' money while continually running for the Senate, they will join us in passing this meritorious amendment.[i]

Fourth; at the onset of the discussion earlier this month (April 2002) I asserted a belief that Robert Beltran would not have been a participant at the conference if he wasn’t a member of the Institute.  Subsequent discussions, reading, and the review of this speech, lead me to believe that is unlikely that Mr. Beltran would subscribe to Mr. LaRouche’s point of view.*  Mr. Beltran’s comments on September 11, 2001 made it clear that we, the people, need to refrain from jumping to conclusions regarding the attack and our response.  It is advice I believe would also apply to anyone, including Mr. Beltran, who might consider aligning his or her political views and support with Mr. LaRouche’s.

So, in reviewing Mr. LaRouche’s keynote speech I read it through to the end.  This was a tedious effort, until I got to the following:

Well, Romans were not really a race or nation; not originally. The Romans were simply a group of Pat Robertson-type followers, through a cult called the Cult of Delphi, the Cult of Pythean Apollo, recruited among group of Latin-speaking group of people, in the middle of Italy. These guys, who were recruited to this cult, and were backed by this cult—sort of a Jim Jones operation—formed the city of Rome. The city of Rome was based on a military system, under which people from neighboring areas, were slaughtered by military methods. And then, the women were taken, for breeding purposes with the Romans, who had conquered them; and the children were made into that, too—kept as breeding stock. So, the population of Rome increased by this method, of rape, murder, and breeding—rape, essentially.[ii]

Mr. LaRouche’s references to Roman culture flies so far from the mark as to be laughable if he wasn’t so serious.  I have yet to read a political or cultural history of Rome that would come near to supporting this claim.  Not satisfied with this historical distortion, he precedes it with an attack on democracy itself;

Now, why are we in a self-doomed system? Why are we so stupid, we American people, that we put up with this nonsense? Well, there's a principle that comes from Rome: It's called vox populi, or popular opinion. Some people call it democracy. The worst form of corruption in the United States, today, is not fascism; it's democracy. Because democracy, in most people's mind, means, popular opinion! You vote for popular opinion. Popular opinion must control the legislature. Popular opinion must determine our laws. Popular opinion must determine how you behave. That's how we kill. How'd we kill by that popular opinion?[iii]

Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary defines vox populi as the voice of the people[iv], popular opinion.  The fundamental principle of democracy is the notion that the will of the people is made manifest through either direct vote or the delegation of that power to elected representatives.  The voice of the people is heard either directly or via their representatives.  Yet Mr. LaRouche defines this as corruption in the United States.  It doesn’t end there;

So, we've become a self-policed prison-house, in the same way that the Roman rulers used i populari and popular opinion, to turn the Roman population into a self-destructive force, which resulted in one of the greatest dark ages, in known civilization. Not as a result of the rulers; not as a result of Nero; or Caligula; or even Diocletian. The destruction occurred, because of the Roman people themselves. And, the destruction which occurs in European civilization since, whether in Europe, or the United States, or Central and South America, is Romanticism. Romanticism means, specifically, this kind opinion: the tradition of culture, the condition of artistic taste, the tradition of ideas, the tradition of social relations, adapted from the Roman Empire[v]

Webster’s defines Romanticism as being connected to the style or movement in art and literature associated with a period of time, specifically 1795-1805, when Rome was long gone.[vi]  How did Mr. LaRouche ever come to his conclusion?  How is it that Romanticism, as generally understood, is destroying the United States?

What would he propose as an alternative?  How would he ensure that all would be made well?  Only one person can make it happen;

But, I found myself, as you know, largely standing alone, surrounded by a few friends and a few friendly souls, who would agree with me. It's a terrible responsibility, to stand as I do, at my age, and to have these responsibilities: Because, if I were to be taken, I don't know what would happen to the rest of you—and, I'm not talking just about the United States, I'm talking about the world. Because, in this United States, I know the institutions of the United States, at least well enough to know what the story is: There isn't, in the whole pack of political party leaderships, there is not the essential ingredient to save this nation! We have to inject it. And, I, above all, have to inject it, which is why I'm running again. I have many people in Western Europe, that I admire. They're not the large percentage of people in Western Europe, but there are a substantial number—in Germany, in Italy, a few in France, in Poland, in Hungary, in Czechia, Slovakia, the Balkans, so forth. They're good people. But they are not in the situation, with the kind of leadership and knowledge necessary to put this back together again. Many of them are indispensable people, in the sense that they represent an indispensable part of any combination, which would put this thing into shape. But, without my participation, they wouldn't make it.[vii]

And Mr. LaRouche would have us believe that he acts out of some altruistic motivation;

And, therefore, it comes to the point, as now, that sometimes upon us, falls a responsibility of leadership. That happens to all of us, in some way or another, or many of us. Every physician will face that, because every sick person is a different person, with a different disease, no matter what their diagnosis is. And, the physician has to face the responsibility of dealing with that problem. A great teacher, teaching a class of students, faces the same thing, about saving these young minds; a responsibility for saving them, under these conditions, today. It's a great, awesome responsibility. For some of us, the responsibility of the same singular variety, comes in a different way—each in a different way. But to all us, one thing is in common: When destiny has given you a vocation, and you have a mission, especially when you're the only one to play a key part, in realizing that mission, you better accept it, and do it.[viii]

Is it any wonder that Mr. LaRouche is consigned to the fringes?  Who can seriously contemplate his proposals in view of his overarching philosophy and historical perspective?  Unfortunately, whatever good Mr. LaRouche may be capable of is lost when one considers his convictions that he is the one person who can save us, and God help us all when he is gone!

I do not wish to suggest that all is as it should be with this world, but my preferences run to Thomas Berry, Brian Swimme, Miriam MacGillis, Huston Smith, Sallie McFague, Cletus Wessels, Rosemary Radford Reuther, Elizabeth Johnson, Elaine Pagels, and James Conlon, among others.  These individuals recognize the illnesses that plague our world, and offer alternatives, but none of them offers a revisionist history that completely repaints the past.  None of them would suggest that the answers lie only in their interpretation of our history and what it portends for the future.  Each insists that the individual must come to grips with truth and create a response to it.  They would agree that we must, as a species, recognize our shared responsibility to this planet and all of its inhabitants.  All of this is accomplished without the rhetoric of conspiracy theories, and includes an expectation that each individual’s dignity must be respected.  Mr. LaRouche’s perception of reality suggest that only he and his followers are fully human enough to recognize what is wrong with this world and what it will take to fix it.  It is an elitism that I cannot subscribe to.

Robert Beltran’s admonition to his fans on September 11, 2001 serves as a warning here too.  Do not allow yourself to fall for the sweet temptation of a single person with all the answers.  Look carefully before aligning yourself with any one person or group.  There is usually more at work than meets the eye.

*UPDATE: As of 10/20/2003 the evidence is irrefutable that Robert Beltran supports Lyndon LaRouche.  He publicly stated his admiration for Mr. LaRouche in a webcast interview in the spring of 2003 during which he also discussed when he first became aware of Mr. LaRouche's philosophy.  In October 2003 he participated in a webcast discussing the upcoming play The Big Knife, which is being produced in part by Robert Beltran.  The discussion included references to LaRouche's philosophy.  Robert's choices are his own to make, however in this case it involves an individual who has expressed his intention to run for the Presidency of the United States.  Mr. LaRouche is properly the subject of discussion and debate, and to the extent that Robert participates in the process, he may well be included in the discussion.

Home  | Spirituality  |  Creative Moments | Musings |   The Library |  The Living Room  |  Contact Kheris