The Case Against LaRouche

Once again, late to the dance, I notice that Lyndon LaRouche’s followers are getting exercised over the repudiation of their leader by fellow Americans. There are good reasons for not choosing Lyndon LaRouche as our leader. Those that follow are my own, but they include three reasons that I believe have been missed by most of his detractors and which form a key triad for not having LaRouche leading this country (or any other). Before detailing those three, I will begin by addressing the ones that I believe to be the most obvious.

1. LaRouche is an economic analyst; he is not a leader by temperment or training. Leadership requires more than charisma. LaRouche may be a charismatic person to his followers, but his real strength comes from being an analyst. A good analyst can tell you what is happening, why it is happening, and even propose options to change the current order of things, but that does not automatically confer the skills to lead people through the change and make it happen. The events that LaRouche has ‘foretold’ have been observed, noted, and commented on by many others. He is not alone in identifying the myriad problems that plague our nation or world, although he has succeeded in convincing others that he has some unique capability to identify what is wrong and how to fix it. He has yet to succeed in fixing anything.

2. LaRouche mangles history and fact to suit his own purposes. In this he is not alone. The recent dustup between Daschle and Bush over the ‘politicization’ of the proposed war against Iraq is a good example in the current political arena. Our politicians do it all the time, but LaRouche claims the moral high ground and claims it at a much higher level than all the rest. He wants to be seen as a credible alternative to the conventional politicians. If he is truly serious about leading this country, then he must stop the nonsensical historical references and assertions about current figures (I detailed some in an earlier essay) and focus on reality. The alternative is a continued dilution of whatever useful message that he might otherwise deliver, and continuing consignment to the fringes of the political scene; an entertaining diversion to an otherwise predictable electoral process.

These two; LaRouche’s limitations as a leader and his penchant for distorting reality (past and present), would be enough to cause me to look elsewhere. They are not necessarily fatal problems and could be corrected if LaRouche would make the effort. However there are three more serious reasons not to follow LaRouche and they strike at the heart of the man’s philosophy and worldview.

1. LaRouche believes that humanity is the only species worth caring about on this planet.[1] On the surface this appears quite reasonable, but it ignores the reality that we are a part of a planetary system. He comments on humans being conscious of their role on this world, but it is a limited consciousness that is focused solely on cognitive abilities. Why should that be problematic? Cognitive abilities are not limited solely to humans. Science has acknowledged that other species possess capabilities (such as tool making) that were once thought to be solely in the province of humans. What humans possess, and LaRouche conveniently ignores, is the reflective self-awareness that is the significant difference that sets humans apart from other beings on this planet. Without the capability to reflect on what we do, we would not be terribly different from other high order mammals. There are folks (Thomas Berry, Brian Swimme, Sallie McFague, Diarmuid O’Murchu) who would assert that humanity is the highest expression of creation on this planet due to the capability of reflective self-awareness, and that we are the Earth reflecting on itself. Yet none of them would suggest that the only species that matters on this planet is humanity. Michael Morwood, MSC, expresses this very well in his book Tomorrow’s Catholic when he speaks to the notion of creation in God’s image[2]. If we are the Earth reflecting upon itself, then there is more to creation, and to us, then the limited notion of cognitive ability or creative reason. When we see creation in God’s image as solely reflected in humans, we forget or ignore the reality that God’s creative expression is manifest in all of creation. Reading LaRouche’s comments, it is clear that he only sees humans as a reflection of the Creator. The rest of creation is present to us, but it lacks what humans possess, the cognitive ability that LaRouche values. This view devalues the rest of creation and becomes a problem when you consider what LaRouche proposes.

2. LaRouche sees Earth as an object to be exploited. This view is derived from LaRouche’s view of humans as the only species that matters, and is a logical progression from that view. When the only species that matters is humans, and the only thing that matters is the development and support of the human species, it is not a long leap to the view that Earth exists to be dominated by humans. LaRouche comments on this many times.[3] He also ignores the efforts of people to effect change that embraces the planet, as opposed to dominating it.[4] Whatever it takes to support humanity is what matters to LaRouche. His myopia extends to the point that he would embrace nuclear power without any consideration of its impact on the planet.[5] Yucca Mountain is already over subscribed, and there is no place to put the remaining radioactive waste that is currently being generated. But that is not a concern to LaRouche. In reading the various documents at the Schiller site it is visibly apparent that he applies his economist background in deriving solutions, and it results in an economist’s solutions. More than once he comments on the efficient use of resources and the development of resources to support humanity. Earth is not a world that we live in relationship with, it is merely a source of resources to be used and replenished to suit human needs. It is a narrow and dangerous view, and it reeks of the perceptions of 19^th century Europeans as they entered the Industrial Age. Earth’s resources are finite and they can be decimated by humans, witness the collapse of the Atlantic fisheries, and the pending collapse of the Pacific fisheries. The emphasis on saving the jobs of the fishing crews has led inexorably to this outcome. Alternatives exist, but they require a serious reconsideration of social and personal priorities. LaRouche never mentions conservation and eschews ecology, all quite consistent with a myopia that never sees the Earth as a partner in our survival.

3. LaRouche sees himself as possessing the only answers to our problems. I addressed this in my earlier essay. In my view, LaRouche is a megalomaniac, who sees himself as doing great things because no one else will do them. He thinks he has the answers and numerous supporters who believe in him without reservation surround him. Unfortunately, his supporters are either unwilling or unable to face the fact that LaRouche is his own worst enemy. LaRouche’s own comments turn him into a laughingstock, regardless of how he is viewed by foreign politicians or groups. Where the rubber meets the road is actual accomplishment, and so far LaRouche has nothing to show besides numerous speeches and slideshows.

Lyndon LaRouche wants people to believe that he is the one person in this country who can lead us to prosperity, to a new Renaissance. His personal philosophy is derived from a 19^th century cosmology and worldview that resonates with those who wish to control this world and would attempt to control the universe. It fits with a view of a mechanistic environment that can be manipulated and managed to suit humanity’s needs and ends. Unfortunately for his followers, the 21^st century will not be so malleable.

[1] http://www.schillerinstitute.org/conf-iclc/2002/labor_day/lar_keynote.html

When we face an error, or simply ignorance, as a contradiction or paradox, the human individual mind is capable, as Plato demonstrates in the Socratic dialogues, of seeing the fallacy, in prevailing opinion up to then, and discovering an hypothesis, which will solve that paradox, enable man to conquer that paradox, provided that man is able to demonstrate that the hypothesis is true…… And we see ourselves, then, in the likeness of the Creator. We see that we are endowed with that kind of creative power, we recognize, through the discovery, for example, of universal physical laws. These are the laws of the universe. They are universal! They are universal throughout the universe! We know these laws in a certain way, by a process of discovery; a Socratic process of discovery. Therefore we know these laws, not because somebody sold them to us, or described, "Oh, we looked it up on the Internet"; we know these laws, because we have reenacted the discovery of that knowledge. Therefore, we understand that as knowledge, and we understand that as the knowledge shared with the Creator. And thus, we find ourselves in the image of the Creator. And we have a moral sense, of the obligation of what our morality must be, because of that connection.

[2] Michael Morwood, Tomorrow’s Catholic, Twenty-third Publications, Mystic, Ct. pp. 40-41

[3] http://www.schillerinstitute.org/conf-iclc/2002/labor_day/lar_keynote.html

So therefore, through this quality, that makes us special, we are able to master the universe, increasingly, as no other species can.

For example: From the beginning of the Americas, as a colonization process, the constant process was to try to build a continent—to build a continent. To reach from the Massachusetts Bay Colony, from Penn's colony, and so forth, and to reach westward, through natural routes of progress—waterways, and so forth.

Now, if you look at Asia, this map again: The central part, the north part and central part of Asia, is an area which is not very habitable. Part of it is Arctic tundra. Much of it is semi-desert, or desert. It is thinly populated. But underneath the soil, are large amounts of natural mineral resources, one of the greatest—probably the greatest concentration on this planet. Other concentrations are the South African Shield, and also South America, are great concentrations of mineral wealth, for all humanity.

There's been no development of the Great American Desert. There's all that land-area. There are very significant mineral resources out there. There is, actually, under controlled conditions, agricultural potential. There is potential for new cities, new industries, in that area. The problem is, we don't have water, and power, in there.

This should be coupled with water management. And the movement of the water from Alaska and northern Canada, presently going into the Arctic Ocean, moving much of that water down, through a system which has been well-designed, into not only this great area of the Great American Desert, but to link that to the other water systems we have, such as the tributaries of the Mississippi system: We can link the entire nation, from coast to coast, and North to South; we can link it efficiently, with inland water transport, which is not only a means of controlling the water distribution of the planet and our country, but also, is a means of internal transportation of the kind of bulk freight, which is best transported by water.

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/conf-iclc/2002/pres_day/lar-quest_answ.html#speech

We, as man, who represents the cognitive process, we must manage the entire planet, and also, more and more of the Solar System. Eventually, you know, the Sun's going to blow up, not in the immediate future—actually, Enron will collapse first—but it will, unless we do something about it. So therefore, we have to take a view, that if the human race is going to continue to exist, we have to take responsibility, conscious responsibility, for managing the noosphere, the biosphere, and the abiotic dimensions of the planet. We have to manage these for the stability of the planetary system; we have to manage these for the benefit, above all, for human life and the development of human life.

Well, there are two things we can do, generally: First, we can find a better way to help living processes generate this resource. For example, we can build more forests. We can engage in large-scale water-management. We can turn the deserts into fertile areas, and similar kinds of things. So therefore, by a policy of managing the biosphere, as by the work of the Corps of Engineers, which has been terminated by the ecologists, so called, eh? When you terminate the work of the Corps of Engineers, you're destroying the environment! Because the environment, so-called, depends upon man's ability to improve upon it, by so-called artificial means.

So therefore, you're right that we should not be using up resources which we are not prepared to replace; we should find alternatives, and they do exist; but, we do need high-energy-density sources; and, we do require a creative process, based on an enlarged conception of basic economic infrastructure, going beyond the Tennessee Valley Authority, for example, a larger conception of managing the planet, to create the conditions under which production and human life, decent human life, can occur. And that eliminates the need for worrying about "ecology." So, scrap the word "ecology," or similar kinds of notions, and say that: We must at last take responsibility, especially from the standpoint of governmental policy, a policy for managing the planet, managing the area of a nation, in order to deal with precisely these kinds of problems, because they are all inherently manageable. And if they're problems, and they are manageable, therefore, we have to manage them.

[4] http://www.schillerinstitute.org/conf-iclc/2002/pres_day/lar-quest_answ.html#speech

Well, solar energy is a disaster. It has two problems: First of all, generally, it costs more in the long run to develop, than the benefit you get out of it. You have to look at the energy pay-back factor, and you have to look at the energy costs of the so-called energy systems as a total cost of the energy production, by that mode, to the entire economy. So, the solar energy, which is highly boosted by the so-called Malthusian movement, is not an alternative. There are applications—for example, if you're in a desert, with a small piece of apparatus, and you need some power to make something work, it may be very useful to have a device which does that. But, as a way of sustaining society: No. That's not the answer.

Washingtonpost.com: End of the fossil fuel era, by Jeremy Rifkin, 9/26/02 - The article describes the movement in Europe towards hydrogen fuel cells for vehicles.

http://www.eren.doe.gov/solar_decathlon/ - This site describes the Solar Decathlon, involving multiple residences utilizing solar power and sponsored by the US. Dept. of Energy

[5] http://www.schillerinstitute.org/conf-iclc/2002/pres_day/lar-quest_answ.html#speech

Thermonuclear fusion, which is orders of magnitude more efficient and more powerful than fission energy—this is necessary. For example: Why do we have to pull oil from all over the world to fuel automobiles in East Podunk? There's no need for it! If we have efficient, highly efficient fission stations, such as high-temperature, gas-cooled reactors, say; or, better still, if you have a thermonuclear-fusion facility, we will not use oil; we will not use fuel, or coal, extracted from the Earth; we will not burn things for energy, generally.