Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. “Creating a Republican Labor Party.” Citizens for LaRouche, undated, circa 1980, 12 pages

 

Pages 6-10

 

…heated circumstances of the 1968 or 1972 campaigns; those errors go back into the early 1960s.

 

We refer back to our remarks on the two, alternative approaches available to labor and ethnic minorities groups today. When groups of citizens are rallied into an electoral combination one-by-one on the basis of appeals to narrow special interests, one wins elections by destroying the republican potentials of the forces "used" to win the election.

In Nixon's case, it is not irrelevant to note the frequency with which he referred attention to football experiences at Whittier College and the matter of the typewriter in .the Alger Hiss case. On the first point, Nixon repeatedly portrayed himself as the sort of "jar­head" he represented in his stonewalling approach to the Watergate affair. Nixon had a poor sense of the importance of the "flank," a disqualification which can be equally fatal in military or political practice. He substituted for a sense of the "flank" isolated, cute maneuvers of the sort the Hiss typewriter implies. There is no doubt that Nixon possessed both principles and a semiconscious inclination toward deeper principles. Un­fortunately, the wheeling-and-dealing approach to per­sonal ambition's service governed the means he employed in the efforts to reach a position of power from which he might serve his republican principles.

A true national political leader must be essentially a special sort of "educator." Leadership does not consist of coming down on the majority-trend side of the latest Harris Poll, or of otherwise adapting opportunistically to strong opinion among various constituencies. Leadership consists in presenting to constituencies a common basic policy-solution to those problems 'which threaten the true, underlying interests of the nation and its republican constituencies as a whole.

The essential practice of leadership is a practice of bringing fragmented republican forces together, not by some "pluralist" mish-mash of wheelings-and-dealings, but by bringing the groups together as an integrated, unified political force around a common set of policy­ outlooks which represent the true national interest. By bringing seemingly divergent groups together around policies and programs which solve special interests through service to national interest, the outlooks of those forces are raised from narrow perception of competitive special interests. In the growing strength represented by their combined forces, they discover the practicability of serving the national interest in such ways as making possible the solution of individual and group problems at the state and local level.

If production is being increased through fiscal and monetary policies which foster high-technology, capital ­intensive investment in expanded production of tangible goods, skilled and semiskilled employment increases, and per capita incomes rise in accordance with advances in national productivities.

Under these conditions, inflation is controlled, the tax base rises faster than the required expenditures for governmental services, and all the conflicts involving material shares of the economy are reduced to bargaining over. shares in what is a constant improvement, not struggling over a shrinking "economic pie."

More than two-thirds of the eligible voters in this nation agree with that approach-on the condition that they view such an approach as objectively and politically practicable. It is the duty of political leadership to show that such objective solutions exist. It is also the duty of political leadership to bring together the supporters of such a - national policymaking, outlook as a unified political force, as people who are participating directly in political organizations which represent, aggregately adequate political force to carry objectively possible policies into reality.

The error of Nixon was ironically represented in Spiro Agnew's "silent majority." Agnew attempted to call forth the fragmented constituencies which had put Nixon into office. Calling them the "silent majority" reflected the fact that they were merely "constituencies" for the Nixon administration, but were not members of a republican political force in any true sense. They were the "outsiders" on whose support Nixon depended; they were not otherwise directly represented in shaping the policy-thinking of the Nixon administration.

The complementary evidence on this point is' seen by, summarily considering the problem of the press. Nixon repeatedly damned the leading national news and entertainment media-and with considerable justi­fication as far as he went. Unfortunately, it was Nixon's wheeler-dealer approach to fragmented groups of consti­tuencies which made Nixon dependent to such a degree on that same press. What foolishness it is to make one's relationship to a majority of the electorate dependent upon a press whose dominant institutions are completely in the hands of one's political adversaries. Sound political organization minimizes this problem, first by integrating republican forces as unified political formations to which one has direct connections independent of major news media, and by augmenting these direct organizational links through fostering newsletters and the emergence of a news media combination which expresses the republi­can viewpoint.

The President must not separate himself from the republican citizens of every town and hamlet of the nation. He must be their President in a very direct sense, and have direct, unmediated connections to them on every matter of important policy making. It is not adequate to say, "I am your President; rally to aid me in fighting for my policies." One must make the policy  making process integral to the deliberations of the republican citizenry on the widest scale.

This policy cannot be implemented unless mass constituencies are integrated into the republican political organizations in precisely the way Nixon worked to avoid. The mass constituencies of this nation are centered in the trade unions and the ethnic minorities. Without defining the constituency of a republican Presidency as a republican labor party, there is no efficient form of republican party, and a republican President will always find his tenure and policies in jeopardy.

The labor-versus-industry nonsense must cease, at  least in matters bearing on national policymaking, national political life. In the plant, ownership has management rights. Outside the plant, management is but the tiniest minority of the citizenry, with no inherent management rights. If we, as a nation, are to have a ruling, republican policy of high-technology, capital ­intensive investment in expanded production, that policy must be in the consciously perceived interest, as well as the underlying, objective interest of the 'majority of citizens. The political power of the industrialist in the town meeting is not arbitrary property-right. It is the fact that the citizens of that town urgently need a profitable, and otherwise successful such plant. In the town meeting, the interests of management and labor are properly understood to be identical in the final analysis-at least, on fundamental points of policy­making.

Misconceived Conservatism

The reason Nixon and others erred so badly on the matter of "constituency-organizing" is, most immediately, the weight of what is termed "conservatism" within the Republican Party (in  particular). These "conservatives" repeat the exact same error which ruined the Federalist Party during the late 1790s under President John Adams, the same error which later wrecked the Whig Party.

The term "conservatism" is used among self-styled "conservatives" to mean two very distinct things. In its healthy employment, "conservatism" means defense of the republican principles of the American system against imported varieties of British liberalism and radicalism. In its foolish, destructive version, "conservatism" is identified with the tradition of British secret intelligence service agent Sir John Robinson's subversion of the Federalist Party during the late 1790s. The latter is "antilabor" conservatism: "trade unions are the cause of inflation, and most of our other problems."

The exemplar of the latter, rotten form of "conserva­tism" is William F. Buckley, the professed marijuana user. If one looks beneath the "conservative" label of Buckley and the National Review gang, the following facts

The sort of "conservatism" associated with Buckley, et al. has always been a product of a British secret intelligence service's penetration of business-centered circles in the United States. It has always represented a foolish alliance of actual republicans with Manhattan- or Boston-centered representatives of British financial and political interests. It has always represented a potentially treasonous form of imported Toryism, the kind of Toryism represented by Carter, Connally, Bush, Ken­nedy, Haig, and the misguided Ronald Reagan's Diever today. (The way in which British agents such as Diever manipulate Reagan's Citizens for the Republic, in which Buckleyite Richard Viguerie manipulates so many today, is the pathetic side of the Republican and Conservative parties today.)

The reason Nixon and others erred so badly on the matter of "constituency-organizing" is, most immediately, the weight of what is termed "conservatism" within the Republican Party (in  particular). These "conservatives" repeat the exact same error which ruined the Federalist Party during the late 1790s under President John Adams, the same error which later wrecked the Whig Party.

The term "conservatism" is used among self-styled "conservatives" to mean two very distinct things. In its healthy employment, "conservatism" means defense of the republican principles of the American system against imported varieties of British liberalism and radicalism. In its foolish, destructive version, "conservatism" is identified with the tradition of British secret intelligence service agent Sir John Robinson's subversion of the Federalist Party during the late 1790s. The latter is "antilabor" conservatism: "trade unions are the cause of inflation, and most of our other problems."

The exemplar of the latter, rotten form of "conserva­tism" is William F. Buckley, the professed marijuana user. If one looks beneath the "conservative" label of Buckley and the National Review gang, the following facts come prominently to the surface.

First, Buckley is a professed marijuana smoker, and a pot-headed agent of the same organization, NORML, whose activities have contributed so much to the destruction of the biological mental potentialities of a growing number of grammar-school as well as teen-age youth. Buckley's defense of his despicable behavior is a direct copy of the sort of British liberalism associated with the pederast Jeremy Bentham, James Mill, John Stuart Mill, and the evil Bertrand Russell. Buckley's mind, such as he has one, is organized according to the principles of British "philosophical radicalism." Buckley the "conservative" is in fact a raving "radical." He is a "radical-conservative."

Second, this aspect of Buckley is not exceptional. It was raving radical-liberal Max Eastman and such Deweyite radical-liberals as James Burnham who are at the core of the Buckleyite National Review gang. This did not represent a conversion to radical liberalism by the Buckley family; the Buckley fortune was made in concert with City of London financial interests in Caribbean-centered operations. Buckley's money was essentially Rothschild-linked, and Buckley's politics de­veloped along the same lines as the promotion of the family  fortune.

It is true, of course; that Max Eastman was a leading Trotskyite during the 1920s-even before Trotsky` himself became a Trotskyite. It is true that James Burnham was formerly a leader of the Socialist Workers Party. Perhaps Burnham did change his beliefs slightly in moving from the Socialist Workers  Party and Karl Korsch's Max Schachtman to his present position at National Review. There was no significant change apart from a change in visible, professed associations. Eastman, Dewey, the Deweyites, and the co-thinkers of the treasonous Charles A. Beard were all of the same unwholesome stripe: anglophile political intelligence agents immediately af­fixed to the anglophile sort of financial interests dominant in Manhattan.

The sort of "conservatism" associated with Buckley, et al. has always been a product of a British secret intelligence service's penetration of business-centered circles in the United States. It has always represented a foolish alliance of actual republicans with Manhattan- or Boston-centered representatives of British financial and political interests. It has always represented a potentially treasonous form of imported Toryism, the kind of Toryism represented by Carter, Connally, Bush, Ken­nedy, Haig, and the misguided Ronald Reagan's Diever today. (The way in which British agents such as Diever manipulate Reagan's Citizens for the Republic, in which Buckleyite Richard Viguerie manipulates so many today, is the pathetic side of the Republican and Conservative parties today.)

This sort of conservatism is a variety of British "philosophical radicalism," the sort of British subversion of the United States outlined by Carroll Quigley in 1966, and ably criticized by W. Cleon Skousen in his The Naked Capitalist.

Rather than continuing to tolerate the nonsensical version of "conservatism" rampant in the United States today, we must identify the issues and principles on which the United States was founded, the principles exemplified by the majority of drafters of the U.S. Constitution, and by President John Quincy Adams and President Abraham Lincoln. The best term of identifi­cation of what we ought to mean by "American conservatism" of the non-Buckley-pot-smoking varieties is "Whig."

The coalition of forces we must build is rightly termed a "Whig Coalition" of labor, ethnic minorities and Whig ­leaning strata of the present Republican and Democratic parties. Like the founding fathers, and like Lincoln's Whigs, our coalition is an anti-British coalition, a coalition of republicans against the policies the British monarchy represented during 1763-1865, and continues to represent in an even more hideous and intolerable form today.

Republican Tradition

The republican party is thousands of years old. It is traced in terms of formal historical knowledge available to us today to the writings of Plato and Plato's Academy at Athens, and to Alexander the Great's city-building policies. Although all of the English-language translations of Plato have been, until the Labor Party's translation of the Timaeus, outright frauds modelled on the frauds of Jowett et al., and although what is taught concerning Plato in our secular universities is a British-copied fraud, the original Greek texts survive. Furthermore, beginning with the writings of Philo Judaeus of Alexandria and the commentaries of Plotinus on the Timaeus, among the apostles and, patristic Christian leaders we find a rich elaboration of studies of Plato's works in their original Greek, and with aid of supplementary historical records and other literary sources later destroyed by the predecessors of Ayatollah Khomeini.

The Neoplatonic, or republican tradition is the kernal of what we otherwise identify as the Judeo-Christian ­Islamic heritage. The characteristic of Philo's Judaism and the Q'uran which leaves us with no doubt of the Neoplatonic commonality of Christianity, Judaism and the Q'uran is the central emphasis on the three levels of human perfection common to all three.

On the secular side, the center of republican policy down through the millennia has been an emphasis on scientific and technological progress in advancing the mode of production and material life in urban-centered civilization. Until the spread of British "materialism" during the late 17th through 19th centuries, it was always understood among leading republicans that this secular side of the matter was inseparable from the spiritual side. (Despite Karl Marx's own efforts to determine the coherence of physical and mental life, the fundamental methodological flaw of Soviet and other "Marxism" is its credulous acceptance of the British "materialist" influence as its methodological point of departure.)

The central spiritual feature of Neoplatonic thought is centered about the empirical proof of a fundamental difference in nature between man and the beasts. That man's mental-creative potentialities are such that man can increase his willful knowledge of the lawful ordering of the universe, proving the efficiency of this perfection of knowledge in terms of increased power of societies per capita over nature, as well as the associated potentialities for increasing the population of the human species. Man's nature requires a form of society in which secular life is dominated by the advances of scientific and technological progress-without such progress, man is degraded morally, spiritually and otherwise to likeness to a laboring ox or talking parrot.

Since successful scientific and technological progress involves mankind's increasing mastery of nature, this achievement proves conclusively that the processes of successful advancement in scientific knowledge are in conformity with the lawful ordering of the universe. Although no existing body of scientific knowledge, in the ordinary usage of that term, directly agrees with the lawful ordering of the universe, the process of qualitative advancements in scientific knowledge are in agreement with the lawful ordering of the universe.

Thus, only a society which is dedicated to continual improvements in science and technology, including successive qualitative improvements, is acting in accord­ance with the fundamental, lawful ordering of the universe. It is only from this standpoint that one can properly employ the term "natural law."

This conception of "natural law" is developed in the Greek writings of Plato, and is richly affirmed in the leading writings of Judaic, Christian and Muslim culture throughout the past two millennia. This is embedded in the heart of Christian theology of the apostles and patristic leaders, and is also the kernel of the greatest scientific achievements of modern times-Nicholas of Cusa, Kepler, William Gilbert, Descartes, Leibniz, Rie­mann, et al.

“Republic” is defined most efficiently by emphasizing the direct opposition between the republican and democratic forms of organization of society, as this issue was defined by Plato and has been defined in all rigorous treatments of the matter both by our nation's founding fathers and down to the present time.

A republic is a state which submits itself to the rule of natural law. More exactly, a republic submits itself to the rule of natural law in principle; in practice, a republic is dedicated to ruling itself by continual efforts to perfect its knowledge of natural law. To the latter purpose, a republic orders its political affairs by constitutional law. Republican constitutions; such as the U.S. Constitution, reflect natural law, but are not otherwise equatable to natural law itself. The function of a republican constitution is to affirm the purpose of the . existence of the republic and also to provide checks-and­ balances among ruling institutions to the effect that these agencies act to prefer the republican influence and to relatively suppress the democratic or other nonrepublican influences. The function of a republican constitution is to order a deliberative process of self-government in such a way that the influence of natural law tends to predominate in the policies and practices of the republic.

A republic's highest law is the natural law, which stands above constitutional law, and is the standpoint from which the interpretation of constitutional law is to be shaped. Inferior to constitutional law is ordinary positive law, such as legislation. Just as no interpretation of constitutional law is tolerable in contradiction to natural law, so no positive law can be tolerated which violates constitutional law. At the lowest level of authority under a republic is contractual agreements. No contractual agreement is tolerable if it violates natural, constitutional or legislative law.

True, we are a democratic republic. That does not mean we are half democracy and half republic. It means that we are a republic in which all the individuals qualified as members of the electorate are citizens in Plato's sense of citizenship. It means that all citizens are politically equal as citizens before the law, apart from the special responsibilities and powers of offices to which they are temporarily elected or appointed.

The citizen of a republic is not merely any individual, nor even all adults. A citizen partakes of the same power as the President or a member of the Federal Congress. He or she deliberates national policy, and reflects, this by petitioning government in various ways as well as. through the electoral process. A citizen is a person qualified to deliberate national policy. A citizen is a matured person-not a child or adolescent-who is sufficiently educated and literate to be informed of the issues of national policy, and who is neither insane nor of a criminal disposition of mind. A citizen is a person of adequate moral and intellectual development, adequate to partake in the kinds of judgmental authority that citizen delegates impart to Presidents and members of Congress.

This restriction on the republican definition of citizen­ship is not intended to elevate one body of citizens to a privileged position to rule at the expense of other persons. The purpose of the republic's internal develop­ment is to elevate all persons to the quality of moral and intellectual development of citizens.

The United States has not developed as an increasingly democratic republic because the founding fathers wished to give equal treatment to the opinions of cats, dogs, cows, children, adolescents, lunatics, criminals; and matured sane citizens alike. We were able to establish a democratic form of republic during the 18th century because our population had approximately a 90 percent literacy-more than twice that prevailing in England, and a general level of culture twice that of Britain. We were able to establish a democratic republic, and to extend the franchise to nearly all adult persons because we had achieved a level of moral and intellectual culture such that most of our adults were morally and intellec­tually qualified to be citizens.

The members of a society are divided into three general levels. Plato, in the Republic, employs the heuristic device of bronze, silver and golden souls. Islam makes the same differentiation. The three levels of Dante Alighieri's Commedia-Inferno, Purgatory, and Paradise-are in exact parallel to the bronze, silver, and golden souls of the myth Socrates employs in the Republic (Politeia).

On the lowest level, man is a mere existentialist, a person of individual biological appetites and related irrationalist impulses. On the second level, man subor­dinates his bestial-like existentialism to the dictate of rationality-to the "tyranny of reason." On the third level, man is elevated to become consciously an instru­ment of natural law, developing his biological capabilities as a means for furthering that higher function.

It is persons on the second and third levels who are qualified to be citizens of a republic. In the United States today, we permit adults on the third level to enjoy the rights of citizens, of course-we even permit existential­ists to run for public office and to teach in schools and universities-which is a dangerous error. We do this because we find it abhorrent to permit any agency to become occupied in exerting the power to discriminate among persons because of those persons' manners of thought, and we can afford to follow this generous approach because our traditions of mandatory public education and level of culture have ensured that a majority of adults would be qualified as citizens, outweighing the follies of the unfortunate persons on the lowest of the three levels of moral and mental develop­ment.

From the same standpoint of reference, it is clear that we republicans do not regard any particular order of society, including our own republic, to be some sort of utopian perfection. We proceed from a view which keeps thousands of years of civilization before and after our time in view. Our task is to contribute in the here-and­-now to the survival and advancement of the human species into the future. We are concerned primarily with advancing the conditions of our people and our nation, with contributing to raising the level of culture and prosperity among our people, and with providing our republic the basis for its security during both the present and the foreseeable future. Ours is the work of a  moment in the span of history. Our task is to defend the foundations we have obtained from the past-to keep faith with the accomplishments contributed to us by our forebears, and to lay the basis for further accomplish­ments in the future. We must properly view ourselves and our relatively ephemeral, mortal lives, as governed by a fruitful purpose, to serve as instruments of that great work which has long preceded us and must continue long after us.

Our included task is to contribute to making every citizen of our republic aware of that same point of view. He or she must be elevated in knowledge, to discover the greater purpose of his or her life in the joy of being a fruitful instrument of, this same great cause.

"Democracy" is like a farm without a farmer, in which the chickens, sheep, cows, horses and pigs form "constitutencies" according to Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau or John Stuart Mill. Each constituency is but a collection of beasts, each, with special "self-interests" defined as animals might define self-interests. The highest level of law in such a democratic animal farm is the "social contracts" among these bestial constituencies.

The human species is not a collection of chickens, cows, pigs, sheep and so forth. Therefore, "pluralism" and other British notions of "democracy" are fit only for British aristocrats, not for self-respecting human beings such as the citizens of the United States.

The essence of republican organization, including republican parties, is the mobilization of a majority of the citizens as a conscious force engaged in direct deliberation of the policymaking of the nation, of discovering which policies are in fact currently in the interest of the nation and its posterity. By creating a republican labor party of such trade unionists and ethnic minorities, we shall end the rule of irrationalist episodic majorities, of British liberal notions of "democracy."