Creating a Republican Labor Party
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
Many critics and most nonlabor supporters of my candidacy have had one point in common. During interviews, most of them have asked at least once: "Don't you admit that the name 'Labor Party' puts off many people who otherwise tend to agree with your campaign?" I never take an "opinion poll" at face value-even a poll I conducted personally; I know, both on scientific-statistical and other grounds, why such polls are usually wrong. In this case, I know the reasons so many have asked the question; reasons which prompt the same query in the minds of many others. Therefore, a written memorandum on this matter is most appropriate.
The basis for the question is this. After as little as an hour's or even a half-hour's attention to the U.S. Labor Party program, strategic-economic analysis and constituency- base, most prospective endorsers of the LaRouche candidacy are convinced that the Labor Party is a republican party-lower case "r." If those persons weigh the same matter more deeply, they add the observation that the Labor Party is, as it professes, in the tradition of Benjamin Franklin, of Abraham Lincoln, and in political economy exemplified by Alexander Hamilton, the Careys and Friedrich List. At first, such recognitions come as "culture-shock": "But, you're really republicans! "-again, the lower case "r."
Our reply to such questioners is twofold. First, to situate the issue within the context of the internal "practical politics" of the United States today, we outline the relevant facts of the 1960-1972 Nixon presidential campaign effort. Many among the questioners were involved in that process, either as Republican organizers, as Democratic Party organizers intimately acquainted with the same process from their vantage point, or representatives of trade! unions and black or other "ethnic minority" groups which supported the Nixon candidacy at some point. Most of those questioners nod their heads in agreement as we outline the essential facts; they can verify the facts of the matter by means of their own independent knowledge -- most among them have never before thought of putting the picture together in that way. "It makes sense," is the general tenor of most responses to this outline.
Secondly, we trace the relationship of farmers and laboring people to the Republican Party from the period of 1856-1865. We emphasize the inadequacy of the "harmony of interest" policy of Henry C. Carey and Lincoln. Carey's analysis of the farmer-labor-industrialist political alliance around at fundamental, common national interest was sound. Carey's proposal, and Lincoln's practice, was lacking on one crucial point. True, the interest of progressive farmers, laboring people, and industrialists is identical in fact-when the matter is posed as a question of 'the interest of the nation as a whole, as distinct from conflicts among these forces at the more localized level. That is a true fact, but an inadequate understanding of the practical problems involved. It is one thing for an objective self-interest to exist; it is another thing; for those who share such an interest to know that it exists in common among them.
Carey was correct in stating that farmers, industrialists and laboring people had a fundamental, common interest in expanding the per capita "national economic pie" through fostering high-technology capital-intensive investment in agriculture, manufacture and such essential elements of Infrastructure as transportation. That was an "objective fact" then; it is an "objective fact" of even greater urgency today. The problem remains, how do we bring a majority of the citizens of the United States to efficient understanding of that fact?
The farmers of today are not the farmers of 1860-1865. High-technology U.S. agriculture today is the agricultural equivalent of an industrial enterprise in just the way Alexander Hamilton foresaw in his 1791 Report on the Subject of Manufactures. The American farmers partake both of the outlook of the entrepreneur and also carry forward the traditions of self-employed agricultural working people. Thus, although the farmers' interest is still in "harmony" with that of laboring people generally, farmers are not today the mass constituency they were during the 1860s. The issue of establishing the mass basis for a republican party today is the trade unionists, unorganized working people generally, and the so-called ethnic minorities.
Although elements of the black "ethnic minorities" represent a republican leadership of about 10 percent of the population as a whole, and although Chicano and other "ethnic minority" groups are emerging as potent political forces complementary to the larger black "ethnic minority," these forces are not an adequate force unless they are grouped together with a majority among trade unionists. So, the question of a mass basis for a republican party is reduced predominantly to the prospect for creating an independent political labor party of trade unionists and ethnic minorities.
The Whig current of the 1856-1865 Republican Party, the current led by Lincoln, created the subsequent industrial power of the United States through a new industrial revolution launched under the conditions of the 1860-1865 war. The mass social basis for this industrial revolution was' laboring people and agriculturalists assembled around the Midwestern grain farmers. After Lincoln's death at the hands of British assassin Booth, under the unfortunate Andrew Johnson and the corrupted Grant administration, this alliance of labor and farmers to the Republican Party was shattered. The New York City-centered "Eastern Establishment" of the Republican Party-the non-Whig Republicans-took over the command of the national party, and with aid of this usurpation, placed the credit of the United States at the mercy of London financiers and their Manhattan-centered allies and representatives. During the 1870s and 1880s-after the ruining of Jay Cooke and the subsequent, treasonous 1879 Specie Resumption Act-a bloodied wedge was driven between farmers and labor, on the one side, and industrial-capitalist interest, on the other side. The Whig alliance exemplified by Abraham Lincoln's base of 1860-1865 was shattered, Henry C. Carey's "harmony of interest" driven from the domain of political practice into the realm of ironical abstractions.
Whig practice in the 1860s was not as -defective as the inadequacies of Carey's "harmony of interest" formulation would tend to suggest. During the war and immediately following the war, Whig labor leaders worked to develop trade unions which saw no discrepancy between disciplining industrial-capitalists on the local level and allying with industrial-capitalist interest on the national level. Unfortunately, although these developments were impressive at the time, the body of ideas governing this effort was inadequately developed. The depression and associated social tumult of the 1870s and 1880s caused the labor- industry-farmer alliance almost to vanish from the national consciousness.
Today, over a century later, the republican forces of this United States can succeed in retaking Washington, D.C. only by the same kind of means Lincoln employed in 1860 and 1864. This can not be accomplished in the way misguided Richard M. Nixon attempted to wheeland-deal with mass constituencies of the "silent majority." The majority of citizens must be rallied as a conscious political force of citizens. They must not be degraded to mere "constituencies," to mere "special interests" which have made trade-offs in the course of agreeing to support a particular set of electoral candidacies.
The "two-party system" as we have experienced it during this century to date must end. The Whig forces of the Republican and Democratic parties must break free of their corrupting alliances to the Manhattan-centered crowd, and must join their forces with the mobilization of the combined majorities of trade unionists and "ethnic minorities" as a combined new republican coalition, to march into Washington, D.C. on January 20, 1981.
The key to this urgent accomplishment is the principle of the republican labor party. This means a new kind of labor- farmer-industry alliance which goes beyond the inadequacies of Henry C. Carey's notion of the "harmony of interests."
The argument we make for a republican labor party is a valid argument for every point of our republic's history. Unfortunately, it is not, practicable to win for correct policies at every moment in the history of a people. Black chattel slavery was not only evil, but was the principal lever for ruining the potentials of our national economy over decades. Only in the course of a grave crisis did we finally succeed in ridding our nation of that evil. Correct ideas generally prevail over evil and folly only under those special opportunities for mobilization of a people represented by a grave national and/or global crisis.
The worst expression of the difficulty of correcting evils and follies during "ordinary times" is the notorious habit of the wretched British citizen: "I'm all right, Jack." During what we call ordinary times, most individual citizens, most groups representing a potential majority of the citizenry are "getting by." Established institutions, established recipes of day-to-day practice appear to enjoy a pragmatic efficiency. The majority of farmers are able to improve their farms and make a modest profit during most years. The majority of working people can find employment and some opportunities for advancement in conditions of employment and life generally. Industry can enjoy modest to higher profitratios during most years. "Why rock the boat?"
It is only during periods of crisis, such as wars or a wrecking of the previously established institutions of domestic peace and relative prosperity that the potential exists for actually mobilizing the majority of a great people to do a great thing.
Never, in fact, has our republic faced a more deadly crisis than we confront at this moment. Although the ordinary citizen, and even many presumably well-informed and advantaged persons do not yet comprehend the nature of or imminent enormity of the crisis descending upon us at this time, yet, certain symptomatic effects of that crisis are evoking fear and anger in the majority among our citizens, and there is a general perception that matters are not only getting much worse, but worsening at an accelerating rate.
Most Citizens recognize that the present "energy crisis" is a cruel hoax, orchestrated by major multinational petroleum concerns in complicity with the Carter Administration. Most citizens are horrified by the rate at which "marijuana decriminalization" is fostering a biological destruction of the mental potentialities of a growing proportion of our children as well as teen-age and university youth. Inflation is wiping out the savings of decades. Interest rates are rising to chase inflation rates, causing a contraction in the economy which worsens the rate of inflation. The Carter Administration responds to the more-than-20-percent, inflationary collapse of the dollar-which it caused-by savagely cutting those capital-goods exports which would maintain the value of the dollar. Meanwhile, lawfully, tax-rates rise faster than national incomes, taxes going increasingly to pay off pyramided old debts rather than to provide essential services.
Intersecting this, the Manhattan crowd, centered around the New York Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Mont Pelerin Society, Brookings Institution, Ford Foundation, Rand Corporation, Aspen Institute, and so forth, has given us its own Carter Administration, its own Kennedy nomination and its own gameplan for wrecking Reagan and using Connally, Bush and others as stalking-horses for a Haig Republican nomination and Presidency. The Kennedy drive, centered around both Cartergate and a Kennedy forces' wrecking of the functioning of the U.S. Congress, has been pulled up from late 1979 or early 1980, into the late spring of 1979, wrecking whatever vestiges of stability existed within or around the Carter Administration. CFR's Carter Presidency, combined with CFR's playing out the Kennedy and Haig scenarios, is already threatening to split the Democratic Party and trigger an echoing split within the Republican Party.
This insanity, this crisis, impels the Whig forces of the Republican and Democratic Party to search outside the RNC and DNC leadership for new alternatives, at the same time that the general citizenry is seized increasingly with hostile contempt 'for everything Carter and the national leadership of the two old major parties represents.
So, even from viewing merely the negative side of the current developments, ,ve have the sort of elaborated crisis comparable to the 1856-1860 rise of the Republican Party. There is an acceleration in the extent and intensity of impulses within the political process, impulses for tipping over the ongoing political rules of the game, impulses for finding a new set of political rules, a new alternative.
That, the negative side of the matter, is both bad and good. It is and will be bad if purely negative impulses predominate. It is good only to the extent the upsetting of established arrangements is taken as the opportunity for creating needed kinds of new arrangements.
On The Industry Side
One of the most provocative social features of the current ferment is the fact that, generally speaking, farmers are far better industrial-capitalists politically-and otherwise-than the representatives of major industry. This should be astonishing only at first glance. In general, the management of major industries is not representative of industrial entrepreneurs. Industries are generally ruled by a managerial bureaucracy of careerists.
Many of these careerists are good people, especially those who have come! up from the production and engineering side of industrial management. They prefer high-technology, capital -intensive investment as the basic form of solution to fundamental problems. In respect of day-to-day terms of reference, these and like-minded elements of corporate management are on the right track, although usually lacking in competent politicaleconomic knowledge of the economy, in contrast with their usually excellent understanding of how to develop a firm.
Unfortunately, in corporate management as a whole, we are not dealing with persons dedicated to entrepreneurial outlooks or industrial-capital interest. These are usually management careerists, whose combined individual and group interests are subordinated to Manhattan-centered financial control over the boardroom, or at least the sources of credit on which production, investment and marketing depend to keep firms above breakeven points. The worst example of this problem is the boardroom of the U.S. Steel Corporation, a firm whose management has contributed more than any other single industrial management to wrecking the U.S. industrial economy's productivity.
In summary of this point: Although a majority of industrial- corporate managements prefer the high-technology, capital- intensive investment route, only a minority of entrepreneurial mavericks among industrial managements will stick to that perspective as a matter of principled commitment. Most managements will adapt, reluctantly or otherwise, to the prevailing winds of financier-power-generated policies and circumstances. Hence, it is not surprising that the principled thrust for a true entrepreneurial point of view tends to persist more strongly among progressive farmers than the ranks of corporate management generally.
The weakness of the corporate management strata is centered around a hoax. This hoax might appear at first glance to be a matter of mere "'semantics." The point at issue is the distinction between monetary profits and profitable margins of national output. The parasitical growth of "services" and sheer waste, relative to employment of productive operatives since the 1957-1958 recession, and especially since 1966-1967, means that less and less profit is derived as actual profit-reinvestable margins of tangible volumes of consumer- and capitalgoods production, while a growing ratio of monetarythroughput and monetary profits arises through nonproductive forms of investment and activities.
This point is underlined by the continuing policy of the U.S. Steel boardroom: "Our job is to make profits, not steel." On the surface of matters, such a declaration is downright silly. How can a steel firm make profits except by producing volumes of steel values from production in excess of direct and indirect, costs of producing such steel? If one means -as one should -- a profitable steel production based on utilization of a steelmaking capacity which is constantly being improved through high-technology investments, making steel and making profits from the production of steel are identical concerns. In practice, U.S. Steel's boardroom has not only maintained a postwar policy of enforced backwardness -- and reduced relative productivity-in its own steelmaking operations, but has used its own and allied financial power to prevent more progressive steel-making firms from launching the sort of "greenfield" development which could have kept U.S. steelmaking competitive with Japan and West Germany's.
U.S. Steel's boardroom may choose to join the ranks of those denouncing bureaucracy and mismanagement in the Federal Executive Branch, but in fact the Executive Branch has chiefly copied the bureaucratic mismanagement practices of U.S. Steel's boardroom.
This is not a new issue concerning U.S. Steel. When Andrew Carnegie capitulated to Morgan, the U.S. economy and citizens suffered a significant defeat.
Trade Unionists Are The Best Capitalists
The problem is that of developing a powerful, mass force of citizens whose included function is to tilt the average corporate boardroom and management generally back toward an entrepreneurial outlook, and to create the environment which neutralizes and ultimately corrects the sort of obscenities represented by the U.S. Steel boardroom. There are two elements of such a mass force.
The first is the average trade unionist. The skilled or semiskilled operative has no capital except a small accumulation of those savings now being destroyed by inflation. This citizen and his or her family depend upon the nation as a whole having the kinds of policies which promote expansion in high-technology, capital-intensive work-places. This citizen can not emulate U.S. Steel's boardroom in attempting to wreck our national economy through a slippery, semantic formula of "profits, not production."
The second is the majority of "ethnic minorities" generally, with notable emphasis on black and Hispanic minorities. At this point, the majority of adult American blacks and Hispanics are in place to attempt to board a train sometimes known in the past as the "American Dream," the same train on which trade unionists and farmers desire to continue their passage. Arriving at the railway station, these minorities find notices posted: service on the train is being discontinued. Worse, the Carter Administration and Kennedy campaign are currently engaged in an effort to pull up the tracks and sell off the roadbed ... with profits of scrap turned over to the financial interests controlling the Carter Administration and the Kennedy and Haig candidacies.
The trade unionist or organized grouping from "ethnic minorities" has two visible alternatives under these wretched circumstances. Either that small group engages in a "special interest" effort to grab for itself an increased share of a shrinking economic pie, or those forces must unite themselves to force an expansion in the scale of the economic pie, to put the "American Dream" back onto the tracks in regular and expanded service.
These two choices are typified by the contrast between the "class struggle" of the UAW's leading Kennedysupporter, Douglas Fraser, and the "nation-builder" perspective which major forces among the International Brotherhood of Teamsters have recently promulgated.
If the trade unionist or ethnic minority group is content to organize itself as a relatively localized "special interest," these forces are lawfully impelled not only to militant actions against local employers and governmental budget-making processes; they are also impelled into an increasingly embittered, fratricidal struggle against one another. If this occurs during this period, the United States will be subjected to a hideous, spreading, and implicitly or actually bloody social crisis, and the nation will be destroyed-or, at least, destroyed in the sense of what the founding fathers set out to develop.
The solution is to organize growing portions of the trade unions and ethnic minorities as a unified political force. Provided this is done through presenting those alternative national economic and other policies which put the "American Dream" back onto the tracks, we will be creating in this way what is properly termed a republican Labor Party. It is the programmatic alliance of such an independent political labor movement's development with industrialist and farmer interests which will energize the political, republican potentials of industrialist and farmer interest in a new, more powerful way.
If, by this means, we reach the autumn 1967 potentials of the George Wallace campaign by September-October 1979, and have strong influence among leading circles representing constituency groups of between 20 and 40 percent of the eligible voters by January-February 1980, no Kennedy or Haig candidacy can be locked up by autumn of this year, and the effect on the Republican and Democratic national convention processes, including primaries, will ensure the securing of the pathway leading to a march of Whig forces into Washington, D.C. on January 20, 1981.
During the same period of pre-election developments, the emergence of such a growing force in the United States will have a dramatic effect on the course of policymaking. As CFR-centered and other forces attempt to neutralize our influence, they will be obliged to coopt "Delphic" parodies of our programmatic thrusts. In this and related ways, the indirect and then direct dialogue between our forces and those of the CFR-backed candidates will move the focus of national policy debate in such a way as to have urgently- wanted beneficial effects on national policyrnaking processes during 1979 and 1980.
The Nixon Case
The significance of Watergate is not that Nixon was ousted by aid of Henry Kissinger and Alexander Haig working from inside the administration. The significance is that Nixon was the "horse" on which a combination of Whig constituencies in the United States had staked their own and the national interest. When the matter is viewed correctly, from this reference point, it becomes clear to us how CFR tools such as Connally, Kissinger, and Haig, were deployed inside the administration in collaboration with the forces of the Kennedy machine, Katharine Graham, and Arthur J. Goldberg and Joe Rauh, Jr., from outside the administration ... as well as within the U.S. Department of Justice.
The compromising and compromised Richard Nixon was not "Watergated" because of anything he had done or not done as President. The popularized version of "Watergate" is essentially a public relations hoax. Nixon was "Watergated" not because of hirnself, but because the CFR was determined to wreck the Whig-centered combination which had moved from Romney and Reagan to Nixon during the 1967-1968 period.
It is indispensable to review the lessons of the Nixon administration and "Watergate" from this standpoint. We are engaged presently in an effort to put together a combination of the Whig forces of the Nixon backersminus certain unwholesome elements among Nixon's backers-together with the forces of the republican labor movement. We would be foolish, under such circumstances, not to consider the deeper reasons "Watergate" could be conducted against a President who had just been elected with such a large majority. Obviously, the Nixon campaigns and administration involved major errors which must not be repeated now.
Although we are obliged to defend Nixon against those offenses of which he was directly or implicitly falsely accused, we must not overcorrect to the point of blinding ourselves to Nixon's actual errors. By "errors" we include, of course, John Connally in matters of economic and monetary policy as well as the miserable wretches Henry Kissinger and Alexander Haig. However, we mean to emphasize a more profound error of organizationalpolitical philosophy, the deeper errors which made possible the errors within the Nixon administration itself.
Throughout his political career, Nixon placed compromises in service of personal political ambitions above essential considerations of republican policy. We are not arguing that Nixon may not have had or expressed at times policies in agreement with republican principles. In the case of John Connally, we must similarly concede that he is by far the most intelligent of any of the announced Republican or Democratic candidates of the moment-indeed, he is one of the brightest, and most untrustworthy, of the political chameleons who has subordinated his mouth to his ambitions during recent history. We are emphasizing that Nixon worked against the principle of bringing "ethnic minorities" and other constituencies into full membership inside the Republican Party organization. This practice was not new to the 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 policyoutlooks 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, capitalintensive 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 policyrnaking 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 policyrnaking, 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, capitalintensive 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.
The reason Nixon and others erred so badly on the matter of "constituency-organizing" is, roost 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 MR, 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 Whigleaning 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.
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 policyrnaking 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."