The Electable LaRouche
Some people who ought to know better, exclaim, ?But, LaRouche is not electable!? Do not become upset when you hear such foolish things being said. When people say that, they are not actually thinking; it is just another case of a mouth shooting itself off in a knee-jerk, Pavlovian reflex. If that exclamation were true, why did most of the U.S. system spend much on desperate efforts to prevent my winning, over so many decades? When all that and related matters are considered, especially considering the amount of money spent, over so many years, on trying to stop me, and considering the way the world?s monetary-financial system is crashing today, I am, intrinsically, the most electable U.S. Presidential candidate since Dwight Eisenhower.
William Jefferson Clinton was electable, because of qualities which some people, including admirers, described as those of a ?political animal.? He was so successful a campaigner that he could have elected even an Al Gore to be President, if Al Gore had not been Al Gore. I am a different kind of candidate, the kind sane voters prefer above all others when they wish to rescue their nation from the biggest and deepest financial crash in more than a century.
My job right now, is to save the Presidency of the U.S.A., while George W. Bush, Jr. is President. Considering what Bush and his administration are doing to themselves, saving the Constitutional institution known as the Presidency, is no easy chore. The first step toward saving the Presidency is to pull the plug on two U.S. Senators whose combined leading influence today is the greatest single threat to the nation and its Presidency at this time: Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman.
In short: to save the U.S.A. from what threatens to become the worst crisis in its history as a constitutional Republic, we must defend the institution of the Presidency. To that end, McCain and Lieberman, and certain foul connections and interests which they represent, must be removed from the influential roles they have played since the 2000 Presidential primary- and general-election campaigns.
The Presidency
The Constitutional office of President of the U.S.A. is a unique institution. It is of a type imitated in the best periods of the Republic of Mexico, and reflected in some part in France under President Charles de Gaulle. Nevertheless, when seen in the context of our Constitution, it is a kind of Presidency which every prudent nation should wish to have as a model for its own use.
For most of our republic?s history, either the personal quality of the elected President, or his performance in office, were defective. Nonetheless, the Republic and the institution of the Presidency survived such Presidents. In times of great crisis, it was the role of great Presidents, such as Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, which saved the nation, and this was done within the Constitutional framework of the Presidency as such. Even if the incumbent President has serious short-comings, the only way in which to deal with the kind of systemic crisis which represents a threat to the continued existence of constitutional government, is to use the Presidency as the leading instrument for organizing the passage to safety.
The uniquely superior qualities of our Presidency are expressed by the role of the principal founder of our republic, Benjamin Franklin, and Franklin?s guiding hand in crafting the 1776 U.S. Declaration of Independence and the 1787-1789 drafting of the 1789 U.S. Federal Constitution. Unlike those nations of Europe arising from the little new dark age of religious and related warfare, of 1511-1648, the best of all European thought, taken variously from the United Kingdom and the continent, was expressed in the mobilization to establish the first true modern republic in English-speaking North America. Ours was the only constitution established to the present date, which was conceived as governed pervasively by a single set of truly universal principles. Those are the principles summarized in the Preamble of our Constitution, a Preamble to which provisions of the Constitution and our laws are properly subject to the present day, and for as long as this republic shall live.
The principles expressed by that Preamble, are essentially three.
The first, is the universal principle of perfect sovereignty, a concept which reflects such precedents as Nicholas of Cusa?s Concordancia Catholica, superseding Dante Alghieri?s De Monarchia. From Cusa on, the notion of the perfect sovereignty of a nation, was intermeshed with the notion of a community of principle (concordancia) among sovereign nation-states. This was echoed by then-Secretary of State John Quincy Adams? notion of a ?community of principle? among the future sovereign republics of the Americas.
The second, is the universal principle of the general welfare, as this notion of agape, associated with I Corinthians 13. This use of the term general welfare was associated with the English use of commonwealth by Sir Thomas More and others in Sixteenth-Century England, and echoed in the notion of a Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as the intention of that term was defined for Massachusetts, by Winthrop and the Mathers. The same notion is sometimes indicated by the term ?common good,? as expressed by Cotton Mather and Benjamin Franklin on the necessary commitment to do good.
The third is the universal principle of posterity. This identifies a notion sometimes associated with the Scholastics? simultaneity of eternity. This has crucial, underlying implications beyond the comprehension of all but perhaps a very few among the world?s legal profession today. For our purposes here, a simpler approximation will be sufficient. When we make law, or other national policy, it must be our intention to be as accountable to future generations, for what we do, or fail to do, as to our contemporaries. We are not permitted, by principle of law, to be governed by mere contemporary opinion. We must foresee the consequences of what we do for future generations, as President Lincoln expressed this in his Gettysburg Address. We are accountable, first of all, for the future of our republic; but, we must also be concerned for the effects of our practice upon other nations.
Every other part of our Federal Constitution, is subject to interpretation according to the superior authority of the Preamble read as a statement of intention. No contrary interpretation is allowable. No law can be allowed to persist, if it violates a reading of the whole Constitution as shaped by that intention.
Thus, our Constitution is a constitution based on principle, rather than merely a parliamentary system?s reliance on a combination of ?basic law? and other legislation. Ours is a system of law based on discoverable universal principle, not a merely positive law.
Under our Constitution, contrary to the governments premised upon parliamentary systems, the responsibility for the sovereign state lies entirely within the institution of the Presidency. This Presidency is not the property of the incumbent; it is an institution in which the incumbent President must perform a certain specific quality of function, while he remains in office.
The Presidency is, however, accountable to a Constitutional separation of powers. It is accountable to the law-making body, the Congress, and to the Federal Court, and, in a different way, to the Federal states. While the conflicts between President and Congress are notorious, the most dangerous feature of the separation of powers have come, historically, from dysfunctions within a Federal Court which came, repeatedly, much too much under the influence of the financier interest associated with the American Tory current. The repeated failure of Presidents and the Congress, to take the principle of the Federal Constitution into account in the selection of Federal judges, especially those of the Principle as such, has often filled the Federal bench with long-term serving justices who tend more to undermine the Constitution, than serve it.
For A Time of Crisis
Since 1789, the Presidency of the U.S.A. has remained intact as an institution, until now. It has survived scoundrels such as van Buren, Polk, Pierce, and Buchanan, a Ku Klux Klan fanatic, Woodrow Wilson, the follies of Richard Nixon, and so on. Although we have suffered several certified political assassinations of our Presidents, and some justly suspected cases of sudden deaths in office, only once, the Confederacy?s slave-holders? full-scale military insurrection, has the continuity of the Presidency been directly threatened.
Until now, the greatest crises within the Presidency itself were those confronting Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. In both cases, the Presidency had been misled, almost without interruption, during a succession of terms under controlled American Tory interests. Such was the situation which challenged President Lincoln and also Franklin Roosevelt. Both conducted a turnabout from Presidential policies which had violated the principles of our Constitution. Both faced the challenge of a terrible war on whose outcome the future existence of our republic depended. Both, despite the awful burden of war, inspired our patriotic citizens and brought our nation to a higher level of prosperity than any nation of the world had achieved up to that time.
During the 213 years of the Presidency, no other nation-state of the world has a comparable achievement. The British monarchy, of course, is not a sovereign nation-state, but, from long before 1789, until the present day, an Empire according to the feudalist model of a Venetian imperial maritime form of financier-oligarchical power. The source of our Presidency?s virtue on this account, lies in the implication of the universal principle radiating from the Preamble of our Federal Constitution, and thus permeating the intent of the Constitution as a whole.
Within the bounds of checks and balances, it is the Presidency which must decide. It must do this in its capacity as the sole representative of the sovereignty of the republic. This gives that Presidency great powers, and great stability, far beyond those of any parliamentary government. However, the President himself does not possess those powers; he shares the powers inhering in the continuity of the Presidency itself. He depends, chiefly, on the functions of the various Departments of the Executive Branch. Although an incumbent President puts his personal imprint, more or less strongly, on his administration as a whole, his powers to act effectively depend, most immediately on the role of the Departments and the appendages of the Office of the President as such.
At first glance, that description might be misread as merely truisms. However, when we bring the significance of the McCain-Lieberman cabal into consideration, the points I have just listed here have been overlooked by most of those in official Washington thus far.
Where Bush Stands - - or, Falls
President George W. Bush, Jr. clearly has no understanding of the most crucial features of the growing menace threatening the U.S.A. today. He gained office more through the follies of the Gore-Lieberman ticket, than by popularity, and showed no signs of preparation for any among the crises which would hit him prior to September 11, 2001, or later. Nonetheless, he is President. Therefore, do not babble about possible outcomes of new elections. The present world situation is deadly, economically and otherwise. What must the Presidency do, right now, and how do we get that done under a Bush Presidency?
Who should be the next U.S. President? Obviously, one who as been proven in the crucible of crisis which threatens the Bush Presidency today.
Two general measures must be taken. First, we must shut down the political blackmail currently being exerted on the Presidency by the McCain-Lieberman cabal?s influence on the Senate, the Congress as a whole, and the leadership of the major political parties. Second, we must build the kind of bi-partisan political infrastructure around the Presidency, which gives the Presidency the policy-options needed, both to extricate itself from its own recent follies, and to develop a new form of collaboration for economic reconstruction with nations growing increasingly restive over the nauseous impact of the influence on current U.S. strategic practice, of desperadoes such as McCain, Lieberman, Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, et al.
By sinking the future political ambitions of Lieberman and McCain now, we create an otherwise non-existent possibility for a rational form of bi-partisan deliberation on options available to the Presidency. We must make that change now; the U.S. is presently careening toward strategic economic and other global disasters. Change is urgent; the time is now.
McCain is not the worst. His financial connections, the antics of the Hudson Institute, and his personal instability, are serious problems in themselves. However, the danger from McCain comes chiefly through his ties to the Joe Lieberman whom William F. Buckley, Jr. and the far-right National Review gang brought into the Senate. It is the combination of known and dark connections between Lieberman and McCain, which has enabled the crew around Lieberman to hold U.S. policy-shaping hostage since the time of Senator Jeffords? retirement from the Republican Party.
My associates and I are currently working, at my prompting, to expose the ugly public record and other relevant facts about the Lieberman-McCain-Buckley-Steinhardt connection. When the broader public discovers what that record shows, as I know that record now, Joe Lieberman will not be qualified for mayor of East Dogpatch, Connecticut. Open the floodgates for new leadership of the Democratic Party, and we will be situated to reshape a bi-partisan environment around the Presidency. No one can guarantee success; but, since it is the only live option available in the short term, we must take it.
Sorry, Joe, but it is time to go. Fade away, Joe.
Facebook
Twitter