Last week I had an encounter with some members of the Lyndon LaRouche movement. I was going to the local post office to drop off some mail and was surprised to find two LaRouche movement members camped outside with some literature and their now-infamous "Obama Hitler" sign. I could tell that the post office patrons were not too happy about the situation, but being a curious (or foolish) fellow, I walked over and started talking with one of the LaRouchies, a woman, probably in her 50s or early 60s.
The conversation was rather one-sided. I heard some of the usual LaRouche conspiracy theories about the "British Empire" and whatnot. However, when it came to topics such as labor rights and austerity, I found myself agreeing with the LaRouchies, or at least with this particular LaRouche movement member. The woman made the point that a society that squeezes fire and police department budgets but lavishes money on banks to make up for their speculative losses is a dysfunctional one. While I found some common ground on some topics, I just couldn't get past the conspiracy theories and the lionization of the bizarre Lyndon LaRouche. I accepted some literature (which, to be honest, I disposed of as soon as I got home) and politely made my exit.
At a time when so many people are dissatisfied with the political mainstream, it is not surprising that conspiracy theorists such as Lyndon LaRouche and Alex Jones receive so much attention. On the other hand, conspiracy theories often do not accurately depict reality and prevent people from engaging in systemic, institutional or philosophical analysis. At their worst, conspiracy theories can lead to the scapegoating of unpopular groups, as is the case with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, for example.
That being said, I do not see the growth of "fringe" movements as a huge problem, despite fears that one of these relatively small groups will transform into a powerful fascist movement. More worrisome is the alienation of increasingly large numbers of people from public life. I see mass resignation as the most likely result of the transformation of politics into a wholly plutocratic affair. It seems that if democracy is on its way out, it will go out with a whimper, not a bang.
Ah yes, the LaRouchies. Met one of them up in Boston back when I was doing my Peace Corps prep teacher training, and from what it sounds like my experience was much the same as yours. The young woman I talked to had a pretty extensive repertoire of sound-bites ready to toss at me, that much I will say - had some common ground on foreign and economic policy (I'd also like to see the BRICS get some more space at the international table, for example), but the Anglophobic scapegoating just struck me as bizarre if not oddly sinister.
ReplyDeleteIt would be nice to see a politically-engaged society that didn't gravitate toward the isolated (or in this case bizarre) causes. I think we still have a long way to go before we hit The Warning or Brave New World or 1984 territory, but our media, educational system and political institutions have brought us to the point where politics has become pretty much our spectator-bloodsport.
I think it's telling that one of my Church friends described Wolf Blitzer's coverage of last night's Republican debate as reminiscent of a wrestling announcer... :)
-M
Six LaRouche supporters are to seek Democratic nominations in 2012. One of them, Kesha Rogers in TX22, was nominated in 2010.
ReplyDeleteThe challenge to the Democratic Party is clear. It needs to become once again the party of those who would end the bailouts, restore Glass-Steagall, bring home the troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, eschew future such adventures, invest in key infrastructure (not least including nuclear power), uphold the traditional definition of marriage, really fight against drugs, introduce single-payer healthcare, resist climate change hysteria, and defend both classical education and working and middle-class access to it. The party that would indeed have impeached Dick Cheney, even if not quite for the reasons given by LaRouche. If the mainstream party will not do this, then it will be done by the LaRouche Movement. Which, considering that Rogers is in her early thirties, shows every sign of outliving the man himself.
But remember, if you believe in any conceivable connection between the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and the Shia-persecuting “Taliban”, then you are as stupid and as credulous as anyone who believes in “al-Qaeda”, or in “the global terrorist network”, or in “Taliban” distinct from the Pashtun as a whole, or in any connection between Afghanistan and 9/11, or in any connection between Iraq and 9/11, or in WMD in Iraq, or in such WMD as a threat to any Western country even if they had existed, or in an Iranian nuclear weapons programme, or in such a programme as a threat to any Western country even if it existed. In which case, you are on exactly the same level as birthers, or as truthers, or as those who liken Obama to Hitler, or as those who likened Bush to Hitler, and as the followers of Lyndon LaRouche. Are you?
Mr. Cooper,
ReplyDeleteLyndon LaRouche is an odd fellow. So much of the LaRouchie platform seems to be based solely on LaRouche's own idiosyncratic views. From what I gather, this extends outside of politics into the realm of things like music, art and literature. It is not surprising that some people have argued that the LaRouche movement is more like a cult than a traditional political movement.
Mr. Lindsay,
Indeed. I imagine many current LaRouchies are disgruntled New Deal Democrats.