To the Pennsylvania Press:
'If the Democratic Party Wants to Win in 2004,
They Have to Include Me'
March 29, 2023
Click here to see WM Video of this event.

Lyndon LaRouche brought a stiff dose of reality to the formerly industrial state of Pennsylvania, in a whirlwind tour of the state capital March 29.  Appearing at the invitation of State Rep. Harold James (D-Phila), LaRouche addressed a Harrisburg press conference, and then met supporters, LaRouche Youth Movement organizers, and members of the State Legislature at a reception in the capitol building.
Here is a rough transcript of Lyndon LaRouche's opening statement and questions from the press at a press conference in Harrisburg, PA on March, 29, 2023. A transcript of the statement that State Rep. Harold James gave at this event endorsing Mr. LaRouche's participation in the upcoming Democratic Convention in Boston is also available.

LaRouche: The issue here is that there are a number of breaking developments, which will be breaking between now, and the July Democratic Convention, and then in the period following that; which are poorly understood presently around the United States.

First of all, we are in the worst financial crisis in modern history, worse, in principle, than that of 1928 to 33, and there is yet no perception of the severity, or the immediacy, of the crisis, in the Congress generally, with a few exceptions, or in the state capitols. The problem is, we have a situation in which at least 48 of the 50 states are bankrupt: that is, they can not, within reason, raise sufficient tax revenues presently, to meet their obligations as states, and the communities which depend upon state governments.

Therefore, without an expansion of employment, in large degree, it will be impossible to solve the problem of the states. The states, because of the nature of the international crisis, can not generate by themselves, under our Constitution, the amount of credit needed to sponsor the large-scale infrastructure projects, which must be done to revive the states themselves. Therefore, this means that we have to go back to a Franklin Roosevelt approach, to dealing with a depression in order to deal with even the most immediate problems which are facing government at the Federal and State levels, and the local levels as well.

This is not understood. There is a delusion in the United States, contrary to a greater sense of reality in Europe, that this system can not be held together, even until the November election. In the United States, in the leadership of both the Democratic and Republican party, there is the delusion, that by agreement between the two parties, they can prevent a collapse from occurring, until after the November elections. That probably is not possible.

So, these are the kinds of conditions that we face. We also face a security problem internationally, and in the United States, not what Cheney is describing, but a perfectly legitimate security problem which is going to become more acute, as the recent Spanish Madrid terror indicates, in a way which is typical, as back during the 1920s and '30s, that when you go into a depression, you begin to get some of the devils out of the woodwork, and they do this sort of thing. And therefore, presently, our understanding of the nature and the origin of these terrorist threats, both at the Federal level, especially, and somewhat at the state level, is not yet clear.

So, that's what I think are the issues that must be addressed during this period, which, as I say, up through the Boston convention of the Democratic Party, and beyond, going into November. So, that's what I'm about, and that's what we're going to be having a meeting here about today. I'll take any questions, of course.

Question: Mr. LaRouche, how many primary ballots are you on in the United States?

LaRouche: I should be on 36, but I think 4 of them dropped out for various reasons. Two dropped out, one cancelled, for one reason or another, but it was originally scheduled for 36.

Question: Do you believe that your name may not be on four of those?

LaRouche: This is a tricky situation. It's a great embarrassment for the Democratic Party, because the Democratic Party, in the interests of trying to get me off the ballot for the primary ballot, during the time that Gore was running for the Presidency, took an action, which was then supported by some of the party, in hiring an attorney who successfully pled to overturn the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Now, this implicitly was a racist action by the Democratic Party, done on behalf, largely, of the Gore candidacy. Gore, as a result of that foolishness, did not go into Arkansas, where he could have won, because he stole my delegates in Arkansas, and instead went to Florida, where he lost the electoral vote. If he'd gone to Arkansas, as he should have, he would have won the Electoral College, as well as the popular vote, and he would be President.

So, this kind of foolishness, which continues by some people in the Democratic Party, to keep me out, I predict, if I'm kept out of this picture, going into the convention in July, the Democratic Party, even with a President as dumb as Bush, may not be able to win the election. That's the situation.

So, if the Democratic Party wants to win, they have to include me in it. Include me out, they're going to lose as they did in 2000.

Question: Are you registered to vote?

LaRouche: No. They took my voting rights away. Clinton was going to fix that, but then, he came under pressure, and he didn't do it.

Question: Why are you here today in Harrisburg?

LaRouche: Well, I'm generally-- you know, I'm not just a candidate, I'm concerned with all kinds of policy questions, and I have been over most of my career in national politics, as international politics. And therefore, I'm always around, dealing, for example, with security questions, with economic questions. It turns out I'm the most successful long-term forecaster in the United States today, in terms of record of the past 40 years. So, I have certain expertise, and I have affinities for people, in especially the Democratic Party. I'm not unfriendly with a number of Republicans, and therefore, I'm concerned about these issues, and I come here, because this is an important state capital, with a primary coming up, that what is discussed in this primary election, coming here, will help to shape the way the nation thinks.

If Cheney's dumped, for example, this is going to affect the Republican Party, as much as it does the Democratic Party. This will mean a policy shift. Condoleezza Rice's embarrassment may induce a fundamental shift on several policies, in the Congress and elsewhere, among Republicans as well as Democrats.

My job is to be in the action. I'm not a candidate running for some kind of a prize. I'm serious about this, as being a qualification for President. But I'm also a full-time citizen, concerned with these issues in which I have expertise. And therefore, I go to places where people want to hear this, and I present my message, and conduct my discussions. It's my regular routine. I do it internationally, as well as in the nation.

Question: What is your stance on union labor, as far as unions go, and how far do you think they're going to go in this country, before they keep trying to run us out of the business, so to say?

LaRouche: Well, what you've got is, you've got a tendency toward fascism, as was acute in 1928-1933 in Europe and in the United States. You had those in our country then, Andrew Mellon and Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover -- Hoover was not unintelligent but he was on the wrong side -- and therefore, at that point, the question of the obligation of the United States, under its Constitution, not only to defend our sovereignty, but to promote the general welfare, means that we have to be concerned with the welfare of our citizens.

Now, unions have been an integral part of the process, the political process, of protecting the rights, and setting a standard for protecting the rights of our citizens. Even when people are not members of unions, the fact that unions are functioning as unions, effectively, means this benefits many people who are not union members. So, therefore, the idea of trying to break the back of trade unions, in the United States, particularly after our experience of Coolidge through Hoover, and our contrary experience with Franklin Roosevelt, shows that this is a wrong policy.

For example. The problem in dealing with this now, is you have to eliminate globalization, You have to eliminate NAFTA.

What's happened is, the United States, which was formerly the leading producer nation of the world, up into the 1960s, has now become a parasite, living on cheap labor, from other countries, while shutting down our industries. Therefore, our people are being asked, in communities and in workplaces, to sacrifice their jobs, to sacrifice their incomes, to maintain a policy which is suicidal. You can not, as -- anyone who proposes free trade has to be insane, because if you do not maintain the level of quality of existence of the labor force, which means the families, not just the person who's working, if you do not maintain the capital investment in the necessary tools of production, if we do not provide price level protection, fair price protection, which enables people to employ people at fair wages, and to maintain their capital, you're crazy.

So, what we're doing is, we have destroyed the United States by living on the labor, cheap labor, of other countries, and letting our own industries collapse, looting them, and looting our own families and labor force. We do not have the skills for production we had 40 years ago, in terms of competitive standards. And our job is to get our productive standards up, which means we've got to promote capital investment in industries, in agriculture, in infrastructure. We have to promote protection and promotion of fair wage standards for our people.

And to the extent that trade unions do that job, or part of the job, that's crucial for us all. Even though they are not a part of the Constitution, implicitly they are, because they're doing a job, like many other citizens do, to try to protect our interests.

Question: Mr. LaRouche, what would you say to the young generation of this country, who, for the first time, may be casting their vote in 2004, or are so distraught over the current crisis, that they want to use their vote as a political weapon? What would you say to them?

LaRouche: Well, the problem is this: Our country's been destroyed. Here we were, as I came out of the last war, into the 1960s, despite the mistakes of Truman and despite other things, we were the leading producer nation in the world. We set a standard, we provided leadership, for a recovery of much of the world from the depression, and the effects of war. We were a proud nation.

After that, we went into a change, after 1964, after the Kennedy assassination, the missile crisis, the beginning of the Indo-China War.

What happened is the people, who were then teenagers, as this period approached, and when the Vietnam War came upon us, people who were educated in universities, took off their clothes, and said, "I'm a part of a different society." Because they were scared. They were frightened. And the tone was set by this layer, which is now largely in a state of denial. That people in their 50s and 60s, who are running the country, most of these, running the government, running the large corporations, or stealing from them when not making steel, that these produced a pessimism in our population. The young people today, coming into adult generations, don't have any hope.

Therefore, the key thing we have to do, is have a program of orientation for the United States, which involves people of this generation, to give some hope and inspiration to them, and maybe they can kick their parents' generation in the butt, and get them to join the fray. What's required is a program of education and leadership, and I think that young people in the 18 to 25 group are the group to give the kick in the pants, to their parents' generation, to get them back functioning, and out of the dreamworld.

Question: Can you address the question of fear in the population, the question of fear? Many people identify that there is a problem, but they're afraid to confront it.

LaRouche: Look, we have a President whose most endearing quality is, he's considered the dumbest man to occupy the Presidency in our history. That's at least the general interpretation. And some people, including Republicans, are actually in a state of despair over the fact that this guy might be re-elected.

We see the insanity of our policies in Indo-China. We see the insanity of our economic policies. We see our tax-revenue base collapsing, our country bankrupt, and then we see, at the same time, a response from people like the Attorney General, Ashcroft, and from Cheney, which, you say, this is fascism. Repression. Anti-constitutional measures. Fear. And therefore, if the young people and others today, do not see the hope of an alternative to this increasing tendency toward poverty, repression, and breakdown of society, the fear is going to increase. And the fear may go to rage and anger, and who knows where it goes from there.

Question: I don't know if the question was asked already, but I was just in the halls of the House of Representatives here, and in organizing in general, a lot of people have the idea that Kerry has the nomination, and it's completely locked up, and we have to just throw all the support behind Kerry, and not try to cause any disunity within the Democratic Party. So, what would you answer to those people who say that?

LaRouche: I say, the problem is today, that most of the voters, and most of the population are living in fantasy-land. They're like people sitting in the Roman seats of the Coliseum, watching the gladiators kill each other, and they're making side bets on which gladiator is going to get killed next. And that, to them, is politics. They do not think seriously about the candidates.

You've got to a point where the presumptive candidates are going to be Bush and Kerry. Now, Kerry might be, as the presumptive candidate, he might actually be the Democratic nominee. There are indications that that's, in a sense, locked up, but it's not locked up. Because a financial crisis, or the collapse of Bush -- and that could happen; or Cheney going out of the Bush team -- that can happen. The financial crisis hitting hard, new crises like the Brazil terrorist crisis, hitting in other parts of the world, including the United States, or the Americas in general. This kind of thing is going to tell the citizen, that he's not a spectator, cheering for a gladiator in the arena. He's in the arena.

And when the American citizen realizes he is in the arena, then he's got to vote for himself, not to choose which gladiator he's going to back up, then his thinking's going to change.

The citizens today, generally the voter today, is not serious about the content of the election. They're acting like sports fans, or Hollywood fans, deciding who they like the best. It's that form. But they have not thought through, even the connection between a Presidenial candidacy, and the conditions of life which do [unclear]. That's our problem.

- 30 -