Isn't it good to have a conservative in the White House again?
Secure high-wage, high-skilled, high-status jobs for the working class, and independence from Arab oil and from the Russian gas that is currently threatened by the same forces that already control the Arab oil.
As oil is in America, so coal is both there and in Britain. And so nuclear power is in both and throughout the West.
Drill, baby, drill.
And dig, baby, dig.
Two and a half months on, I stand by that post, since I can see nothing in recent or ongoing events to invalidate one word of it as written. I would only add that America should also be looking to her domestic coal supply, just as we should be, and that it would be both economically and politically prudent to give that priority over oil for the foreseeable future.
But more than anything, I stand by it because one Howie G has posted the following comment on it:
After the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, perhaps you feel a bit weird about this post. Time to listen to LaRouche. http://realcrash.com
Yes, darlings, we have arrived. An angry comment from a supporter of Lyndon LaRouche.
However, especially following the nomination of Kesha Rogers in TX22, the 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.
The LaRouche Movement is interesting. If one can get past some of the more bizarre conspiracy theories, anti-British hysterics, and some of the other strange things about them, there is much to like about the LaRouchies. On economics, they are much closer to the New Deal tradition than most contemporary Democrats, and they don't seem to have the penchant for social liberalism seen among many progressives nowadays.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I think some of Lyndon LaRouche's pet prejudices (why does he hate the British monarchy so much?) and bizarre theories on a number of topics handicaps the movement, making it look like a 100% wacko fringe. It is rather unfortunate really, since I have read some very good articles on LaRouche's website, although the best are usually not written by Lyndon LaRouche himself, which is also rather interesting.
As I said, if the mainstream Democratic Party fails to provide a voice and a vehicle for social conservatives who are economically in the New Deal tradition, then the Rogers nomination indicates that the LaRouchies will at least purport to do so.
ReplyDeleteI agree with that assessment.
ReplyDelete