Conyers At LaRouche PAC Event Opens New Dialogue among Dems

by Nancy Spannaus

The process of discussion and debate within the Democratic Party entered a new phase on March 23, when Michigan Democratic Congressman John Conyers participated in a town meeting sponsored by the Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC) in the city of Detroit. Rep. Conyers, who spoke on a panel with Midwest LPAC coordinator Robert Bowen, local UAW president Eugene Morey, and Nick Feden of the LaRouche Youth Movement, had a specific message to deliver. (Clickfor a streaming video file of Rep. Conyer's speech.)

"I come here tonight with an invitation," Conyers said. "An invitation to take these [your-ed.] arguments, the book, the weekly newsletter, and let's get it out into the debate ... what I would like to do with you, is to begin to debate these issues. I know that they're taken as gospel. But, unless they can stand the test of debate, they're just a great view held by a number of people, who believe one thing. But that's not going to sell it. And so, what I want to do, is, extend the discussion: What we need, is discussions about this, and where we are, and where are we going."

The approximately 90 people in attendance responded enthusiastically to Rep. Conyers proposal, and to his presence on that snowy evening in Detroit. With Conyers having broken the ice, the door is wide open for other Congressmen, and the Democratic Party as a whole, to finally begin a public debate on the urgent measures put forward by Lyndon LaRouche to save the world economy, and the nation.

The Product of a Process

The Detroit LPAC meeting was the result of a process which took off after the Boston Democratic Party Convention last July. During those few days, LaRouche's Youth Movement used bel canto singing, and the distribution of 50,000 copies of LaRouche's Draft Democratic Party Platform, to make a dramatic intervention into a virtually moribund affair. The result was a shift in the relationship of LaRouche, who at the end of the Convention endorsed Kerry for President, to the Democratic Party, with the result of increasing collaboration over the course of the fall election campaign. A crucial component of this collaboration was the deployment of the growing LaRouche Youth Movement in crucial areas, including the battleground state of Ohio.

Unfortunately for the outcome of the election, and for the nation, that collaboration came too late to ensure a Kerry victory in November. After Bush's announced election, it was again necessary for LaRouche to take the decisive steps which pulled the deeply demoralized Democrats up off the floor, and give them a perspective for going on an offensive that would make President Bush a lame duck, particularly on the Bush proposal to destroy FDR's signature program, Social Security.

As the Bush Administration has learned, to its dismay, LaRouche's leadership has borne fruit. From the Jan. 6 Joint Session of Congress onward, the Democratic Party has demonstrated a virtually unprecedented determination to fight Bush's fascist policies and illegalities. Nowhere has this been more evident that on the "issue" of Social Security privatization, where the Democratic Party leadership has not only held the line against compromise, but which has provided the impetus for a Democratic mobilization of town meetings and constituents which has not occurred in decades.

Up to this point, the Democratic Party resolve, energized, informed, and aided by the deployment of the LaRouche Youth Movement, has virtually killed the Bush proposal for Social Security privatization. But that accomplishment merely sets the stage for the next step: the Party's adoption of an FDR-style program of emergency economic recovery to deal with the economic-financial breakdown crisis that led the Administration to seek to steal the Social Security funds in the first place.

The Debate Begins

The Detroit LPAC meeting featured the beginnings of the necessary debate, among an audience of community activists, local political leaders, unionists, and others.

After an opening Classical musical presentation by a LaRouche Youth Movement chorus, Robert Bowen keynoted the event with a short briefing on the LaRouche movement's perspective of restoring the principles represented by FDR, in order to meet the current breakdown crisis of the financial system, and the physical economy, including, prominently, that of General Motors.

Gene Morey, president of UAW Local 849 in Ypsilanti, who represents employees of Visteon Corp, then spoke about his experience as a labor leader and what he is facing. He particularly emphasized the way in which the collapse of infrastructure investments has strangled the economy.

Nick Feden of the LaRouche Youth Movement then addressed the question of Classical tragedy, specifically the way the corruption of the Baby Boomer generation has created no future for his generation. The LaRouche Youth Movement is dedicated to taking on this problem, Feden said, by taking on popularly accepted public opinion, and changing the way people think.

Rep. Conyers, who had chosen to speak last on the panel, then took the floor, and made the remarks which we include, in toto below.

At the conclusion of Rep. Conyers' statement, there was a spirited discussion, both on the matter of bringing LaRouche's ideas into the Democratic Party, and on issues of health care, the energy price inflation, and so forth.

In his concluding report, LPAC coordinator Bowen publicly accepted the invitation which Rep. Conyers had issued, for an expansion of the debate on LaRouche's ideas inside the Democratic Party, any time, anywhere.

The Battle Ahead

That the debate needs to be taken up immediately, rather than having the Democratic Party rest on its laurels for stymying Bush's drive for "private accounts," is not hard to see. The Republicans may be in disarray, but the dramatic escalation of the bankruptcy crisis for the U.S. economy is well underway. The Democratic Party is a sitting duck for the bankers' campaign for austerity and budget cuts, if the FDR approach to creating jobs and building infrastructure, is not taken up extremely rapidly.

The contrast between LaRouche's approach and that of the current Democratic Party leadership is shown in their response to the latest report by the Social Security Trustees. The report projects that the Trust Fund will allegedly be exhausted by 2041, one year earlier than previous projections.

"Today's report confirms that the so-called Social Security crisis exists in only one place: the minds of the Republicans," responded Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate. "This year's report from the Social Security Trustees, confirms that Social Security continues to be strong and remains on solid ground for decades to come." Reid then went on to note, correctly, that Bush's private accounts plan worsens Social Security's financial problems, and that Bush's tax cuts cost nearly three times as much as the Social Security shortfall.

LaRouche PAC's response, however, went to the heart of the matter: the incompetence of Bush's economic policy overall. For what the report actually shows is that Bush's loss of jobs, and reduction in wages from 2001 on, have led to a serious reduction in the growth of revenue into the Social Security Trust Fund. Whereas any previous three-year period from 1984 forward showed a growth of some 18-20% in revenue, between 2001 and 2004, payroll tax revenue grew by only 9%—half as much! For the year 2002 to 2003, Cheney/Bush even achieved a completely unprecedented zero growth in payroll tax income.

Obviously, the question before the nation's leaders is not Social Security, but how to reverse course and begin to have a growing economy, with decent wages, once again. That is the subject of LaRouche PAC's campaign on economic policy. Holding the line on budget cuts is one thing, but the crucial question is putting into place an FDR-style job and credit creation program, such as LaRouche's "Super-TVA."

We Can Turn This Economic Crisis Around

Here is the address of U.S. Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) to the LaRouchePAC Town Hall Meeting in Detroit, on March 23, 2005. You can download a video file (852 megabytes) of Rep. Conyers' address at:.
There is also a video file (164 megabytes) of part of the question and answer session at: .

Thank you very much. Good evening. Thanks Dennis; to our speakers, Bob Bowen, Eugene Morey, the president of UAW local 849, and Nick Feden: I want to express my appreciation for being invited here to be on this panel.

I come to you as—I come out of a working family, and I am also a Democrat. We are in a two-party system. And so, what I want to share with you tonight, at my first invitation to speak before you, is the fact that a brilliant economic theory, unconnected to the political system is not going to go anywhere. I'm surprised that you're even growing your numbers—and I think that you are. But the fact of the matter is, is that my view of American politics, is that, people do not move on political theories. I would daresay that maybe—well, there are only a few people that have any idea that there is a Bretton Woods, there was a Bretton Woods monetary system, much less , why it was superior.

And so, I come here tonight with an invitation: An invitation to take these arguments, the book, the weekly newsletter, and let's get it out into the debate. Because—the reason I say that, is that, if you have to adopt this view to get in the organization, that's all you're going to have—is people that have adopted this view. The truth of the matter is, that many people have not adopted this view, and don't even know about it. And are likely not ever to become aware of the pros and cons, unless we do a lot of work. And this is what I've been doing for a number of years.

We got up to 60% of the voter turnout in Michigan—and we celebrated! We hadn't seen 60% in so long, we were afraid we were going to be below 50%. And that gives you a very strong signal as to how disconnected most people are from all political theory, and all political parties.

And so, what I would like to do with you, is to begin to debate these issues. I know that they're taken as gospel. But, unless they can stand the test of debate, they're just a great view held by a number of people, who believe one thing. But that's not going to sell it. And so, what I want to do, is, extend the discussion: What we need, is discussions about this, and where we are, and where are we going.

And so, since I have a few minutes, I want to give you my idea of where I think we as working people ought to be going; where we ought to be going in Michigan, and in the United States, and in the world for that matter.

I do think that there is a global economic and political challenge. But, I do not think that it's new. We've been exploited and used, and the class warfare in America has always gone on. I mean, it took the New Deal to legalize unions; collective bargaining was not even likely, before that time. And right now, there's an attack on collective bargaining, out of this world, that's going on, in every way—chipping away at the right of people not to have to negotiate one person with a corporation, as opposed to having a collective bargaining system.

And so, I think there are a number of things like this. Our education system, the "Leave No Child Behind" President: Out of the more than 150 budget cuts proposed in the FY06 budget, most of them came out of the education. Most of them are education cuts, which now have many of our cities, if not most of them, in terrible situations. And what we need to do, is to begin to learn how these things can be changed. But, before that, we want to try to agree on what we want, before we try to change them.

Open Up the Political Process

I've just heard a comment—to me it is very important, that we begin to bring people into the political process, because ideas—particularly economic and political ideas—are not going to work without a party. Now, I happen to believe that these last two elections were very crucial: Here we have the same person [who] wins two elections, each time, by one state. In 2000, it was several hundred votes that turned it (with a little help from the United States Supreme Court). In 2004, it was another one state, with 20 Electoral votes: that if 60,000 people had voted differently, the outcome would be different.

And so, I join with those who say, "Let's realize that this wasn't a mandate." These two elections were extremely close, even after all the electoral misdeeds—we had two secretaries of state [Florida and Ohio] that will go down in American history. What we need to do, is realize that, with a little bit more effort, we can turn this thing around.

And so, my major goal is to deal with getting people to understand that if you believe in yourself, you believe in your right to vote. And that you believe your vote can make a difference. Because, clearly, these last two Presidential elections prove that your vote can and would make a difference.

Now, it makes a big difference as to who's the President of the United States. It wouldn't have changed the economic situation that was described. But we'd have a far great opportunity to be effecting the change that we argue about, if we didn't have the most conservative President and group in the 20th Century now in power. It makes a big difference.

And so, I'm anxious to work with you on these and other issues.

Now, obviously Social Security, and privatization thereof, is an easy one, that we can knock out of the ballpark, and are. When the regular media is telling everybody that the President's trips around the country—and Cheney'll be in Michigan tomorrow—they're not going to make any difference. Conservative Congressmen are hiding: The last thing they would do, is hold a town hall meeting on the privatization of the Social Security. The seniors know better. The young people know better. They know that stocks in America don't just keep going up. They have some very sharp dips, that you can't predict—not even the money managers can predict. And when those things dip—as they cyclically do—lots of people lose billions of dollars.

And so, it's hard to think that you can make more money out of Social Security. The whole idea of Social Security, was to give you security. And what they're saying, is: Let's take the 'security' out of the Social Security, and gamble that you've got more sense, or your money manager (who by the way will be charging you for that service), knows more than the U.S. government buying U.S. Treasury notes, at a very fixed rate, but a very steady rate.

And so, I think there's more to it, than where we are.

We Need Universal Health Care

Another issue that is very dear to my heart, is health care. We need a national, universal health-care system, that includes everybody! It is absolutely amazing, that, to me, this is not the biggest and easiest organizing tool that we have, legislatively, at our disposal. Because everybody, almost, is being negatively affected, unless you're at the upper 1 or 2%, which just got a $1.3 trillion tax cut.

Plus, adding on the cost of the Iraq war, which is ongoing, and the defense budget, which is at an all-time high, we begin to understand that the Reagan strategy is now being used by President Bush.

What is it? That strategy is to cut the budget by investing in war, and by investing in tax cuts for the wealthy. And then, we come up short, and guess what gets cut? The over 150 programs that they're cutting now; [they] tell us that the war requires it, but we can also afford the tax cut as well, and of course, we can't.

So, I think health care—and I've introduced H.R. 676; I invite you to my website to look at it, I'd like to hold meetings and discussions, so we can determine how we deal with this: More and more people are now coming to the conclusion, and I'm thankful for many people, in at least a dozen labor unions, who have now come out for it, including the UAW, SEIU, and many other organizations, that realize that there are no more givebacks for them to make at bargaining sessions. Because, as the president of UAW said, "My people aren't going to give up any more." He said, "I don't know who's going to be negotiating the next time this contract comes up." And we're at a real crisis in creating a national health-care [system].

I use this term "crisis" advisedly, because, too often it's used politically to mean that you have to do something that the person that called it a crisis is telling you have to do, because things are going to go real bad.

Revive the Peace Movement

I think that there ought to be a movement in which we revive the peace organizations, peace activists, and the people against war, to end the war that is going on here, that has gone on way too long. And I'm going to be going to New York for the first big national rally—I think it's May 18. And we'd like to invite as many people as can, to join us, and that we begin holding our Federal leaders accountable for their actions connected with the war. This is a war, conveniently not against a country or countries—although they're already looking at other countries that are being publicly talked about as invasion targets—but this is a "war against terrorism."

My brothers and sisters, there has always been terrorism, historically. I mean, to "war against terrorism," means that you're in a wartime situation for which there's no end in sight! We'll never come out of it. And so, now that we've found out how this administration got people in the Congress to go for the war, we now realize that there's no way we're going to stay there for "a little while longer and get out"; it's going to take some very radical thinking about how we close this thing down, without causing even more death and destruction in the Middle East than we have.

Now, let me talk about one little part of our foreign policy, that's the little, tiny impoverished country of Haiti: the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, which I started going to, oh, ten or twelve years ago, and had great hopes for. And we now find that we have helped chase out the government, Aristide. We've brought the rebels back, and given them legitimacy. We're now even trying to hold an election, where the country's in total turmoil. And it seems to me that this is something close enough, and small enough, for us to really begin to focus in on, in a very important way.

Civil Rights

I want to close with the mention of Martin Luther King, which I was happy that was done here. Amelia Robinson [whose message to the meeting was read earlier], I think is the same lady in Selma that was Amelia Boynton, whom I have known for many years. I'm glad to find out that that's true. And I've gone to these marches every year over the Edmund Pettus Bridge, where Governor Wallace ordered his troops to attack and kill those workers that dared march—to register and vote! That was all that the march was about. And Congressman John Lewis has kept this annual celebration alive, and we all are very proud of that.

But, to me, we need to breathe life, not only into our young people, who are the least voting-age segment of our population. But we've got to make people understand, that, notwithstanding Ashcroft and his successor, [and] a conservative United States Supreme Court, that we can win our country back. And the way to win it back, is to begin to open up our dialogue as to what I want, and how I would get there; what you want, how you'd get there; what the labor movement wants, and how they would get there. Because, in a political system that we're in, dogmatism will not carry the day. The fact that you think you're right, know you're right—that's okay, you just—. I mean, inside the Democratic Party, there's a wide consensus—sometimes too wide for me—but there are a lot of conservatives and moderates in the party. And we've got to win them over, without chasing them out. We've got to get the 40% of the people in Detroit and Michigan that didn't vote , to vote. I think they would vote with us, if they could believe in the system. We've got to get candidates in office, that mean what they say, and will do something to make people want to continue to vote. If you really don't believe it's going to change anything, people say, "Why vote?"

And so, we have this—what I call a—not just a big "race problem," because is still a factor here. And I was so glad to hear those newly revised Spirituals coming from the singing group which sounded professional. Really, you ought to do a CD on that. Because it was really that good—don't you think they were really good? I mean you don't hear that kind of singing anywhere , even in the churches, because that was really very wonderful.

But, closing on this one question, I leave you with, because I'm always anxious to get views: Why is it, that in elections, there are so many people that unwittingly vote against their own best interests? This has fascinated me, because it's more than a political question. It's a sociological question, and a psychological question: How you can walk in there, here's a person that tells you he supports the wealthy, the corporations; he goes for outsourcing; he wants to turn back the clock on civil rights laws; he won't grant D.C. [the District of Columbia] the right to elect Congressmen; he supports tax cuts for the wealthiest; he slashes the budget—and then, a lot of people who are the direct victims of that philosophy, walk out and vote for George Bush! I mean, it's the most incredible thing, I have ever—. And I keep studying it. Because, I believe there must be an answer to this. And by the way, if I can't find an answer to it, or you can't help me, we're going to be in big trouble, because Bretton Woods isn't going to mean anything under those circumstances.

Thank you for inviting me today. I look forward to the discussion.