Lyndon LaRouche: Dangerous fascist or harmless crank?

Platonic philosopher-kings at work 

The LaRouche Movement is probably the strangest (and most well known) political fringe group in America. They have even been mentioned on "The Simpsons"! But what are they, what are they *really*?

Essentially, there are two alternative analyses of LaRouche and his movement. Some believe he is a crazy cult leader, or just crazy. This is probably the majority opinion. Others regard LaRouche as a quite serious agent provocateur, either a covert neo-Nazi and anti-Semite, or (in some versions) a covert Communist. The author of "Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism", Dennis King, supports the second idea: LaRouche knows what he's doing, he's a Nazi and anti-Semite, a right-wing extremist who changes his public political colours depending on who he is addressing this week. Dennis King is a long time LaRouche watcher, and has a website devoted to exposing both the LaRouchians and a strangely similar movement around one Fred Newman.

I knew about the LaRouche Movement already as a teenager. The reason is simple: we have them in Sweden as well! The Swedish branch of the LaRouchites, known as EAP, was very active about 30 years ago. They constantly slandered Olof Palme, an important and high profile Swedish politician who was prime minister 1969-76 and 1982-1986. He was assassinated in 1986. Palme was a Social Democrat, and it's interesting to note that the EAP went after him both during their "Communist" phase and their "far right wing" phase. And yes, they really did went after him! On several occasions, EAP agitators ran after Palme in the streets of Stockholm after political meetings, asked him slanderous questions at press conferences, or attempted to come as close as possible to him at May Day rallies, carrying placards with Palme depicted in full Nazi regalia. At least once, a massive fight erupted between the EAP and Social Democrats at a May Day rally. EAP's accusations against Palme were bizarre and noxious: they claimed he was descended from Nazis, that he had been a patient at a mental asylum, that he was a substance abuser, and so on. When Palme was assassinated, the police arrested a former EAP member as a suspect. He was later found to be innocent - and crazier than even the LaRouchians! My point is that although the LaRouchians were very small (they never got more than circa 300 votes in an national election), they were *very* notorious. Everyone knew about them. Strangely, the EAP have been quietly forgotten for the past twenty years or so, although they still have literature tables, pass out leaflets, stand in elections, etc.

As a teenager, me and my buddies actually discussed the EAP, and wondered what on earth they were. Most considered them right wing extremists (this was their "Star Wars" period). However, students active in the Young Conservatives believed that they were a Communist sect pretending to be right-wing. The same debate goes on in America, I believe.

Whatever the LaRouche movement may be today, they certainly used to be a kind of left wing group. LaRouche formed his organization in 1969, under the long and unwieldy name National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC). Its political opinions and practices were weird and cultish from the start, but they were generally regarded as left wing, and (as King points out), they were probably not stranger than many of the Maoist groups! King believes that LaRouche turned fascist in 1973, during "Operation Mop Up", when NCLC thugs physically attacked and seriously injured members of the Socialist Workers Party and the Communist Party. These tactics effectively isolated the NCLC from the rest of the left, making it easier for LaRouche to complete the transformation into a fully fledged fascist group. King further believes that LaRouche developed his coded anti-Semitic conspiracy theories after contacts with the neo-Nazi Liberty Lobby. This was around 1974-75. However, LaRouche and his followers still claimed to be Communists. I've read back issues of EAP's newspaper, and they supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and Jaruzelski's military coup in Poland in 1981. Bizarrely, they also supported Reagan! In 1984, LaRouche changed his political line and became an outspoken supporter of Reagan's Cold War II *against* the Soviet Union, claiming that the Orthodox Church had taken power in Moscow. Thus began his openly "right wing" phase. It's precisely this strange and contradictory message that make many people regard LaRouche as clinically insane, and his movement as harmless cranks. The more or less incomprehensible theoretical articles in LaRouchian publications add to this impression.

King believes otherwise, and argues at length that the seemingly confused message of LaRouche is perfectly intelligible, being a coded anti-Semitic conspiracy theory with Nazi affinities. He also details LaRouchian contacts with circles in the Reagan administration, Soviet officials, Klansmen and the Iraqi embassy. Since the book was written, LaRouche has flip flopped politically again: he opposed Bush Senior, supported Bill Clinton, and opposed both Gore, Bush Junior and Obama. Although Obama's foreign policy is identical to the one LaRouche ostensibly called for during the Bush years, LaRouche nevertheless denounces Obama as a "new Hitler" and a "genocidal Nazi". Agent provocateur?

Although I despise Lyndon H. LaRouche jr. (and don't doubt that he really doesn't like Jews), I nevertheless find King's analysis unconvincing. I might be wrong, of course. I haven't spent most of my life chasing Lyn! Still, the most likely explanation of the LaRouche phenomenon is nevertheless that he is an unserious cult leader, incapable and probably uninterested in *real* political influence. I base this on the following considerations. While anti-Semitism does indeed exist all across the political spectrum, it has nevertheless been mostly associated with right-wing political movements, and these have combined anti-Semitism with nationalism and White supremacism. It's hard to imagine that a multi-racial cult such as the NCLC, which recruits Blacks, Hispanics and even secularized Jews, while demanding free immigration, can really become the core of a fascist movement. King himself points out that the NCLC often refrained from taking over Democratic party branches, even when they could easily have done so, or that LaRouche blew his major TV appearance by babbling on about a mission to Mars, when right-wing populism would have suited him better. King believes that this was some kind of master move. A more sober interpretation is the opposite: LaRouche is either politically very inept, or a cynical cult leader who knows very well that his operation can only succeed in relative political isolation. The NCLC simply cannot become a mass movement, nor will LaRouche let it become one! The constant political gyrations back and forth, or the incomprehensible message, has a certain obedience cult logic, but it makes absolutely no sense politically speaking. True, fascists often combine ideas from both the left and the right, but only if it makes sense! Combining Greater Russian chauvinism with Stalinist Communism makes excellent sense in today's Russia, just as combining German nationalism with quasi-socialist appeals to the unemployed workers made sense in the Weimar republic. Claiming to support both the USSR and Reagan in 1980 makes absolutely no sense at all, not to mention LaRouche's most bizarre article (I think it was published the year before) in which he *both* supports Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, *and* denies the Holocaust. Now, what kind of political movement can possibly be built around *that*? Note also LaRouche's recent attacks on Obama, whose foreign policy he logically should support (judging by his message during the eight years of Bush's presidency).

Despite this, I nevertheless recommend "Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism". It's the only really comprehensive survey of the LaRouche movement to be published. People interested in this particular group, or political extremism at large, must start with this book.