PGHIMC - Pittsburgh Independent Media Center

Ralph Nader and Michael Peroutka Terrorize the U. S. Establishment
by Mark Dankof Tuesday, Feb. 24, 2004 at 3:06 PM
kramfoknad@hotmail.com 302-981-3797 PA/USA

Ralph Nader and Baltimore's Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party announced their candidacies of Presidential insurgency on the same weekend in February--much to the chagrin and terror of the two-party, corporate political establishment in America.

For immediate publication and distribution with attribution

Nader and Peroutka: Throwing a Left-Right Counterpunch at the Establishment’s Jaw in 2004
by Mark Dankof
Mark Dankof’s America at http://www.MarkDankof.com

Michael Anthony Peroutka of Baltimore will use a Presidential candidacy on the Constitution Party line to make an indelible imprint of his own on the 2004 Sweepstakes for the American Presidency–and along with consumer advocate Ralph Nader, may play a kingmaker’s role in determining the eventual winner on the first Tuesday in November. On February 21st, the day of his official declaration of intent to seek the Presidency of the United States, he spent two hours with Lutheran pastor and free-lance journalist Mark Dankof to discuss the vision and roadmap ahead.
----------------------------------------------------------


Two hours before the official declaration of his Presidential candidacy outside of Baltimore this past Saturday, Michael Peroutka greeted me at his law offices in Glen Burnie, Maryland. At age 50, with an established law practice, a wife and three children, and full-time activity as an instructor and lecturer for the Institute on the Constitution, one wonders where the time and energy to run as a 3rd Party candidate for the Presidency of the United States will come from. But Peroutka, armed with a Loyola College and University of Baltimore Law School education, an expansive intellect, seemingly limitless energy, and a charmingly disarming personality, would appear equal to the daunting task ahead.

His professional law office is a most interesting combination of literary and artistic classics and an atmosphere of the casually affable. Shelves of books dedicated to law, Christian theology, and American history line the perimeter of the room; the academic degrees on the wall are complemented by portraits of icons of the American historical past like Patrick Henry. An incased Civil War-commemorative Bowie knife with symbols of the mid 19th-century Confederate States of America on the blade and handle suggests other kaleidoscopic dimensions and themes in the Peroutka past and present. Close friends and family members come in and out of the candidate’s war-room at will. Brother Steve’s jovial, heavy-set appearance manifests itself in the office during one point in the interview. He indicates to his brother that before the latter’s declaration for the Presidency in a few short hours, the former has committed to attending a high-school basketball game. Several campaign aides who look wholesome, naive, and barely old enough to shave, stop in to greet their boss by his first name. Wife Diane telephones to ask her husband routine questions about food, dress, and the afternoon’s impending activities. Later, she and the Candidate offer me the opportunity to follow them personally in their white Chevy Astro van to the announcement gala and speech at Michael’s 8th Avenue restaurant in Glen Burnie. It proves to be a two-vehicle motorcade.

Peroutka’s answers to the interviewer’s questions seem as direct and forthcoming as his persona and the ambience of his law office. The first question is a softball, designed to give the outside world a sense of his mission, his ideology, and the window to his soul. For Michael Anthony Peroutka, one senses that the first two are inextricably linked to the third.

Why a heretofore nationally unknown Baltimore lawyer as a viable alternative to George Bush and the Democrats in the first Tuesday of November? The Candidate’s demeanor remains affable as he answers, but the steely character of his eye contact with the interviewer suggests the fire that burns within.

"My candidacy, and the existence of the Constitution Party itself, have to be seen in the context of a country–and a Republican Bush Administration–careening out of control. We’re in the middle of a Constitutionally undeclared, preemptive war in Iraq with no viable occupation policy and no end in sight; a 2.3 trillion dollar federal budget with a 500 billion dollar+ deficit; a non-existent immigration policy comprised of open borders and a Presidentially declared amnesty for another 12 million illegal aliens; our New World Order NAFTA, GATT, and WTO treaties are exporting American manufacturing, service, and tech jobs abroad while allowing for the importation of cheap Third World labor at home; the USA Patriot Act threatens the civil liberties and Constitutional protections of every citizen in this country; Bush’s budget and trade deficits [330 billion with China alone over 3 years] will have a long-term disastrous effect on the value of the American dollar; and we are stuck with activist Federal and State judiciaries trying to usurp legislatures by un-Constitutionally imposing a radical, perverted social and economic agenda on the entire country. Our elected officials are not looking out for the interests of the average American or the country as a whole. This is where it is. Time is running out. But I must emphasize–most emphatically for your readers–that all of these terrible policies stem from a root cause–a complete ignorance and disregard for the Constitution of the United States and the underlying philosophy that characterized the Founders."

I became fully aware of how tactfully and skillfully the benevolently shrewd interviewee had maneuvered an experienced interviewer into asking the obviously begged question. Sensing that it would provide the Rosetta Stone of interpretation and understanding of the psyche of the Candidate–and his subsequent exegesis and analysis of every derivative policy position--I acquiesced with, “What are the cohesive philosophical principles in your understanding of the American Constitution, and how do they differ from the policy makers you believe have betrayed the American people?”

Michael Peroutka looked thoughtful as he stood up from his chair and made a purposeful beeline for the office coffee-maker. Pouring pure black octane into his cup, and that of his office interrogator, one sensed the interlude in conversation was a purposeful silence leading to the point he wished to softly brand into the center of the debate which will surround his fledgling candidacy and its public examination between now and the first Tuesday in November. Carefully replacing the pot on the burner and returning to his seat, he reacquired the eyesight line of his counterpart sitting across the expansive wooden desk. Simultaneously, he keenly reacquired the exact point of the conversation, resuming it as effortlessly as he did earlier after the departure of his brother, continuing with the segment of the hour’s conversation key to understanding him and his Constitution Party brethren:

"America needs a President who actually applies the Constitution and the underlying principles of the Founders to daily governance. First and foremost, any fair understanding of the Constitution presupposes the acknowledgment of the existence of a Creator God. It must be foundationally emphasized that all fundamental Constitutional rights of individuals stem from God and not the State. Government exists to secure these God-given rights for each person. Our rights are Constitutionally inalienable only insofar as our acknowledgment of their Divine origin and conveyance. The notion that the State is the source of our rights is incompatible with the notion of the Founders regarding their inalienable, Divinely-imparted character. If the State is the source of our rights, it logically follows that the State can always revoke what it has granted. The Federal Government and its allies in the drive toward a New World Order infrastructure of World Government, are not in the business of securing the Divinely-imparted, inalienable rights ensconced in the American Constitutional tradition–they are specifically in the enterprise of controlling and suppressing what used to be a free people. The specific purpose of Constitutional government can never be the redistribution of wealth [socialism] or any other version of radical social engineering. And the presupposition of the existence of a Creator God as understood by the Founders preempts the neo-pagan view of Culture and State so pervasive today. Properly understood, it is clear that the prevailing view of the Founders which underscored the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, was that God’s revealed law, along with a proper understanding of natural law, were given absolute priority--to insure that municipal law was in harmony with the first two. This philosophical foundation would eliminate the acceptability in our government and culture of two of the biggest moral blights and cancers of our time–abortion-on-demand and the gay rights movement. Constitutionally speaking, there is no Federal or State court in the land, including the State Supreme Court of Massachusetts, that can make moral or legal what the revealed and natural law of God have made immoral and illegal. This is the bottom line, without equivocation or apology. And [emphasis] I’m not talking about a theocracy. Recognition of the doctrine of the existence of the Creator God and His role in the bequeathing of inalienable rights to the people has no inherent connection to the notion of theocracy as some charge. Freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and the avoidance of a Congressionally declared State Religion of America are all a part of the package of what I believe, and what the American Constitution teaches, foundationally. The charge that either I or the Constitution Party stand on the premises of governmentally induced notions of theocracy is absolutely false–a complete canard."

What would Peroutka do to rein in a runaway, activist Federal judiciary?

"It’s really simple, you see. I endorse the Constitution Restoration Act (CRA) recently introduced in Congress in the aftermath of the Judge Roy Moore controversy in Alabama. It basically states that; 1) the future jurisdiction of Federal courts in cases like the Supreme Court’s ordering of the removal of the 10 Commandments Monument in Montgomery would be restricted, per Article III of the United States Constitution; 2) United States Supreme Court judges will confine their rulings to what conforms to the United States Constitution, without reference to foreign constitutions or legal precedence established in foreign countries; and 3) Federal judges who consciously and continually ignore their oath of office to uphold the United States Constitution will be summarily impeached. Period."

The proliferation of books in the Candidate’s office–and their weighty subjects–suggests a predisposition for personal and professional reading which clearly outstrips that of the incumbent 43d President of the United States. Any recent reading which has informed and enlightened the political and theological world view of the Constitution Party’s new standard-bearer? Michael Anthony Peroutka looks thoughtful before answering.

"I read a lot of material, but Thomas Di Lorenzo’s The Real Lincoln comes to mind. He makes a convincing case for the fact that slavery, however immoral, should have come to an end in the United States as it did in the rest of the Western, industrialized world–without a war. That Lincoln destroyed Jeffersonianism in favor of an all-powerful Central Government is self evident. He set the stage for the oppressive Federal Leviathan we know today, and the presently sick state of an American Empire which has destroyed the Old Constitutional Republic. The statism and globalist orientation of Woodrow Wilson and FDR–to name two–was presupposed by what Lincoln did in the War Between the States. Di Lorenzo and Charles Adams, the author of In the Course of Human Events, both recognized and affirmed the truism that Constitutional America lost the War Between the States. Pastor Steve Wilkens of Auburn Presbyterian Church in Monroe, Louisiana, states it succinctly when he says that Lincoln didn’t end slavery, he simply expanded the scope of the plantation–that we are all now slaves of the Central State and the globalist New World Order in partnership with it. As Di Lorenzo puts it, Lincoln was the Great Centralizer and Consolidator of Federal power. Now we see the wholesale transfer of Federally usurped powers to the United Nations, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, the Import-Export Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, NATO, and the like. We have become the classic expression of the Welfare-Warfare State. I would withdraw us from the entire mess. And I think Di Lorenzo and Adams would agree with me that Article I, Section 8 and the 10th Amendment explicitly spell out what the Federal Government of the United States is authorized to do. And outside of that, every single thing it involves itself in is specifically un-Constitutional. If we understood that, these budgetary and deficit-spending quandaries would resolve themselves. And getting the Central State out of areas that are the prerogative of the individual, the family, the Church, the Synagogue, and other voluntary associations, is the prescription for returning sanity to American government and the people whose God-given rights it should be securing."

How does an American conservative oppose George Bush’s war on Iraq? Peroutka settles comfortably back in his chair with a cup of coffee before continuing the conversational tone and atmosphere of his exposition.

"Opposing this thing is a no-brainer. When anybody asks me about this war, aside from the clearly un-Constitutional way in which the Chief Executive started this thing–and with faulty intelligence and Congressional acquiescence–I simply tell them to check out the web site of the Project for the New American Century. One can clearly see in the documents posted there that the invasion of Iraq was part of a pre-911 agenda that is constantly obfuscated by the stated–and constantly shifting reasons--offered by Bush for the war’s prosecution. Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld–that entire crowd–are signatories to these policy affirmations from years ago. One day it’s ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’; the next day it’s ‘the freedom of the Iraqi people’; the day after that it’s ‘nation-building’ and ‘democracy in the Middle East’; and the day after that it’s ‘Israel and pipelines.’ The bottom line is that none of it meets the criteria for war laid down in Article 1, Section 8 of the American Constitution. The immortal words of John Adams come to mind here–‘We are the friends of liberty everywhere; the guardians of our own liberty.’ Washington’s Farewell Address foreign policy is similarly instructive–‘Friendship with all; entangling alliances with none.’ Simply put, it is clear that Mr. Bush’s preemptive, offensive war with Iraq is a war in search of a rationale. And the possible expansion of this madness will cost more American lives, money, and international goodwill than we can afford to spend."

The wall-clock warns us that we have only five minutes to go before departure to one of the most significant events in the half-century life of Michael Anthony Peroutka. Searching for a quick concluding query, I finally ask, “What are the bright lights for you as you look at this country? Anything to be optimistic about?”

The Candidate pauses, then smiles.

"My faith and family, of course. And when it comes to America, I guess I’d have to say that the homeschooling movement is a particular source of hope for me where this great country is concerned. The writings of John Dewey, Horace Mann, and Robert Dale Owen remind us that the Government School Movement of the mid-1850s was a breeding ground for the secularism, humanism, atheism, and statism that State-owned institutions inculcate kids in today. The homeschooling movement understands that the primary purpose of education is to train up a child in faith and respect for God as the foundation of all subsequent learning. The home and the family are the proper and only jurisdiction for this–not the State and George W. Bush’s Federal Department of Education."

The conclusion of the interview is followed by Peroutka’s two-hour public event designed to formally announce his candidacy. I am incredulous at the large size of the gathered crowd at Michael’s 8th Avenue ballroom. There is a small chamber orchestra comprised of a woman on electric keyboard, a man well-versed in wind instruments, another woman with brass, and a fine vocalist who would later begin the official portion of the program by a stirring, operatic version of The Star Spangled Banner. Prior to the beginning of the stage-podium portion of the event, individual diners were treated to a hauntingly beautiful series of melodies, ranging from a poignant tribute to the Old South excerpted from the movie Gods and Generals, traditional Christian hymns, and several extractions from Bach’s Brandenberg Concertos.

During the meal, I am seated next to a young man and wife in their 20s, obviously new to political gatherings and the rubber-chicken circuit. They voted for Bush in 2000, their first year of voting eligibility. Distressed at their own economic plight and the Iraqi War, it had crossed their minds to “. . . vote for Nader. But then friends of ours told us about this man, Peroutka. We decided to drive down here from West Virginia to find out for ourselves.” Their story is repeated throughout the day by large minions outside Maryland, from every section of the United States. The Candidate’s speech of formal declaration of Presidential candidacy does not disappoint either the faithful or the curious who have gathered–including a handful of print and electronic media reporters carrying note pads and portable TV cameras and lights. This is my first exposure to Michael Peroutka as a stump speaker in front of crowds and cameras. He does not disappoint. His poise and speaking ability betray years of toil as an attorney, lecturer, and political activist on the Right. The crowd is with him and he knows it.

After the speech, Peroutka, like all political candidates and aspirants to the highest office in the land, must answer the media while pressing the flesh of the gathered. The same aura and presence I encountered in the privacy of his law office endures here as well. I cannot decide whether his obvious passion for--and commitment to--his ideas is more admirable than the presence of a quiet compassion for people and spiritual faith which seems to be sensed in the hearts and minds of the well-wishers and searchers found every four years in halls and hotel ballrooms all over America when another Presidential election cycle commences. The Peroutka brand of charisma is not the enchanting power of a John Kennedy, but a unique combination of cerebral gifts and quiet, contemplative spirituality which serves to calm and reassure the troubled and the fearful. After answering every press-media question posed, including some from a representative of PBS, the Candidate spends the remainder of his time listening to the concerns and travails of people unknown prior to the afternoon’s event. This is followed by individual encounters with old friends and former students from his Institute on the Constitution. I suspect his parents, wife, and children feel the scene and scenario are surreal. Youngsters with Peroutka for President barrels are wading through the crowd looking for initial financial donations. Everything from literal nickels and dimes, $5 and $10 dollar bills, and Federal Election Commission-approved envelopes containing checks and pledges go into the containers from an amazingly diverse group of donors. One suspects that the evangelical doctrine of tithing may be assisting Michael Anthony Peroutka and his vision in this appointed hour.

My final memory of the day is the setting of the sun in the west, accompanied by a beautiful hue of reds, purples, and blues in what remains of an earlier aqua blue dome with billowy white clouds interspersed throughout its wide confines. As dusk approaches, the Candidate encounters one more young questioner before calling Campaign 2004's first day to a halt-- a young boy. “Mr. Peroutka!,” the blond-haired, starry-blue eyed junior-high schooler calls out. “My parents love you. They want to vote for you, but they say you haven’t got a chance. Tell them they’re wrong.”

The blond-haired Christian scholar and attorney’s eyes become slightly misted, even as his smile betrays good humor, a fatherly instinct for the young, and a keen sense of the historically ironic. “I don’t believe in chance, young man. I believe in a purposeful Lord who sent His Son and orders every phase and event in our lives. And George Washington told us to raise up the standard–leaving the outcome in the hands of a good and great Creator God.”

Peroutka for President
Suite 303
8028 Ritchie Highway
Pasadena, MD 21122
http://www.Peroutka2004.com
http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

www.Peroutka2004.com

add your comments

Democraps Should Step Down In 2004
by Don Fitz Monday, Mar. 01, 2004 at 10:41 AM

Discussions of the 2004 presidential race often leave out the very important question of whether it is in the best interest of progressive movements for the Democratic Party to run someone for president. I believe that the Democratic Party should stand down in 2004. Here are 10 reasons why.

Reason No. 1. The Democratic Party was responsible for the election of George W. Bush in the 2000 election.

In the 2000 elections, the Green Party brought at least a million voters to the polls who would have selected the Democratic Party candidate as their second choice if they had been able to. For years, Greens have been advocating "Instant Runoff Voting," (IRV) which lets voters rank order candidates and, if their first choice is not among the top contenders, transfers their vote to another choice. Since the Democratic Party knew that IRV is used around the world and that Green votes could be the difference in a close race, they knew that IRV could be the difference between winning and losing the 2000 election. [1]

But the Democratic Party power brokers also knew that if voters had access to IRV, tens of millions would have shown their disgust with Gore by ranking him below Nader. Thus, they decided they would rather risk losing the election than see this happen.

Democratic Party bosses concluded they had far more in common with George W. Bush than with Ralph Nader. They intentionally kept Nader out of the presidential debates, despite more voter apathy and a lower turnout. They refused to aggressively challenge the illegal disenfranchisement of African-American voters in Florida or even to demand that every vote be counted. They consciously put George W. Bush in the White House as their "lesser evil."

Reason No. 2. The Democratic Party opposes Bush but does not oppose Bush's political program.

During the US slaughter in Vietnam, many commented that World War II defeated Hitler but fascism won. The 2004 Democratic strategy is the same . The Democrats want to replace Bush, the personality. But they do not care if someone else continues Bush's policies.

Their mantra "Anyone but Bush" blurs and confuses these two concepts. The average person thinks, "Stop the horrible things Bush is doing; anyone who replaces him will act differently." But smoke-filled Democratic Party plotting sessions will select a candidate who can capitalize on anti-Bush sentiment and what he would do in office would be irrelevant. In fact, "Anyone but Bush" ignores that the Democratic Party is responsible for each and every one of the atrocities associated with the one they demonize.

If the Democrats are against the Bush program, why do they wait until the election to fight it? Why don't they mobilize, as a party, [not as individual people, but as a political party] to demonstrate, strike, etc. to stop the Bush program now? Why would they tell us "Wait until the 2004 elections" to stop the Bush program?

Democratic candidates pretend to be less pro-war, more pro-labor, and more pro-human rights; then they move to the right to get the nomination, and further to the right to win the election. The Democrats only nominate a 2004 presidential candidate to lull voters into believing they are an alternative. Voters need an honest choice in 2004, therefore the Democratic Party should stay out of the presidential race.

Reason No. 3. The Democratic Party made Richard Nixon the most progressive president in the last 30 years.

The following occurred during the Nixon reign:

a. an end to the Vietnam War;

b. beginning of the Food Stamp program;

c. creation of the Environmental Protection Agency;

d. recognition of China;

e. passage of the Freedom of Information Act;

f. formal dismantling of the FBI's COINTEL program;

g. decriminalization of abortion;

h. creation of Earned Income Tax Credits;

i. formal ban on biological weapons; and,

j. passage of the Clean Water Act.

These did not happen because Nixon and Kissinger tiptoed through the tulips concluding that warm fuzzy feelings beat genocide in Southeast Asia. They happened because corporate heads and agents in government were terrified of the convergence of anti-war, Black power, women's and environmental movements and their potential impact on the labor movement. The Nixon years prove beyond a doubt that mass movements can force good things from horrible people in power.

The Democratic Party presidencies after Nixon prove that people in power without mass movements have no value no matter which party selects them.

No presidency since Nixon reaped so many progressive results. This is because the Democratic Party defuses mass movements and channels them into dead-end politics.

Reason No. 4. The Democratic Party is responsible for the non-stop attack on labor.

Lyndon Johnson was a Democratic President with a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. For years the Democratic Party whined that this was what they needed to repeal the odious anti-labor provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act. Yet they did nothing when they had the chance.

Throughout labor history, struggles were led by rank and file activists supporting "social unionism," which is unions' taking a major role fighting racism, sexism, war and environmental destruction. Workplace victories have often been co-opted by thugs advocating "business unionism," the attitude that unions must be blind to society and restrict labor issues to wages, working conditions, pensions and health plans.

For over a century, the Democratic Party cultivated the business unionists, helped them destroy rank and file movements, and worked to extinguish any vision of social unionism in the minds of labor organizers. Backward union bureaucrats collaborate with the Democratic Party to create fake corporate "unions" in the third world which imprison, torture and kill social unionist rivals.

A symbiotic relationship exists between the Democratic and Republican parties. When elected, Democrats strengthen the labor bureaucracy, undermining the will of the rank and file to organize and resist. When Republicans are in power, they reap the benefits of the Democrats' work by attacking and crushing the weakened unions. Then business unionists tell their members Republicans are responsible, therefore they must vote Democratic. The cycle repeats and union activism and membership decline.

Reason No. 5. The Democratic Party is responsible for cutbacks in social services at the federal, state and local levels.

Cutbacks began during the final years of the Carter presidency, not during the first year of Reagan, as is often claimed. The Democratic Party, over decades, designed, voted for and implemented cutbacks that destroyed jobs, pensions, medical coverage, public transportation and schools.

St. Louis has a Democratic Party school board a Democratic mayor and a Board of Alderman with 27 Democrats out of 28 members. This Democratic Party machine closed 16 schools (14 in predominantly Black portions of the City), fired custodians, secretaries, and half of all teachers aides, eliminated bus routes, packed up to 50 students in a classroom, attempted to raid the teachers' pension fund, and paid over $6 million to management firms from outside the City to carry out the attack.

Many people with the best intentions work with the Democratic Party and some get elected to local and state offices. The Democratic Party sucks these organizers into accepting that "there are not as many funds as there used to be" and deciding which social services will be eliminated. The Democratic Party does not lead communities in linking up with others to demand an end to the destruction of essential services. It persuades local leaders to look out for their own neighborhood, and ignore other communities and the plight of the rest of the world by supporting candidates of war and plunder.

Reason No. 6. The Democratic Party is responsible for attacks on civil liberties such as the PATRIOT Act.

The Democrats wrote it. They voted for it. The PATRIOT Act was a bipartisan attack on civil liberties fully supported by the Democratic Party. It was a continuation of legislation from the Clinton years, and its history goes much further back.

The Democratic Party undermined civil liberties from Woodrow Wilson's attack on the Wobblies through LBJ's COINTELPRO campaign against Martin Luther King.

In the early 20th century, the Democratic Party was the party of Jim Crow. In the early 21st century, the Democratic Party is the party of prisons and the death penalty. Punching a card for the Democratic Party abets the execution of someone who cannot afford a good lawyer.

Reason No. 7. The Democratic Party is the Party of environmental destruction.

The Democratic Party co-opts environmental movements by cultivating Washington DC-based bureaucrats more interested in their own salaries than in stopping environmental destruction. Whether by supporting Clinton's "salvage logging" or fawning over genetic engineering or supporting nuclear plants, nuclear transportation and nuclear weapons, Democrats destroy any meaningful distinction between themselves and the Republicans.

In 1992 Al Gore promised to stop the East Liverpool incinerator, whose poisonous fumes blew directly into an Ohio working class elementary school. After the elections, the promise was history.

In the 1980s, a flood washed dioxin-laced oil onto the working class town of Times Beach, Missouri. It was the second dioxin poisoning for those exposed to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War and the third dioxin poisoning for many who had worked in industrial settings. Democrats Clinton, Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan, and County Executive Buzz Westfall helped ensure that they would be poisoned a fourth time by a dioxin incinerator in the 90s.

Similar episodes fill volumes. If undeterred, the Democratic Party will turn the globe into a toxic wasteland.

Reason No. 8. The Democratic Party is the grand chef, the big cheese, the glory hog of international trade deals.

In the early 1990s, George Bush Sr. was not able to push NAFTA through Congress. So big business decided that a back-stabbing Democrat would serve its interests better than the iron-fisted Republican. Enough money poured into Democratic Party coffers to make Bill Clinton president.

Dick Gephardt of St. Louis supposedly led efforts to stop congressional passage of NAFTA. I wrote an article documenting that when Gephardt spoke in, Mexico, he said that he would help get NAFTA approved. It was a pleasant surprise when St. Louis' corporate paper, the Post-Dispatch, published it. I waited for Gephardt's denunciation. It never came. To this day, Gephardt has not refuted my documentation that he faked his resistance to protect his union base in St. Louis.

One can only wonder how many other "progressive" Democrats pretend to defend labor and the environment or oppose cutbacks in order to save their skins at election time while party bosses allow them to do so because enough votes are already lined up to win a victory for big business.

The Democratic Party spins the myth that, compared to the wicked Republicans, it is the "lesser evil" regarding labor, environment, and civil liberty issues and cutbacks.. Yet, no one doubts that Democrats bear primary responsibility for international trade deals such as NAFTA, GATT and the WTO. The point of these trade deals is to undermine labor and environmental protections and civil liberties.

The Clinton regime was so incredibly successful at pushing trade deals to subjugate the global South to the greed of the US, EU and Japan that it rushed ahead of the mechanisms of violence needed to enforce those deals. Bush's attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq warn the rest of the world that the US will back up the Democrats' negotiated control of trade and economics with violence.

Therefore the brutal assaults of the Bush Republicans are the natural outgrowth of the slick deals of the Clinton Democrats. It is false to claim that George W. Bush breaks qualitatively from the Democrat preceeding him or that his presidency is uniquely dangerous. One can only believe that falsity by ignoring what has gone on during Democratic administrations.

Reason No. 9. The Democratic Party is the party of war.

The Democrats are also more likely than Republicans to lead the US into war.

Those who disagree with this should remember Democrat Woodrow Wilson won reelection with the slogan "He kept us out of war" and then promptly went to war and jailed anyone who didn't like it. They should remember that the only leader of any nation who ever ordered the use of a nuclear bomb was Democrat Harry Truman. Democrat Truman bombed Hiroshima after ignoring Japan's attempts to surrender, and, just to see if plutonium worked as well as uranium, ordered the bombing of Nagasaki three days later.

Any who hallucinate that "progressive" Democrats are peaceful should remember that Democrat John Kennedy risked global nuclear war over USSR missiles in Cuba that were further from the US than US missiles in Turkey were from the USSR. They should remember that Democrat Lyndon Johnson won reelection ridiculing Barry Goldwater's promise to bomb Vietnam back to the stone age and then attempted to implement Goldwater's program.

The illusion of the peace-loving Democratic Party requires a failure to recall that the Clinton-Gore regime was responsible for the murder of 5000 Iraqi children per month by sanctions. As hideous as the current administration is, Clinton-Gore's silent slaughter exceeded the number of deaths caused by Bush.

Reason No. 10. The Democratic Party matches the Republican party in treason while exceeding it in cowardice.

Any who find it severe to charge the Democrats and Republicans with "treason" should ponder the fact that current international trade deals allow secret tribunals of bureaucrats to trump US laws. Though "treason" usually refers to service to a foreign enemy, it makes sense to apply the term to those who destroy their country by making its air too foul to breathe, poisoning its land so crops will not grow, making international waters too contaminated to support fish and producing enough nuclear material to create genetic diseases for eternity.

When these are combined with increased extinction of species, accelerated global warming and an explosion of genetic pollution of animals and plants, it is clear that, at some point, the world will not support human life.

Republicans may well eliminate humanity in 10 to 30 years. The Democrats claim that they are far more reasonable, which means that their policies might result in human life limping along for 50 to 100 years. This is what we are supposed to be excited about.

The Democratic Party warns that we must not campaign against corporate power and for the complete reversal needed to stop the advance of biodevastation. They suggest that a Green program will "scare people" and get Republicans elected. Their basic plan is to accept destruction of the planet but try to make sure it doesn't happen until we are all dead and gone, leaving the devastation for our children or grandchildren. That is the Ultimate Cowardice of the Democratic Party.

"A Seat at the Table"

The major parties differ in the way they dispense with opposition to corporate objectives. The Democrats co-opt organizational leaders to sign onto whatever they are maneuvering. They believe this will win wider acceptance. The Republicans believe it is more efficient to go directly to the public with rhetoric of nationalism and racism.

In outrage, the Washington lobbyist sobs, "Clinton and Gore heard us out, while Bush won't even give us a seat at the table." While they may be oblivious to the fact that both parties have the same ultimate goals, they are not blind to the bloated paychecks they get from Democrats for selling corporate programs to their constituencies.

There is no better example of the self-interests of Washington lobbyists than the seven "environmental" organizations that helped Clinton/Gore pass NAFTA. They preached to their members the necessity of accepting "regulated" clear-cuts, "acceptable" levels of toxic poisons, "the best-we-can-negotiate" labor give-aways, "unfortunate" slashes in social services, and bipartisan PATRIOT Acts.

A political party is more than the individuals it nominates for public office. A party is also its political program: both its formally declared program and its informal program consisting of its relationships with economic classes and social groups. The Democratic Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America.

One or two maverick Democrats campaigning for the presidential nomination do not alter the fundamental nature of their Party. One of them may get the nomination-if the country is desperate and if the candidate is sufficiently astute at promising left while delivering right. But if the mavericks do not get the nomination, they will still draw in local organizers committed to proving their sincerity by supporting the nominated Democratic candidate in the general election.

The huge social changes we need will not happen because people select the lesser of two evils whose careers depend on begging for financial contributions from the very corporations that profit from planetary destruction. To preserve life, we must replace corporate control. This includes building an electoral party outside the parties of big business. It means linking many movements against oppression with a vision of a new society. It means using elections as one of many ways to mobilize people and insuring that candidates belong to progressive movements and remain accountable to them.

The Democratic Party is not a vehicle for ending corporate control of our lives. It is an obstacle to building a new society.

This is based on presentations given by Don Fitz to a meeting of the Green Party USA at the New York Law School on November 8, 2003 and at Genesis House in St. Louis on December 3, 2003.

Note

1. The implication by Democratic Party apologists that all 2000 votes for Ralph Nader would have gone to Al Gore is dishonest in the extreme. Exit polls showed that if Nader had not been in the race, then of the almost 3 million who voted for him, 25% would have voted for Bush, 38% for Gore, and 37% would not have voted. Two things are clear: [a] the net gain from Nader voters for Gore would have been 13% (=38% - 25%), not 100%; and [b] Nader brought at least a million voters to the polls who Gore could not bring out and whose votes the Gore machine threw away by not endorsing IRV.

add your comments