Talk:U.S. Labor Party

POV
Article does not currently come close to fulfilling NPOV. The information included already is good stuff and should stay, but we need broader coverage. All of the references are from LaRouche critics. The Parsnip! 15:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I checked the ProQuest archive for information about the group, but they only have one significant citation: "CBS SELLS TIME TO FRINGE CANDIDATE FOR TALK" KERR, PETER. [New York Times]]. New York, N.Y.: Jan 22, 1984. pg. A.23


 * The only thing it says directly about the subject is:
 * Former members of Mr. LaRouche's U.S. Labor Party, now defunct, have said there were party-initiated gang assaults at rivals' meetings and have told of the training of some members in terrorist and guerrilla warfare techniques. Spokesmen for Mr. LaRouche said such training was necessary to protect Mr. LaRouche, who they said was the object of "assassination conspiracies."
 * Because there are so few mentions of the subject in Internet-available media, I thinkk we should add a mention of this, even though it may be regarded as critical material. If there are more sympathetic accounts then we should definitely include those too. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Party Color
Hello. I am working to standardize information relating to the US presidential elections of 1992 and 1988. I am taking the liberty to represent this party universally as the following shade of red: #800020. Thanks! --7partparadigm (talk) 19:23 23 August 2013  —Preceding undated comment added 01:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Candidates
I've compiled two lists of candidates of the USLP, its successor the NDPC, and others who've run as LaRouche Democrats. I've limited it to those who've run repeatedly, have won primaries, or whose candidacies were contested. I've also included those identified as holding positions within the NDPC. There's considerable overlap between the two lists and it may make sense to merge them. It may also make sense to split the NDPC into an article by itself, but I don't think we have enough material on that group at present. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"Succeeded by"
"By late summer of 1979, however, the NCLC and LaRouche had decided to join the Democratic Party so that LaRouche could run for that party's presidential nomination, and the US Labor Party was disbanded."

Am I misunderstanding this paragraph? -- LightSpectra (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the trouble is that the sentence isn't sufficiently clear. To the extent that the USLP was an entity with members who ran on its platform, after 1979 the candidates ran on the NDPC platform instead. They never adopted the general Democratic Party platform. In news accoutns and in their own statements they always were identified as NDPC candidates. A few even ran for GOP nominations. The NDPC had no connection to the DNC whatsoever. LaRouche was specifically rejected by the Democratic Party. LaRouche ran repeatedly on for the DNC nomination, but the party chairman refused to seat the few delegates LaRouche won on account of his not being a member of the Democratic Party. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There are countless sources on this matter. Here's one:
 * LaRouche's political arm is the National Democratic Policy Committee (NDPC). The very title rankles Democratic Party leaders, who shun identification with the onetime leftist now seeking to elect himself as president and his followers to other offices as conservative Democrats.
 * Mar 23, 1986 "3-time fringe presidential hopeful LaRouche remains an enigma" Robert Estill. The San Diego Union. San Diego, Calif.: Mar 23, 1986. pg. A.15
 * I'll look for some more sources that specifically connect the USLP and NDPC. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Mr. LaRouche later formed the National Caucus of Labor Committees and a political group called the United States Labor Party. Most everyone in it had been active in one or another left- wing organization, an early member of his movement said. [...] Mr. LaRouche first ran for President in 1976, as a candidate of his United States Labor Party, but got only about 40,000 votes. Still, starting in the mid-1970's, as he turned to the right and as his group began attracting curious attention from the news media, his writings increasingly emphasized his own perceived political importance. [...] In 1980, Mr. LaRouche and his followers founded the National Democratic Policy Committee. Almost immediately, Democratic Party officials objected that Mr. LaRouche was trying to deceive people, leading them to believe that his group was associated with the Democratic Party, an idea Mr. LaRouche disputes.
 * "LAROUCHE SAVORS FAME THAT MAY RUIN HIM", Robin Toner and Joel Brinkley, The New York Times, Friday Apr 4, 1986 Sec: A National Desk p: 1


 * LaRouche, once a member of the Socialist Workers Party who recruited followers in the Columbia University uprising of 1968, formed a third party - the U.S. Labor Party - in the 1970s. But that was abandoned about 1980, and the National Democratic Policy Committee was formed in 1981 in an attempt to get into the Democratic party, said Mesaros, who worked for LaRouche for 10 years before moving to Minnesota in 1984. "It was for tactical reasons," said Mesaros. "It is very difficult to get anywhere with third parties. The two-party system is very entrenched.
 * "LaRouche candidates in Minnesota say voters are beginning to respond" Gregor W. Pinney, Staff Writer. Minneapolis Star and Tribune. Minneapolis, Minn.: Jul 7, 1986. pg. 01.A

And so on. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * LaRouche first formed the National Caucus of Labor Committees, which emerged in New York in 1968 as a faction of the Students for a Democratic Society. The national caucus electoral arm originally was the U.S. Labor Party and now is the NDPC. When the NDPC was organized in 1980, members represented themselves as "LaRouche Democrats" who were trying to wrest the Democratic Party from then-President Jimmy Carter.
 * "Rightist LaRouche started out as a a Marxist;" Chicago Sun - Times. Chicago, Ill.: Mar 20, 1986. pg. 4

Party logo
The logo shown on this article is incorrect. It may be an early version, but not the one the party was known for, which had a tractor. You can see the regular logo on this "LaRouche planet" page, on the screen shot of the LaRouche 1976 national broadcast. --ClarkLewis (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's quite possible that there was more than one logo. That doesn't mean that any of them are "incorrect". The logo on the page now is from the NYT, dated October 7, 1979. The broadcast on the other website is dated 1976, so it may have actually been the earlier one. Unfortunately, that video is low resolution so I don't know if we can extract a usable image from it. But if we can then it'd be great to add it too. Or if anyone has USLP literature that shows the logo maybe they could scan and upload it.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, that same page on "LaRouche planet" also shows a publication with a third logo - the letters "USLP" over a sphere/globe. It's nextto another globe with the letters "EAP", so it may have only been used in Europe.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Far-Right
Per my understanding of the development of this party, the label "far-right" perfectly applies to the stance on social issues. I noticed that this label has been removed from the Ideology box, with no explanation on this talk page as in to why. Therefore, I'm returning it to "Social: Far-Right", and will continue to maintain this as fact unless proven otherwise. Objections?--Apjohns54 (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be suggesting that we can make claims until there are sources that disprove them. As I understand it, the policy here is the other way around -- that we don't make a claim unless there are adequate sources to support it. So, if you have sources to back your claim, the first step would be to add them to the article, and if they are convincing beyond dispute, add the claim to the template. --ClarkLewis (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to suggest a policy of "true until proven false," although that's how my statement sounded. What I was referencing as the fact in question here is the extensive mention of a left to far-right ideological shift detailed within the "political views of Lyndon LaRouche" article, and the mention of it in this article as well. I have found sources supporting my far-right characterization of the most recent incarnation of LaRouche's U.S. Labor Party-


 * 1. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980CEFD8153BF936A15752C0A967948260
 * ^A New York Times printed correction denoting the right-wing classification of the U.S. Labor Party as opposed to a mistakenly referenced left-wing organization with a similar name.


 * 2. http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/nclc1.html
 * ^Article exploring the ideological transformation of Lyndon LaRouche, the NCLC, and the U.S. Labor Party. While this is admittedly a progressive think-tank rather than a non-partisan one, it should be noted that a left-wing group denouncing a political party as "fascist" or "far-right" would be counter-intuitive if the party in question emphasized a traditionally left-wing philosophy. The only example I can think of where a left-wing organization characterized other left groups as "fascist" was in the predominantly Stalinist sectors of the Communist movement in the 20s and 30s (i.e. Social Democrats= "Social Fascists", Leon Trotsky as an agent of fascism, etc.) As the American political climate is drastically different than the Communist movement under Stalin, I would guess that the motive behind such a characterization would be based on more tangible evidence and historical precedents rather than ideological competition. The evidence and precedents in question are examined at length in this article, which includes a large amount of testimony from former NCLC and LaRouche Movement supporters whose claims support the far-right characterization.


 * 3. http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/Wohlforth.html
 * ^As above, while this article is from the same progressive think-tank, further testimony from former members describes an authoritarian, right-wing extremist nature of the party by the late 70s.


 * While LaRouche began within the mainstream of left-wing Marxist thought, by the time the U.S. Labor Party began to launch electoral campaigns on his behalf his views verged more on Third-Position Strasserism than anything traditionally found on the left. While there are traditionally left-wing elements in his economic positions, the obvious support of authoritarian social conservatism espoused by LaRouche seems at least to me to grant a Third-Position classification to his philosophy, thus placing it firmly within the far-right portion of the political spectrum.


 * Let me know what you think, I can look for more, if you need them.--Apjohns54 (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The category in question is "social policy," which I take to mean as opposed to the other category, "economic." I was looking for some source that would specifically apply to "social policy" ("economic nationalism" for "economic" seems to apply.) The other problem is that the USLP got attacked by both the left and the right, with the leftists calling it rightist and vice versa. The Heritage Foundation wrote a thing calling it leftist, which I will add to the article when I have a little more time. I have seen in Dennis King and the New York Times the analysis about "shift from left to right," and I am a bit skeptical of this, because I don't think the USLP was ever exactly left or exactly right. Maybe they were a hybrid, or maybe they just don't fit the categories. But anyway, what do you think "social policy" means? --ClarkLewis (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I recently added sources that call the party "left wing", "right wing", and "far right", as well as one that says it  began "on the political left but has since gone so far in the opposite direction that to call it politically right is to slander the entire conservative movement." I can find more. We already quote the Heritage Foundation's Milton Copulos, but we can also quote him on the political spectrum. I don't recall if any sources specifically discuss social positions versus economic positions. If we can't find sources on that topic we may need to drop that distinction.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * For the moment and as a compromise, I've put "Views of Lyndon LaRouche" in "position". Most political parties can be summarized with a few words or less - "conservative" "progressive" "social democrat". Linking to a 12,000 word article instead it isn't ideal. I hope and expect that we can gather a quantity of sources which describe this party's political stance(s). Let's see what phrases appear most often in sources and use those. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I recently ran across one of those sidewalk tables manned by the LaRouche people, and I purchased from them a DVD. When I got home and put it in the computer, I discovered that it was loaded with "bonus" features, including the full 1976 US Labor Party national broadcast. Can we use a DVD as a source? It would be extremely useful, because it presents the USLP program in some detail. It is basically all the of idiosyncratic positions which LaRouche still takes: a new monetary system, debt moratoria for the Third World, targeted credits to re-start US industrial production, warnings about exploitation and population reduction of Third World countries and brinksmanship with the USSR (based on this, I am removing the "ABC warfare" claim in this article.) The thing that struck me as that none of these positions are particularly "left wing" or "right wing," so it puzzles me that the USLP was called these things by its opponents. --ClarkLewis (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I just ran across one of those too, and they gave me a bunch of pamphlets and a DVD. I'd say that it'd be a valid source, because it's some of the party's platform "straight from the horse's mouth," so to speak. I think that one of us should analyze the stuff in the most objective manner possible beforehand though, because even mainstream organizations tend to obscure their intended course of action with very "political" speech.--Apjohns54 (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Upon further examination, I think that "Syncretic" would probably be the best ideological classification for this party. That term would be an accurate catch-all for the political positions of both Lyndon LaRouche and the party established on his behalf. Since it incorporates stances from both the far-left and the far-right into a single ideological platform, "Syncretic" (linked to the Syncretic Politics) article) might be the most accurate term we could use. However, we could still keep the "Views of Lyndon LaRouche" classification as well, as it would explain precisely what elements of the far left and far right the party incorporates that would lead it to be classified as a syncretic movement--Apjohns54 (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC).


 * You would need a source for that, otherwise it's OR. What positions that the USLP took do you consider "far left" or "far right"? --ClarkLewis (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned about using primary sources too extensively. If we're going to produce a short list of items that are mentioned in the video that wouldn't be a problem, but it shouldn't replace or supplant material from secondary sources. I don't think I've seen any sources refer to the USLP as "syncretic", though I've seen the term applied to other elements of the LaRouche movement. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

ABC warfare
I have tagged as "dubious" the claim that the USLP "advocated launching ABC warfare (atomic, biological and chemical) against the Soviet Union." It is unclear what the source is -- probably Dennis King, but I believe that King makes this claim about LaRouche in the late '80s, not the '70s when the USLP existed. The USLP is usually described as pro-Soviet. --ClarkLewis (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find the assertion in a quick review of the King book. It may come from one of his articles. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)