Diogenes, where are you?
The following is from a letter to a youthful enthusiast:
You asked if I had read any of Lyndon LaRouche. Yes, I have, or at least I've tried. I find his writing to be fairly obscure, written, I suppose, for an insider-group to whom his jargon is well known. He seems to me to lose focus, to go on too long, and not to know when to stop after a point is made. He could be right or wrong, but I find him unconvincing because he is not concise in his arguments.
I think he suffers from a problem described by Nicholas Kristoff (who was writing about something unrelated in the NY Times). He said (liberally emended), "The fundamental problem, as I see it, is that [some] groups are too often alarmists. [For whatever reason,] they've lost credibility with the public. Some do great work, but others can be the [left on the fringes -- right, left, or otherwise]: brimming with moral clarity and ideological zeal, but empty of nuance."
I put Bush, LaRouche, religious fundamentalists (Baptists, Muslims, Catholics, whatever), the Sierra Club, OPEC (maybe), and too many others into this class. They lack credibility with me because they are so totally sure that their way is THE way that they don't hear or see other sides as having any merit. In my world view, even the "bad guys" have a point, however obscure it may be. To deal with them in whatever fashion, one must be aware of their self-justified motives.
What do you think?