Three excerpts: " [..] I'm not so sure that I would agree with Larry [Agran] that it's a matter of _rediscovering_ our democracy. I think it's a question of _refashioning_ our democracy. [..] that which was, was never adequate in the first place..[..] The struggle therefore is to *finish* the unfinished democracy. To *perfect* the imperfect union [...] in this country. And so even *before* the cold war it was not perfect. [..] The intervention in the affairs of Central America didn't begin with the cold war." "Africans in this country, brought to this country in chains, 100 million Africans brought not because people thought they were inferior, not because of racism, but because of *economic exploitation* [...] But not for the first 50 years could all white *men* vote, only *white men with property*. Why? Because from the very beginning, this union, the assumption was, if this country could be put in the hands of the propertied classes, if *they* are secure, everybody in America is supposed to be secure. " [..] you know, if you look at the founding fathers sitting around that table, they were all fathers, no mothers sitting around --- [...] there were no people there with buckskin britches and coonskin caps there. There were no *workers* sitting at that table. It was a revolution for the aristocracy and for the monied classes from the very beginning." Transcribed by Don Fong ======================================================================== On May 21, 1992, there was a candidates forum at UCSC for lesser-known presidential candidates Larry Agran and Ron Daniels. Each candidate was given 30 minutes to present his statement. Both spoke well and were a refreshing change from the mainstream "clown show", as Ron Daniels put it. I found the event so interesting that i wanted to share the candidates' statements with as many people as possible. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CANDIDATES FORUM, 21 MAY 1992 OAKES COLLEGE, UC SANTA CRUZ LARRY AGRAN (DEMOCRAT), RON DANIELS (PEACE & FREEDOM) Transcribed by Don Fong from a tape provided by Christic Action Team. [comments in square brackets] _slight emphasis_ *distinct emphasis* ----------------------------------------------------------------------- RON DANIELS: We certainly want to thank all of you for being kind enough to come out this evening to hear presidential candidates who essentially have been _whited out_ of the process. To our moderator and former mayor, it's good to be with him. And it is certainly a pleasure and privilege to be with Larry Agran, who as far as I'm concerned is an independent candidate for President of the United States, is the only Democratic candidate that I would be proud to stand next to on a podium. I think he is an _incredible_ politician. You'd better believe it. I want to acknowledge the chairperson of the Peace & Freedom party in this state, Maureen Smith. Would you please wave your hand so that people can see who you are. And Tom Condit (sp?), who's come down from the bay area, [...] I want to spend a few moments on the subject ... of our Campaign for a New Tomorrow. We call our effort the Campaign for a New Tomorrow. And in a real sense our Campaign for a New Tomorrow is a _crusade for a new America_. I think that it's important that we look at this political season in historical context, because I'm not so sure that I would agree with Larry [Agran] that it's a matter of _rediscovering_ our democracy. I think it's a question of _refashioning_ our democracy. So I think we have to begin at the beginning, to understand the _nature_ of what this country's been about from the very beginning. Because if we don't understand that in historical context, then we will recreate the same _madness_ that afflicts us now. Because we have to talk about fundamental change, not incremental change! *Fundamental change*, the quest to build a new society. And in that regard it seems to 1992 is an *incredible year* to talk about the life and times of our people, to talk about the need for a new politics. Because 1992 is 500 years since Christopher Columbus was *wandering around aimlessly* in the Caribbean, and was *beneficently discovered* by native Americans. An act that is significant because the hospitality of native peoples was betrayed. And it was betrayed by Christopher Columbus and all of those who came behind him. Betrayed on the altar of greed! And the notion that human beings could be _sacrificed in the interest of profit_. From the _very beginning of Europeans' arrival in this hemisphere_, the problem has been a conflict of vision and values. A conflict of vision and values that we have to this very moment! that that which was, was never adequate in the first place. And what we must be challenging, what we must be talking about, is looking at history so that history will inform us as to how to build a new society into the 21st century. So we must begin with truth and justice ... And again, the symbol of Christopher Columbus in terms of conquest and colonization, is a sad chapter in the unfolding of this country. Native Americans which were once 30 million people in this country, are now only 3 million left. Africans in this country, brought to this country in chains, 100 million Africans brought not because people thought they were inferior, not because of racism, but because of *economic exploitation*. And the seizure of territory, *this territory* on which we stand, from Mexico in 1848. How dare the United States talk about Iraq's seizure of Kuwait, without looking at its own history and talking about the seizure of territory from Mexico in 1848? And there's the history of the Chinese being brought in and worked as [...] slaves. The whole history of this country at one level has been based on greed! Adam Smith, the godfather of capitalism, talking about each *man* selfishly seeking his own end, led as if by an invisible hand to benefit all. Any benefit is *coincidental* to the process of someone selfishly seeking their own self-aggrandizement. We cannot talk about a new future without examining the values upon which this country was built on in the first place. If we look at 1776 to [...] 1787, the forging of this union again was imperfect. Tom Condit (sp?) [...] was talking about this this afternoon, this union from the very beginning was an imperfect union. Thomas Jefferson etching out the first draft of the Declaration of Independence. [...] He talked about the pursuit of life, liberty, and *property*. He betrayed in so doing, what is real, what the *real* revolution was fought about. Or the so-called revolution. The quest on the part of a few in this country, to deal with the question of property and property rights as being superior to human rights. The question of slavery was _ducked_ by the founding fathers. Indeed, when we look at the compromises that were struck, Africans were written into the constitution as 3/5 of a human being. And indeed, women, in the struggle between Jefferson and Hamilton --- if we were to revisit that history for a moment --- it was Hamilton who won, who said from the very beginning, if this union is to succeed, it must be put into the hands of the propertied classes. And so for the first 50 years, *not all white people* could vote. Not all white *men* could vote. Women were denied, period. But not for the first 50 years could all white *men* vote, only *white men with property*. Why? Because from the very beginning, this union, the assumption was, if this country could be put in the hands of the propertied classes, if *they* are secure, everybody in America is supposed to be secure. And we've got to look at that! Because if we do not examine that proposition, then we will never ever arrive at the right formula. So native Americans excluded, white men without property excluded, labor unorganized, the 3/5 compromise. I suggest to you, friends, brothers and sisters and friends, that the history of this country has been the struggle of the dispossessed and the disadvantaged to achieve greater economic and political democracy. That's been the history of this country. From the very beginning it's --- you know, if you look at the founding fathers sitting around that table, they were all fathers, no mothers sitting around --- [...] there were no people there with buckskin britches and coonskin caps there. There were no *workers* sitting at that table. It was a revolution for the aristocracy and for the monied classes from the very beginning. So from the very beginning, the struggle has been, what? [questioning] To fight for greater economic and political democracy! The struggle therefore is to *finish* the unfinished democracy. To *perfect* the imperfect union [...] in this country. And so even *before* the cold war it was not perfect. It was not ... it was *always* a society in which Calvin Coolidge for example, --- a former President of the United States --- said, what? [questioning] The business of government is, what? [questioning] business. The intervention in the affairs of Central America didn't begin with the cold war. America in terms of its gunboat diplomacy was intervening in Central America and all over the hemisphere as a part of the Monroe Doctrine for a _long_ time. The Great Depression in some ways [...] and the New Deal forestalled the whole question of a real revolution in this country because it sort of sucked the life out of the contradictions. But the same people who ruled before the Great Depression were the same people who ruled after the Great Depression. The only thing is that America was on a stage where it was a super-power almost all to itself. So therefore it could *bribe* the working class. It could pass on the benefits of this great democracy, which was in large measure a function of its *exploitation* of the people of color throughout the world. We need to add that to our analysis if we're going to talk about *real* change and fundamental change, and not just [...] cosmetic change, within the context of what we're doing. I say that because we're in danger --- and again, [...] the president of General Motors said, what? [questioning] That what's good for General Motors ... is good for America. You all know that. You all know what we're talking about. So as we prepare to enter the 21st century, that struggle to perfect the American democracy must continue. Because now we see that democracy is still in danger.