On Election Day, 1988, when we cast our ballot in the presidential race, we will be setting the agenda for our nation for the next four years. Which way will America turn? Whose agenda will we follow?

Will we continue on a course toward traditional values pioneered by the Reagan administration? Public opinion polls indicate that mainstream America is experiencing a moral and spiritual rebirth. Today 95 percent of all Americans believe in God and 85 percent pray regularly, according to recent Gallup and USA Today polls.

In another poll conducted by Better Homes & Gardens, it was found that those who grew up in the radical ’60s are today more religious than the national average. Morality has been a major concern in the public mind, especially since the demise of Gary Hart, Joseph Biden, and two popular television evangelists.

But there are those in the U.S. who have a different agenda. In fact, there is an entire political party which is promoting a policy platform that appears to be totally contrary to this trend toward traditional values.

“The Party of The People”?

The Democratic Party will help “settle the score” between conservatives and liberals, according to the Communist Party-USA’s Main Report of its 24th National Congress in August 1987. Gus Hall, the eminent Communist leader and founder of CPUSA, who usually runs as the Party’s candidate for president, has decided to sit out on the 1988 election so CPUSA can give overwhelming support to the Democratic Party and Rev. Jesse Jackson.1

The Communist Party’s strategy to influence the 1988 elections is to infiltrate the ranks of the Democratic Party and to give it support. “It is obvious to all realistically minded people that, in practical terms, defeating the Republican presidential candidate in 1988 means electing someone on the Democratic ticket,” said Hall.2

“…(A)s the forces of political independence continue to grow, most will struggle through the medium of the Democratic Party in both the presidential and congressional elections …” CPUSA’s endorsement of Jackson and sanction of the Democratic Party hasn’t yet garnered any negative reactions from Democratic Party officials. But it does concern mainstream America. A party which has received such endorsement from outspoken communists should be obviously suspect.

“The broadly liberal to progressive direction of most of the Democratic candidates on many issues reflects the massive pressure from below, from the grassroots and the rank and file around the country,” continues the CPUSA report. The American communists see the Democratic party as a “…(V)ehicle through which the all-people’s front, the forces of political independence, could wage an all-out campaign against Reaganites on all levels of the election.”

CPUSA’s embrace and unbridled support of the Democratic Party sends a warning to America of the direction of its policies and philosophy. We should also look at the platforms of the individual candidates who are vying for the Democratic nomination and analyze where they each want to take America in the next four years:

• Gov. Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts made a slip of the tongue on “Meet the Press” when he said he would not assert American power towards Soviet client states established in this hemisphere, unless these client states introduced “offensive weapons.”

One of his gubernatorial achievements for the Massachusetts economy was a 10 percent tax increase, which was the largest in the state’s history. Business investments plummeted to a rate nearly 50 percent below the national average, and that same year the state’s personal income growth fell to 47th in the U.S.

What would be the impact of Dukakis’s economic and foreign policies on the nation in 1992? The 1992 presidential contenders may be lambasting him for his friendliness towards what may be the United Soviet Socialist Republic of Central and South America. Although the Soviets may be building up its weaponry over our borders, Dukakis’s halt on building and testing nuclear weapons and low priority of defense may accelerate the growing threat to America’s national security.

Dukakis pushed through the State House a Gay Rights bill which homosexuals have been vigorously promoting for 14 years. He also vetoed legislation which would have prohibited state officials from placing foster children with homosexuals or bisexual parents, despite passage by both houses, because it was not consistent with his policies governing treatment of foster children.

As one of the party’s leading contenders, Dukakis’s song of tax increases, homosexual rights and naivete regarding foreign policy is abrasive in the ears of Americans looking for moral leadership.

• Senator Albert Gore has been a mystery to his Tennessee constituency. According to Newsweek, December 21, 1987, “In Tennessee, Gore has most people convinced that he’s a moderate, despite a consistently liberal voting record.”

His notoriety and emergence into the national picture was fueled by his wife’s campaign against obscenity in rock lyrics. Since the 1985 Senate Commerce Committee hearing on this issue, Gore has continually denied the intent of the hearing – calling it a mistake.

In October 1987, he and his wife, Tipper, met with recording industry executives in Los Angeles to explain their position. After the meeting they attended a party at a rock club in New York to counter the “anti-rock” crusader image. “He wants to appear like a righteous crusader of family values. On the other hand, he’s trying to appear very moderate and progressive,” Record Producer Danny Goldberg told Newsweek. “I really don’t know who Gore is.”

Who is Gore? A career politician, he has frustrated both conservatives and his liberal colleagues with his compromising on the issues. An example is his position on a tax increase. He told the Washington Times, June, 17, 1987, “I am not proposing new taxes.” But drawing a distinction between his position and that of the president (Reagan) he hastened to add: “If(economic growth) does not suffice, I’m not ruling out new revenue.”

If Gore’s style of public policymaking continues along the lines of his current habit of compromising to please whatever is in the wind, what would we expect of him while in office? Gore’s presidency could be a travesty of mistrust.

• Sen. Paul Simon of Illinois has carried the liberal banner for the last three years in the Senate and 10 years in Congress. His latest achievement is co-sponsorship of the Cranston Civil Rights Amendment Act of 1987, which would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to grant homosexuals and lesbians the same federal protections given to race. In time this would mean preferential hiring and quotas for homosexuals.

He also believes that AIDS education should begin at kindergarten, “with progressively more complex and explicit information disseminated to students as they progress through school,” according to the Los Angeles Times, November 2, 1987. Does mainstream America really want our children taught about homosexuality in kindergarten?

Simon’s budgetary priorities would be a jobs program and more social programs. He has supported every bill regarding increasing taxes, and opposes a constitutional amendment respecting tax limitations.

• Rev. Jesse Jackson told the Dallas Times Herald on April 30, 1984, that he advocates a“national economic planning mechanism,” which he says “would be non-coercive but would use government incentives, subsidies, and tax laws to direct business investment and trade policies.” He said in Political Affairs, a journal of the CPUSA, that capitalism is bad, and despite his heady plans to subsidize the domestic petroleum industry during his presidency, he doesn’t have any specifics on implementing his plan.

Jackson has also caused some controversy over his friendship with Cuban leader Fidel Castro and PLO terrorist Yasir Arafat. He praised Castro as “the most honest, courageous politician I met,” and Arafat as a “true hero.” His foreign policy platform is questionable as to who’s interests he is advocating. He considers himself a “Third World person,” who grew up in an “occupied zone” (Greenville, South Carolina). He told Playboy in June 1984 that he thought it was a mistake that the U.S. didn’t open up trade with Cuba.

If Castro and Arafat are an indication of who would be influencing the direction of U.S. international relations under Jackson’s presidency, does America want its president to be rubbing elbows with dictators and terrorists? Does America want the likes of Castro and Arafat implementing their agenda of international terror through the White House with the assistance of U.S. taxes?

Elections 1992

The Democratic Party platform is obviously out of touch with mainstream American values. By 1992, if the agendas of these leaders are implemented, we could be encircled by Communist regimes due to the infiltration of Marxism in our decision-making process. Will our children be taught by homosexuals and be given sex education and contraceptives without parental knowledge? Will the 1992 presidential lineup be facing the possibility of a Soviet invasion from Central America?

We are going to answer these questions with our vote on Election Day. The next president may be a form of God’s judgment upon our nation if the American people reject the need for moral leadership. He will either be a curse or a blessing upon us. Let’s pray that, rather than getting the president that we deserve, God will be merciful and grant us a leader who will honor God and take a courageous stand for truth and morality.

1 Main Report, 24th National Convention, Communist Party-USA, August, 1987, p.87.
2 Ibid., p. 80.