Frank Morrow of Alternative Views, the best political show in TV history
April 24, 2008
A few weeks ago, a reader corresponded with me and told me that it was great that I pointed out all the shenanigans
that the U.S. government has perpetrated over the years in controlling foreign countries. But, he asked, "Who benefits?" Good
For the answer, I went to my good friend Frank Morrow. I have published a couple of interviews with him over
the past several years. From 1978 to 1998, Frank produced the finest political TV show in history, Alternative Views. In the
20-year span, almost 600 segments were broadcast.
Frank Morrow is my political mentor. I began watching Alternative Views in the mid-1980s and became involved
with analyzing politics. It was like being hooked on hard drugs. There would be no Malcom Lagauche today if it werenít
for Frank Morrow. Depending on your outlook, some people say that might have been a good thing.
Frankís specialty is the U.S. power structure. He gained his PhD from the University of Texas in 1984
and his 600+ page thesis was on the subject.
This in-depth interview covers much ground and makes it clear that what we see in the U.S. political scene
is not real. The game of the powerful began with the formation of the United States. Part one will delve into these times
and will be the foundation for the next interviews that go into detail about how we have come to live in a unipolar world
that is controlled by people who may not have names that are recognizable to the general public
IN THE BEGINNING
ML: Frank, explain who benefits from all the dirty tricks we see pulled today by U.S.
FM: A lot of people benefit, but the more important question is "who has the power?"
Bill Gates benefits from the system, and is immensely rich, but he doesnít have the power that people will less money
have. For that, you have to go back and see if there is an American ruling class, and, if so, who are they and what do they
We can go back and look at the Constitutional Convention and see how our system was set up to provide fences
so that the common people could not exert their influence over the government. This has been going on ever since.
One reason I got interested in who controls things and who runs things is that growing up while in high school
and college, I notice that, over the years, no matter who was president, the working class always got it in the neck. I asked
how there could be continuous power against the workers if we have a democracy where people can get their interests taken
ML: Take us back to the beginning.
FM: The Declaration of Independence was written to express the discontent of the American
radicals and people who wanted to break away from England. They were using that as a document on the basis and justification
for their breaking away.
Letís talk about the Constitution. I will say Constitutions. By the way, this is something that Iíve
finally become aware of and youíre the first person Iíve talked with about it.
The Constitutional Convention came about because the elite wanted a government that they could control, not
only for economic interests, but also for political interests. There was an established national government spelled out in
the Articles of Confederation. In those articles, it said they could be amended, but they had to have unanimous consent of
all states. The states seemed to be okay with that.
Then, certain people (sometimes referred to as the Founding Fathers) got together in Philadelphia and sealed
themselves up in secrecy during the summer. It was certainly understandable they would seal themselves up because they were
planning a coup. They proclaimed that a new Constitution was necessary and it would go into effect once nine out of 13 states
ratified it. This was a coup because they illegally overthrew the existing government.
There are two important books that go into detail of these times. One was published in 1913 and written by
Charles Beard: An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution. That was a bombshell that people have been arguing about
ever since. His main thesis was that these people in Philadelphia were not the highbrow individuals who are highly intellectual.
People who wanted to do good for the country because they loved democracy. It was just the opposite.
A more recent book is To Form a More Perfect Union. It was written by Robert McGuire, a statistics
expert. He confirmed much of what Beard was saying.
ML: We have been led to believe that the Founding Fathers held wisdom, intelligence
and foresight far above those traits of mortal men. Have we been conned?
FM: Definitely. Let me explain how the founders usurped power.
The people in the convention, Madison in particular, said the country is divided into two groups: people who
have power and property and people who donít. The people who donít have it will try to take it away from the people
who do have it unless we come up with a system that will prevent them from doing this. As Madison said, in some of this writings,
including the Federalist Papers, we have to come up with a system with enough flaws in it so it appears to be democratic,
but there are enough flaws so the common people can not coalesce and get their needs taken care of. The country will be run
by the elite.
John Jay, one of the writers of the Federalist Papers, as well as the first Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court, and all those people at the convention, with the exception of maybe one, agreed that the people who own the country
ought to run it. If you look at what the people were saying, it came out much more democratic in appearance than what they
really wanted. Many wanted a king or a tightly-controlled aristocracy.
In the propaganda we were taught while growing up, they say, "They have all these different things. The three
branches of government and voting which doesnít occur all at once and the judges are elected for life.
During the convention, there was fear that the people would all get together and vote in some strongman who
could articulate what the people wanted. The founders had to set up a structure that would prevent that, and they did.
History books say that if there would have been free and fair elections, the Constitution never would have
passed. There were all kinds of shenanigans that went on. As a matter of fact, there were four or five states who did not
support the Constitution, but approved it only if there would be a subsequent open convention, or if there was a Bill of Rights.
The framers of the Constitution in Philadelphia did not want a Bill of Rights. There were Bills of Rights
in some constitutions of the states, but they did not want a national Bill of Rights. However, in December 1791, the Congress
passed the first Ten Amendments, the Bill of Rights. It was forced on the founders.
You really have two Constitutions that have come down all these years: one for the people and the other for
the wealthy and powerful. Of course, the governments were still controlled by the wealthy and powerful, so that any time there
were conflicts, any time there were dangers to the Constitution, there was always the Bill of Rights. It wasnít the
basic Constitution. That started with John Adams and then Lincoln and it came right down. They still donít mess with
the basic Constitution.
Theyíve now destroyed the Bill of Rights. They just ignore them, or theyíve made executive orders
to circumvent the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court has upheld all this stuff. During the Reagan presidency, a lot of people
in the administration, including himself, for a period of time were saying, "We really donít need these pesky amendments.
All we need is the basic Constitution." That didnít gain much popular traction, but you can tell here is this continuity
of control, and it was designed into the system.
ó In Part Two: Enter the Private Organizations