Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Alan Keyes on Reparations (AK contextualizes his comments)
The Illinois Leader ^ | 8-17-2004 | Chicago Bureau

Posted on 08/17/2004 2:38:57 PM PDT by unspun

Alan Keyes on Reparations

Tuesday, August 17, 2004

By The Leader-Chicago Bureau (admin@illinoisleader.com)

CHICAGO -- Republican U.S. Senate candidate Alan Keyes has just released a statement clarifying what appeared to be a surprising position he took at a news conference yesterday.

"I think a cogent argument could be made for reparations in principle," Keyes is quoted as saying to reporters yesterday, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

The Chicago Tribune expanded:

Keyes gave a brief tutorial on Roman history and said that in regard to reparations for slavery, the U.S. should do what the Romans did: "When a city had been devastated [in the Roman empire], for a certain length of time--a generation or two--they exempted the damaged city from taxation."

Keyes proposed that for a generation or two, African-Americans of slave heritage should be exempted from federal taxes--federal because slavery "was an egregious failure on the part of the federal establishment."

The response from conservatives was immediate. "Who downstate will now vote for Keyes?" wrote IllinoisLeader.com reader Randall Mead of Springfield today. "I certainly won't."

This afternoon, Keyes released the following statement, clarifying his position:

I have consistently opposed the effort to extort monetary damages from the American people. As I have argued in the past, the great sacrifices involved in the Civil War represented the requital in blood and treasure for the terrible injustices involved in slavery. In this form the so called "reparations" movement represents an insult to the historic commitment that many Americans made to the end of slavery, which included the sacrifice of their lives.

I have also consistently maintained that the history of slavery, racial segregation and discrimination did real damage to black Americans, left real and persistent material wounds in need of healing.

In various ways through the generations since the end of slavery, America has tried to address this objective fact, but without real success. This was at least in part the rational for many elements of the Great Society programs of the sixties, and for the original and proper concept of affirmative action developed under Republican leadership during the Nixon years.

Unfortunately, the government-dominated approaches of the Great Society, which purported to heal and repair the legacy of historical damage, actually widened and deepened the wounds. They undermined the moral foundations of the black community and seriously corrupted the family structure and the incentives to work, savings, investment, and business ownership.

The idea I have often put forward to address this challenge involves a traditionally Republican, conservative and market-oriented approach: removing the tax burden from the black community for a generation or two in order to encourage business ownership, create jobs and support the development of strong economic foundations for working families.

This has the advantage of letting people help themselves, rather then pouring money into government bureaucracies that displace and discourage their own efforts. It takes no money from other citizens, while righting the historic imbalance that results from the truth that black slaves toiled for generations at a tax rate that was effectively 100 percent.

I have also made it clear that while I believe that the descendants of slaves would be helped by this period of tax relief, my firm goal and ultimate objective is to replace the income tax, and thereby free all Americans from this insidious form of tax slavery. It is well known that this is one of the key priorities of the Keyes campaign.

In response to Keyes' statement, conservative Jack Roeser of Family Taxpayers Network told IllinoisLeader.com, "I expect Keyes would say this is one of those interesting subjects to be talked about among people sharing ideas. Reparations is an impractical concept. Everybody in every category has been wronged in one or the other, and you cannot single one out."

Roeser continued, "Keyes is a man of ideas, and I expect he gets into discussions like this that are proper in their proper place, but that he would never vote for reparations. The problem with American politics is that people don't get into deep discussions."

© 2004 IllinoisLeader.com -- all rights reserved

______What are your thoughts concerning the issues raised in this story? Write a letter to the editor at letters@illinoisleader.com and include your name and town.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Illinois
KEYWORDS: keyes; reparations
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 861-875 next last
To: NYCVirago
"There we have what? Just because he provided more details doesn't make it any less reparations, any less pandering, or any less insane."

Yeah...but he said it so well!

121 posted on 08/17/2004 4:40:55 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Sin Patria, pero sin amo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: blanknoone

What do you think of my idea of giving government land? It seems to me that it would "punish" the only actual "guilty" party still around (the government), since average people get zero benefit from potentially productive land being locked away, and would get more land into private hands, helping the economy.


122 posted on 08/17/2004 4:44:35 PM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
" Restore the Republic - repeal the 16th and 17th."-- Jim Robinson

"...removing the tax burden from the black community for a generation or two..." -- Alan Keyes

That tells me that Alan doesn't plan on working to repeal either the 16th or the 17th in his lifetime.

123 posted on 08/17/2004 4:45:31 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Sin Patria, pero sin amo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez

Hey, if we can save even one person from the very real slavery of the federal income tax, I'm all for it. The freedom you save may be your own.


124 posted on 08/17/2004 4:49:08 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: rdb3; Khepera; elwoodp; MAKnight; condolinda; mafree; Trueblackman; FRlurker; Teacher317; ...
He can spin it all he wants, all it is is more pandering. And it is just as wrong when conservatives do it as when liberals do it.

Period.

Black conservative ping

If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)

Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.

125 posted on 08/17/2004 4:51:52 PM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez

By the way, I personally heard Alan Keyes say today that abolishing the Income Tax is his number one priority and repealing the 17th, restoring the balance of powers and representation for the sovereign state governments is also a goal. He also thanked God on the air for President Bush. And I do too.


126 posted on 08/17/2004 4:52:33 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Truthsearcher
"You're still operating through the emotion of jealousy that the Democratics have exploited so well"

Thank you. The democrats, whether supporters or leadership, has owned the idea of reparations and their arguments have been appealing to only emotions. Unfortunately they've been pounding the airwaves for many years.

For those who oppose it, it brings anger and frustration. For those for it and could possibly benefit hopelessness and frustration because you really can't put a viable monetary amount on the pain and suffering by all those involved, and whether they would see the benefits from any judgements that were paid.

127 posted on 08/17/2004 4:52:44 PM PDT by swheats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
The "burden" on the treasury would be miniscule, while still making a moral statement.

What moral statement? That someone who suffers no physical or mental wrong should be "rewarded" with reparations?

You're off the rails on this one, Knotts.

128 posted on 08/17/2004 4:53:12 PM PDT by sinkspur ("Is it OK to send watered silk to the dry cleaners"?--Cardinal Fanfani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts

I actually think that is another possibly viable alternative to cash payment reparations. 40 acres and a mule on a repo-ed family farm or gov't owned land in the great plains is not a bad way....very very few would take advantage of it (with the caveat that they actually have to live on it for say a decade). It would remove the issue from politics.

I'd still oppose it on principle, but a legitimate arguement could be made that it would be smart in terms of real politik.


129 posted on 08/17/2004 4:54:26 PM PDT by blanknoone (Everything is impossible to those who refuse to try.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: anyone

Does this apply to all Fed Taxes such as the 18.4 cents/gal gasoline tax, Federal Excise tax, inheritance Tax, gift tax, Tobacco tax, on and on.... If so I see another ID card needed to prove one is of the 'tax free class'...


130 posted on 08/17/2004 4:56:39 PM PDT by deport (Please Flush the Johns......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: blanknoone
It would remove the issue from politics.

It's removed from politics now.

Nobody but the most radical, Maxine-Waters-types propose reparations.

Reparations are a non-starter; even Obama opposes them.

131 posted on 08/17/2004 4:57:18 PM PDT by sinkspur ("Is it OK to send watered silk to the dry cleaners"?--Cardinal Fanfani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
The moral statement that the government wronged people by allowing them to be owned by other people.

I may be "off the rails," but it seems to me that the government did do something wrong, and if companies are going to be held financially responsible for "profiting from slavery," (and they have been) then I don't have a big problem with the government doing so, as long as it is not directly punitive on innocent parties (e.g., taxpayers).

I don't think that's all that radical. Government holds a special responsibility to treat people justly, and it failed in this case.

Now, do I favor Jesse Jackson-style reparations? Absolutely not, and I would fight it vehemently.

132 posted on 08/17/2004 4:58:31 PM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: blanknoone

That's the exactly the point I've been trying to make.

I think a lot of people oppose this because of the word "reparations", it conjures up the antics of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and it turns them off, and they say "never".

But remove that emotional baggage. To me this issue is not about "reparations" at all, it's abou tax cuts. Think of it this way, what if the proposal was "Everyone whose last name begans with the letter 'S', gets a tax break". See, I would *still* be for it. Even though my name doesn't start with "S". But I like it whenever anybody gets a tax cut, as long as my taxes don't go up.

But giving all the "S" surnames a tax cut would be just as arbitrary and unfair in principle as "reparations". Except giving it to the "reparations" groups accomplishes something just giving it to the "S" crowd does not, namely fissuring the Democratic coalition.


133 posted on 08/17/2004 4:58:38 PM PDT by Truthsearcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: willyboyishere

anyone know if former FReeper CAL (Connie Hair, Clintonsaliar) is involved in the Keyes campaign this time, as she was in the Presidential campaign?



Who knows as I've not seen a campaign organization published...

She was working for Vernon Robinson over in the GA 5th I believe... However she may have moved on the IL action.


134 posted on 08/17/2004 5:00:04 PM PDT by deport (Please Flush the Johns......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
So, I don't get it.

Obviously, he believes that the tax burden should be lifted from blacks descendants of slaves for, and I quote Alan "a generation or two", which is anything from 22 to 44 years.

In order for the tax burden to be lifted from them for that length of time, he must also believe that there will be a tax burden to lift for that period of time.

So, why this support for something as unconservative as reparations?

Why should I pay Bill Cosby and Oprah Winfrey for something that I had nothing to do with?

And I say "pay" because the burden lifted from their shoulders, will be placed on someone else's shoulders.

Mainly mine, and my descendants.
135 posted on 08/17/2004 5:00:13 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Sin Patria, pero sin amo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: blanknoone
I actually think that is another possibly viable alternative to cash payment reparations. 40 acres and a mule on a repo-ed family farm or gov't owned land in the great plains is not a bad way....very very few would take advantage of it (with the caveat that they actually have to live on it for say a decade). It would remove the issue from politics.

You cannot be serious. Giving in one bit on reparations won't remove the issue from politics but increase reparation demands from every group with a grievance imaginable. And the white middle-class taxpayer who never owned a slave, or even said a racial insult to a black person, will end up footing the bill.

136 posted on 08/17/2004 5:01:28 PM PDT by NYCVirago
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Hey, if we can save even one person from the very real slavery of the federal income tax, I'm all for it. The freedom you save may be your own.

Thank you. The Keyes bashing gets a bit tiresome.

137 posted on 08/17/2004 5:01:37 PM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
if companies are going to be held financially responsible for "profiting from slavery," (and they have been)

No they haven't been. They've been accused, but there's no way courts are going to go along with this.

I disagree vehemently with giving tax cuts to Oprah Winfrey, at my expense, for something she's certainly not "suffering" from.

138 posted on 08/17/2004 5:03:15 PM PDT by sinkspur ("Is it OK to send watered silk to the dry cleaners"?--Cardinal Fanfani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
That's exactly the argument the left use to demogogue the right, namely that everytime a rich person's tax is cut, it means the little guy is more burdened.

It's not true there and it's not true in this case.]
139 posted on 08/17/2004 5:03:24 PM PDT by Truthsearcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
And I say "pay" because the burden lifted from their shoulders, will be placed on someone else's shoulders.

Not if spending is cut accordingly.

140 posted on 08/17/2004 5:03:29 PM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 861-875 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson