Alan Keyes on Reparations (AK contextualizes his comments)

The Illinois Leader ^ | 8-17-2004 | Chicago Bureau

[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.

[swheats]

That's the point. Liberal politicians haven't made any comments or brought any solutions other than John Conyers. Which brings us to Resolution 2000-20 which will eventually reach the President with remedies of how to finally put this issue to rest. Let's hope and pray it is President Bush or another Republican president when this winds it's way thru the numerous committees.

They'd rather the merry band of lawyers and professors fight it out in our liberal court systems. Breaking corporations by having to defend themselves and then pay large monetary judgements. Who benefits the most? the lawyers and professors who give large contributions to liberal politicians.

Say what you will, Alan is at least looking out for the little guy.

[B Knotts]

Tell you what, pay the descendants of slaves reparations by taking the money out of the pockets of the descendants of slave owners.

That would be unjust, because they have not committed any wrong, and the actual slaveholders are long ago dead. The government, however, is an entity that still exists from that time.

For me, it boils down to this:

More money in the hands of taxpayers, any taxpayers, is a good thing.

Less money in the hands of government bureaucrats is also a good thing.

[unspun]

Not arguing for this plan (though I am for Keyes) but it seems our A-A's need some kind of "push."

[sinkspur]

It gets the whole fairness of income taxes issue out there --- Slave descendents could say they're freed twice and the rest of us are still waiting to be freed.

This absolutely astounds me.

Alan Keyes is supposed to be the straightest shooter out there, a man of principle, a man who says what he means.

Yet, I'm supposed to believe that this plain argument in favor of reparations is now some sort of Machiavellian back-door plan to overturn the income tax?

The Keysters are twisting themselves into knots, insisting that Keyes is saying something he clearly didn't say.

[Texas Federalist]

No he isn't, he didn't say we should raise the tax burden on everyone else to pay for it. Wow!!! In my previous example, even if the three decide to eat a $6 meal, the two people will be taking less benefit for their $3. There is no free lunch, either the non-blacks pay more or they receive less for their tax dollar. Either way, it is the same as making a payment.

[NYCVirago]

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 nobody in their right mind would propose giving tax breaks to all those with the last name ending with S. It's a silly argument. There's a reason that there's so-called "emotional baggage" with the word "reparations." Because conservatives are supposed to believe in individual responsiblity, not collective guilt. And they don't believe in someone benefiting or being punished because of their race. Saying that black people shouldn't have to pay taxes for two generations because their ancestors may or may not have been slaves 150 years ago is a slap in the face of fairness and equality.

[blanknoone]

You cannot be serious. Giving in one bit ...will end up footing the bill.

Real Politik is compromise. As I said, I would oppose it on principle, but it would be smart politics. And if footing the bill is transferring the huge tracts of gov't land into the private sector, I'll foot that bill any day.

On principle, I think we should pay reparations to the extent that any Afrincan American that is demonstrably financially worse off than the average person in sub-Saharan African, they should be compensated. That is, absolutely none.

Another alternative is to offer a free plane ticket to Africa for any slave descendant that choose to renounce their citizenship.

But in real politik, this is an issue, and we have to use the best way we can. If that is to fight the income tax, or to reduce gov't ownership, I think that is a reasonable way to use the issue.

[sinkspur]

I don't oppose anybody getting a tax cut.

It's not a tax cut. It's hush money. Morally, you ought to be completely opposed to this.

[B Knotts]

Yet, I'm supposed to believe that this plain argument in favor of reparations is now some sort of Machiavellian back-door plan to overturn the income tax?

Well, what do you suppose it is? Is Keyes actually a communist, hiding out in the Republican Party? Tell us.

BTW, should I consider you and the other Keyes-bashers down as officially for Obama? Just trying to keep track of who's for whom here.

[B Knotts]

A tax cut is not a tax cut?

[NYCVirago]

I can possibly show you thousands of comments from FReepers vehemently opposed to anything even remotely resembling reparations, calling it a "liberal" notion that conservatives will always oppose, if I took the time to do the searches. But the moment that Keyes says that he thinks reparations in one form or another are OK, reparations become a conservative principle? If there is Keyes bashing going on, it's only because there is ample reason to bash Keyes.

Thanks. Your post sums up exactly how I feel!

[Truthsearcher]

No it isn't because the govt is a separate entity from you and I as tax payers.

The less money in the hand of the govt, the better, the more money in the hands of the individual people, the better.

You're argument still boils down to the same old "tax cuts for the rich is unfair" argument that the left loves to use.

[Luis Gonzalez]

What makes you think that the government would run on less money?

[Howlin]

You're not dragging me into this thread; I already was on the other one and got called a "pile of S**T" and a "dirty old hag," plus I have no life, am a liberal, and an anti-Christian.

Not that it's not amusing to watch the Olympian contortions we're seeing on here, mind you.

Don't forget one thing: we've been told for five years if ONLY a "real, true" conservative can get on the ticket, it's a big time win, so there's a lot riding on this, hence the blinders, etc.

[B Knotts]

What makes you think that the government would run on less money?

The fact that they waste most of it anyhow.

[Truthsearcher]

As I've said before, the issue is not "reparations", it's "tax cuts", and Keyes has come up with an ingenious way of morphing one into the other.

[FITZ]

What makes you think that the government would run on less money?

It could run on a lot less money if it cut spending so wildly.

[spunkets]

"What makes you think that the government would run on less money? "

Keyes holding a Senate seat from IL.

[sinkspur]

But in real politik, this is an issue, and we have to use the best way we can.

It is not an issue,blank, except to Johnnie Cochran and his ambulance-chasing jive brothers.

[NYCVirago]

I am a little amazed to see this class warfare/envy based argument dandied about so freely here on FR. But maybe I shouldn't be, the left would never have gotten so powerful if this argument weren't so insidiously tempting.

I don't think it's "class envy" to wonder why black millionaires would be exempt from paying taxes under Keyes' plan solely because they are black, while white middle-class people wouldn't, solely because they are white. And as for left-wing arguments, you're the one supporting racist reparations, so I wouldn't feel so self-righteous if I were you.