Posted on 08/17/2004 2:38:57 PM PDT by unspun
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.
Maybe you would do better with a bit of honey rather than vinegar. What do you want? Pull for it positively.
Bull feces. He's a flip-flopper.
Yup, as I said, Scarborough lobbed Keyes some softballs and Keyes got out his talking points.
He's treating the campaign like an academic cocktail party throwing out ideas --rather than plans -- without understanding (or caring, probably) about the political ramifications.
I think that's about the only thing the Illinois campaign is good for from a conservative perspective. If he can keep the attention of the media for the next two months he might get out some more important things like Planned Parenthood's genocide.
Now, I don't think the way he addressed this particular issue was particularly shrewd, but so help me at least he's in the ring and we have got to start cuttng our people some slack. If you or me were running for office and facing an unremittingly hostile media (& judicial system for that matter considering what happed to Jack Ryan) we'd likely say or do something that would tick off a good part of FR.
But I do support the Fair Tax, which makes the entire discussion moot, if enacted. Because he would pursue the Fair Tax and not the theoretical amnesty he described as a matter of historical context, I don't think it was a good idea to bring the subject up, politically.
That said, this isn't the first time I've disagreed with Keyes. I do not regret sending his campaign money on the grounds that he would do a good job as Senator, and most of the principles upon which he would vote are completely in line with my beliefs. I do not believe he would pursue this issue apart from the complete abolition of the IRS anyway, which benefits everybody.
Exactly. And people here line up to defend him.
Go figure.
Clarifying ping
For actual Holocaust victims, no.
For a second generation descendant? I would absolutely oppose them.
Aren't you getting tired of victimology?
Heartening exchange, you and the harpies.
=== That and the dog snoring usually keeps the neighbors at bay.
Awww ... Glad to see he's earning his keep, if not quite sweating blood to do so.
if the Democrats manage to regain control reparations could make it through. It's the ultimate form of pandering to a special interest group and most Democrat policy stems from pandering to special interest groups.
Anything that reveals a candidate's positions is relevant, these are your windows into how the person will govern if given the chance. Yes this particular issue might never come to vote, but something similar could.
=== When it is a life of the mother issue it is a simple matter of self-defense.
I think "self-preservation" is the better term here given the fact that an innocent human life developing in his rightful home cannot possibly be deemed to have any intent to harm anyone.
Sauce for the gander, sauce for the goose.
Alan is simply getting his own vinegar thrown back at him.
Indeed. As I stated above, I think this reasoning is riddled with fallacies, and it is disappointing. I don't think, though, that opposing "victimology" means that we do not try to understand some of the real difficulties that exist--in fact and in mindset--that contribute to that victimology. I don't think this revelation about what the Romans did thousands of years ago contributes anything useful to that understanding--especially since the abolition of the income tax would make this entire discussion moot anyway.
I don't remember who it was, though, that said that Keyesters were "purists" who wouldn't support anyone who was 100% aligned with them. I hope this puts that generalization to rest.
But I do support the Fair Tax, which makes the entire discussion moot, if enacted. Because he would pursue the Fair Tax and not the theoretical amnesty he described as a matter of historical context, I don't think it was a good idea to bring the subject up, politically.
That said, this isn't the first time I've disagreed with Keyes. I do not regret sending his campaign money on the grounds that he would do a good job as Senator, and most of the principles upon which he would vote are completely in line with my beliefs. I do not believe he would pursue this issue apart from the complete abolition of the IRS anyway, which benefits everybody.
Well said.
No. He followed up his question and challenged Keyes. He just didn't interrupt and override, Chris Matthews (or Sean Hannity) style. Props for Scarborough.
Under what principle?
I don't believe in the doctrine of collective guilt, but I believe that the proper role of the gov't, as the Church teaches, is the promotion of the common good. I believe that such an action can, at least theoretically, promote the common good in that it can promote greater justice.
I've been considering this in relation to war. When a nation declares war, it does so in order to promote the common good, knowing that the overall action requires lesser and greater sacrifices from the individuals in society. Sometimes the greatest sacrifice is required from people who are completely innocent. No reasonable person objects to just war though, at least in principle.
Aren't you getting tired of victimology?
Yes. But can I justify the rejection of reparations out of hand? I don't think so. I'm open minded on this.
I've mentioned this before to someone; please follow along with me.
Joe lives in the city. Joe sees his neighbor taking target practice with a 9mm in her back yard. Joe says, "It is wrong to shoot guns like that in your back yard, in a city!"
Years later Joe sees another neighbor has set up babies on his back fence and is using them for target practice. Joe brings his own gun (a 45, incidentally) out the door and shoots the neighbor.
Is Joe a flip flopper?
Joe's a hero.
"State sovereignty, national union," is the motto of Illinos and I've very happy the good doctor has accepted our sovereign invitation.
Thanks for the recap.
Not me. I'm open to reparations for actual victims, but, to those 150 years removed from actual slavery and who just want "the man" to "pay"?
No way.
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.