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.
Cute.
It only makes sense if you look at the letters in parentheses after the names, though. (R) equals always right, and (D) always equals bad, regardless of behavior. That's hypocritical.
Hillary accepted the invitation of the New York Democratic Party to run. The party faithful welcomed her to the fold, seeing her as a stronger candidate than anyone they had in-state. They wanted to use her celebrity to score points for their issues.
Keyes accepted the invitation of the Illinois Republican Party to run. The party faithful welcomed him to the fold, seeing him as a stronger candidate than anyone they had in-state. They wanted to use his celebrity to score points for their issues.
The only difference is that Keyes slammed Hillary for doing so. He's a flip-flopper.
Given that Keyes used to be a host on MSNBC (can't remember if Joe now has Keyes' time slot), and that Scarborough is sympathetic to conservative causes, it was the interview I expected.
I do not believe that you happened to ran into me on another thread to bring up a post that was more than 12 hours old within 2 minutes of you leaving this thread. Stop being deceitful. You clicked on my forums to read my other posts to see if I was a troll. I can accept that, but before you call me a troll, yet again, why don't you read all twenty five hundred of my posts here. I'm no troll. And I resent it being thrown around. Baseless accusations like that poison this forum, even more so after you have checked it out and already know it to be false. And you should really reconsider your troll accusation when Jim Robinson's position is much, much closer to my own than yours. See his post #124. Or is Jim a troll on his own site too?
For the benefit of all here, here is my post that Don Joe found just really spooky-creepy-strange
"Please don't reply to me in the future. I do not enjoy talking to you. Undoubtedly you looked at my posts to determine if I was a troll because I disagreed with you about something else. Be satisfied that I am not and leave it at that."
That is from this thread
About your earlier claim to be done with me...please. That is what you already promised and I already asked for. But you insisted on writing yet another snide little nasty gram and yet again call me a troll. You're done with me, I'm done with you. Please don't bother replying.
Now, I know you aren't actually going to rationally think about this, but for the benefit of others, I had a very enlightening discussion as to the difference between 'realpolitik' and 'real politik' with one of my political science professors. They carry fairly different connotations, and I was definitely using it in the connotations of 'real politik' as opposed to 'realpolitik' And no, you're not going to find a fairly subtle two word phrase in your dictionary. Here is how he described some of the differences.
The one word 'realpolitik' retains its original Bismarckian meaning, in that there are no principles that are inviolable, and those principles will be compromised even for small gains in terms of national 'interest'. In other words, there are essentially no principles at all, only interests. The phrase 'real politik' is a somewhat watered down version of the concept. In it there are principles, some of which are inviolable and others which might be compromised on. And those principles are compromised only for significant or major gains, not for minor ones. In other words, you live by your principles as much as you can, but you are not so stubborn that you don't make a compromise that is in your overall best interest.
Furthermore, 'realpolitik' has no meaning in a domestic political sense, such as we're using it here and in my class. Political parties don't have real 'interests' completely separate from principles the way nation states in the international arena do. The complete subordination of principles to interests has no meaning to a political party whose interests are its principles. However, the phrase 'real politik' does retain a meaning as a domestic political concept. In it, you can make small compromises on some principles, in order to make bigger advances on other more important principles.
I have already laid out a case of the democrats kicking our real politik butt...the senate confirmation hearings 'deal'. Another example is GWB's tax cut. One of the D's long standing goals is to reduce the absolute number of tax payers on the tax rolls. They do this because people who don't pay income taxes vote overwhelmingly D, and people who do pay vote overwhelmingly R. Those not paying the bill are very generous with OPM, and those footing the bill are a little more tight fisted. Their goal is to get so many non-taxpayers that they can vote in their socialist agenda with popular support...because all those people aren't paying for it.
GWB's tax cut pushed a significant percentage of the population from the tax rolls into the ranks of the non-tax payers. In justifying or defending the tax cuts, we often present the case that the wealthy pay an even greater portion of taxes than before. That is exactly what those pushing a socialist agenda wanted. I am not saying they secretly wanted tax cuts, but when the cuts were being shoved down their throats, they made sure to get something significant of real lasting value out of it....they built their constituency of moochers.
I am not a total adherent to real politik, I consider myself a man of principle and find it very distasteful to compromise them. That said, the Democrats playing real politik, and Republicans not, is one of the primary reasons this nation has been steadily sliding left since the 1960s. Hillary and her ilk have no qualms about hiding her socialist agenda in order to advance it one small step at a time. And one small step at a time, they've eaten us alive. There is value in considering this perspective. Even if it means not immediately having a conniption fit when someone mentions the word reparations.
I have not come out firmly in favor of Keyes' proposal. But I have tried to have a real discussion about whether and how we could possibly use this new perspective on it to advance our agenda. I have no doubt that is what Keyes is trying to do. And I certainly have never considered reparations in that light before. Maybe we could make something of this proposal, maybe not. However, emotional hysterics and cries of treason and troll prevented that conversation from ever taking place, to the detriment of all of us and our ideals.
[Raised eyebrows.]
Thank you, Luis. (I'm still trying to figure out how Keyes got his exemption to that rule.)
go on ignoring the national principles at stake, if you must
go on ignoring the who initiated and who was compelled, in each instance, if you must
In the '70s, '80s, and '90s it was widely reported that approximately 70% of blacks were born out of wedlock. With that compounding over a couple of generations, it would seem to me that a significant part of the young black population today couldn't trace their own ancestry to their biological grandparents, much less to slave owners of the 1860's.
And too bad some are too pure to accept his fallability, eh? 8-j
Thanks for your comments... Sigh... at least now he's got a platform for talking about removing the IRS tyranny for all....
Catty women suck.
Well put.
Well put.
Which is why this goofy reparations idea would have to apply to all blacks, including Jamaicans, and those who came from Africa last week.
Well put.
=== Catty women suck.
They're also notoriously deficient in the art of discourse.
Agreed! But Keyes stately clearly it would ONLY apply to those who could PROVE their heritage. Isn't he just buttering both sides of the bread --- trotting out a "wonderful" program that no one can qualify for?
=== [Raised eyebrows.]
To wit.
Your exchanges made askel5's profile under 'nunya bidness'.
If this proposal were taken seriously, nobody would hear the word "qualifications." What Keyes has done is open the door, and laid the predicate for, exempting every black in America from income taxes for seventy years.
This, from you. ROTFL
Did you come here just to pick a fight, Askel, or what? Because frankly, I don't think any of the "harpies" (as you so eloquently described those of us who have actually been on-topic) care enough about what you "think" (LOL) to bother.
But - snipe away. Do your thang, Askel.
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.