Replies

Thanks to deport for referring us to that article (I am not a Bush Republican!)--for, it really is the crux of the debate over Keyes’ opinion of Bush. Since this article illustrates Keyes' opinion of the Bush administration, let’s take a look at it, so there can (hopefully) be no misunderstanding.

Keyes begins with this premise: the Clinton era was not the most dangerous time we have faced, right now is (pre-September 11th).

That’s a rather provocative idea, especially considering what we got with Clinton. No Republican wants to think we are in more danger now with a Republican in the White House. So what did Keyes mean by this?

There’s no need for us to speculate what he meant by it, or to twist and or parse what he said. His view is written right there, plain as day:

Many conservatives believe that the Clinton presidency was the most dangerous time we have faced, as Americans and conservatives, in the history of the country. I do not share this belief. Rather, I believe that we are now entering that most dangerous era. For the bullet you hear is not the one that kills you. Organized and conscious advocacy of the principles that have made American liberty possible since the founding is unlikely to die at the hands of an explicit and avowed enemy like Bill Clinton. It is actually more likely that conservatives will passively accept political euthanasia for their cause at the hands of someone we have too readily believed could be entrusted with its wise care.

The times are more dangerous now because conservatives have put down their guard, is Keyes’ opinion. Naturally, when you aren’t on your guard, there is a greater possibility for harm than when you are keeping a diligent watch.

This is a legitimate concern. Many conservatives, once Bush got elected, seemed to think they could rest easy, and took it for granted that Bush would further the conservative agenda. But once that guard was down, according to Keyes, we blithely let the Bush administration promote the following:

Tax cuts, instead of tax reform
Federal involvement in education (which is unconstitutional)
Racial preferences (Affirmative Action)
Lack of a sense of urgency in strengthening the military
Faulty premises in refusing the Kyoto Protocol
Globalist-managed "free" trade at the expense of national sovereignty
Open borders with Mexico
An acceptance of Clinton’s abuse of executive orders

But those are just minor complaints. The primary one for Keyes is the federal funding for stem cell research:

Above all, I do not see firm and foursquare support for the principles that ought to defend the dignity of human life, whether in the womb or in the petri dish, beginning not from a moment we choose, but from the moment of God's creative will.

And a side issue:

I've been watching closely, and I have not seen a single serious Bush administration initiative that corresponds in reality to the agenda of liberty and of conservative principles. And meanwhile, the most successful policy of all seems to be the unrelenting GOP establishment campaign to suppress criticism of Bush administration policies by anyone trying to speak for the moral conservative voters who, by voting against Al Gore, allowed Mr. Bush to squeak into office despite losing the popular vote.

Now, the many points Keyes brings up here are worth discussing. Are his concerns baseless? Can they be refuted? Did he misspeak or exaggerate? It would be nice to see someone challenge Keyes’ assertions and show why he is wrong, rather than just complain that he’s “bashing Bush” and leave it at that. Indeed, we’ve argued the intent behind Keyes’ statements more than the validity of his arguments.

Some have wondered why the “Keyesters” have spent so much time trying to prove that Keyes really likes Bush when, from his own mouth, he’s not a “Bush Republican.” I’d say this sort of defense is in response to the accusation that Keyes holds something personal against Bush; that Keyes even hates Bush and despises him as “evil.” We go to such great lengths to disprove this because it is not true; there’s nothing personal about his criticism. Even in his “scathing” critique that I’ve been reviewing, and even with the provocative title, Keyes’ beef is not with George W. Bush as a human being; it is with the Bush administration, with the President’s policies. These are policies, after all, that affect each one of us for good or possibly for ill as actions by our government are apt to do. And all actions by government should be held in check and viewed with speculation, no matter the good intentions behind them. Government power is not a toy, and we have a right to speak up against its abuse.

One thing that has been lost in the discussion is the subtle encouragement Keyes is giving Bush to stand on principle. He is, implicitly, goading Bush on; trying to get Bush to have courage in defending what’s right. Whether Keyes’ outspoken way of doing this is successful or not we may never know, since the President is no longer faced with the same moral dilemmas presented him before September 11th.

But whatever the case, I'd like to see the discussion of this subject rise above the personality contest it has been thus far on FreeRepublic. Surely we are adult enough to discuss the issues Keyes raises without getting personal ourselves.